bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
<35520135.13079910@news>
=====================================================

Posts are made by fools like us
But only God can make priestesses

As far as I know the last legitimate holder of the
"Melchisedec" priesthood was the Melech-zedek of
Salem-- despite some attempts by non-zadokite
Maccabbean high priests to ursurp the office by
recourse to that ancient Canaanite order.

As for priests and Levites descended from Aaron,
I believe their genealogies were lost in the
Roman burning of the temple-- you may call
yourself a cohen, but few have the sheepskins
to prove it.

Whatever was conferred upon Joe and Ollie by the
divine messenger(s), it was not identical with
institutions recorded in the Bible. So, I've
continued to refuse ordination until the church
I belong to clarifies this point.

Now it seems that they are on the verge of scrapping
the whole priesthood tradition and moving over to
a paid ministry ala Methodism. This may not happen for
a decade or so, but it's in the heads of some top
leaders.

And, in my mind, that's throwing out more babies with
the last of the bathwater. Better that we went back and
made some attempt at understanding what priesthood
James the brother of Jesus held when he was the
High Priest in the Jerusalem temple and the "President"
of the Church of Former Day Saints at the same time.

Restore that priesthood and I'll let Brother Coyle
call me every word he can spell out from his Dick,
Jane, and Sally book.

Unka Dale

Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

  Since you have proven yourself a liar more times than I have digits to count,
why shuld anyone believe anything you say, Mr. Professor at the University of
Houston?

Scott

Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

  Whoa... I am just devistated by your witty retort!!!  The only thing
better would have been a "nyah, nyah,nyah" after it.

And while I have you... I offer a challenge.  You keep claiming the Church
wouldn't dare excommunicate you so I challenge you to take the posts of the
past few weeks here on the ARM to your Bishop and tell him he wouldn't dare
excommunicate you.  I am interested to see how fast the court would be
convened.

Scott

Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

  This is Coyle's way of saying he can't get a diploma at all...

SLQ

Robert L. Coyle Jr. <rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in article
<6iscvp$6e...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...

In case you missed the point (as if we are supposed to be surprised),
Dale just said that he doesn't hold the priesthood. Since you, by your
own declaration, have never been excommunicated, your priesthood
remains legally intact (spiritually, it's another matter entirely).

If you had been paying attention to Dale's posts (rather than listening to
the voices in your head), you'd realize that she chooses not to post here.
This is not surprising, as most Jews don't recognize Yehosha ben Yosef
as Messiah. And since most, if not all, Jews value intelligence, she
probably sees conversation with Coyle/Mancini as a waste of time.

Rather than casting out ad hominems, why don't you post to her directly ?
That is, unless you're afraid of the answer.

Backatcha, kiddo.

I tend to agree with your continuing point that "Restoration", as usually used
by LDS/RLDS, may be too limiting a term.  _If_ continuing revelation is to be a
controlling tenant of our several faiths, we have to accept that  "Restoration"
ain't just what happened during JSJr.'s lifetime.  Whether in the course of
restoration we discover certain long-dearly-held truths just ain't so, is just
something we'll have to buck up and deal with.  While I respect and think I
understand your position on the hellification of Jeshoshua ben Meriam, I don't
think I can agree.  It may be I'm just too hidebound at this point, as I'm too
much of a fan of the Johannine Evangelium (words being with God and all that)
to deny Jesus' divinity.  He certainly made sure His followers understood that
everything He had or said came from the Father, however, and, although He is in
my old-style LDS belief structure the Mediator of the New Covenant, who was
established as our Savior from before the world's foundation, He is not the
Father.  He is One with the Father, and invites us into the same kind of
communion, that we may be one with the Father.

I, like you, have little patience with those who would pray to Jesus as if He
were the Father, instead of praying to the Father in His name as a token of
participation in the Covenant as mediated by Jesus.  Their "washed in the blood
of the heavenly Jesus Lamb" rantings leave me cold.  I much prefer, if I have
to choose, the ways of our elder cousins in this regard.  And Saul be damned!

Like I said . . .

Assuming Ezra is and did what the Jews now claim he was and did, I would tend
to agree.  So much coming in from Qumran and Nag Hammadi.  So little time to
absorb it all.

Nah ya ain't, just a quester [not -or].

In article <3551ED52.6753D...@micronet.net>,
  Maureen Kay Dilley <m...@micronet.net> wrote:

Robert Coyle will hang around as long as he is able to get a 'rile' out of
people.  He is here simply to annoy people, and as long as he recieves this
reinforcement, he will stay here.  He is not here for rational discussion, or
for presenting facts.  He is here simply to get the attention that he is not
able to get in the real (read physical) world (at least without money).  When
people begin to ignore his comments, he will escalate them, and if that
produces no results, he will leave to go bother another group.  Either that,
or if someone finds out something about him (ie, he hates Mexicans), that may
work as well.

Geoff Matthews

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

"Clifford Statum" <cliff...@netdoor.com>
<01bd79f3$a53d1720$8ac194d0@default>
==========================================

he who is without demons in his head,
let him cast the only ad hominems.

Elizabeth can be reached via my
mailing address at the local branch:

Dale Broadhurst
Christian Education
Hilo RLDS Branch
1842 Kinoole St.
Hilo, HI 96720

ps- do not address her as
"Elizabeth Broadhurst"
use "Elizabeth Block-Broadhurst"

Always did say we should take down the pictures
of Austin and Houston-- and give the State of Texas
back to its rightful government in Ciudad deMexico,

Well-- as the old murderer of the native tribes,
Col. David Crockett, once said: Be sure you're
right and then go ahead!

Forget the Alamo!

Dale "the Cisco Kid" Broadhurst
(who always did like Zorro better than the Lone Ranger)

On 7 May 1998 06:25:32 GMT, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.)
wrote:

Wow, a couple of errors in just two sentences.  Not bad.  First,
according to the Jews, J  >is< an idol.  So you were wrong there.
Second, the Jews are awaiting a messiah.  The formulation of savior is
a Xtian concept.  Better luck next time.

        I said what I did based on your statement regarding Jewish law
and the Internet.  Your statement was naive and erroneous.  That's
all.  This has nothing to do with the various truth claims of Xtianity
and Judaism.  So your analogy is inappropriate.

        Blew it again.  First, you are conflating Mormon
understandings of being of the house of Israel with Jewish
understandings of being Jewish.  In other words, Sammy being Jewish is
irrelevant.  
        Second, for Mormons, Jewish typically refers to being of the
tribe of Judah.  I bet when you received your patriarchal blessing
(assuming you know what that phrase means) it declared you to be of
Ephraim or Manassah.  Regardless, due to the Mormon understanding of
tribal identity, Mormons are not Jews.  They are of other tribes
within the house of Israel.
        Third, though I don't recall my BoM right off the top of my
head . . . as I recall Nephi was of the tribe of Ephraim, not Judah.
If that is true, then the tribal designation of the Nephites would be
Ephraim, not Judah.
        Boy, racking up those errors.  Better be careful next time.

        This is probably the worst error you've made.  Do you
LDS belief???  You certainly don't follow your own logic when you are
pontificating about Judaism and other things.  
        Personally, I don't buy into the idea that one has to be a
Mormon (substitute, Catholic, Republican, liberal, communist, etc.) to
be an authority on LDS (substitute the appropriate term) belief
system.  Besides, after reading your posts here, I don't think that
being, or having been, a Mormon is such a virtue.  In fact, it seems
like that you may have been the first in your ward to flunk Sunday
School.

see ya,
bekus

Just decided to jump in with both feet here.
 We ( by this I mean the people I know) who prefer the
appellation "Believers" rather than Christian do not believe
that Jesus Christ is GOD rather we believe that in his person he
is truly and properly man (from his mother) and truly and
properly GOD (from his father) which is pretty basic genetics.
GOD is GOD the Creator, the Father, The one thou shalt not have
any gods
before.
 Jesus Christ, his son, is our Savior the one who died on the
cross paying with the shedding of his blood for our sins, was
resurrected form the dead, and ascended to his father GOD and
became our
mediator (in place of the Levitical priesthood). It is his shed
blood which saves us (the sacrificial lamb) Hence we call him
our Savior.
I do not pray to Jesus Christ, I pray to GOD in the name of his
son Jesus Christ. Which is not the same as praying to Jesus
Christ.

bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
<3552701f.20255407@news>
=========================================================

I think they were a couple of kids-- overwhelmed by having "the record"
and by Joseph's seer powers. My guess is that they were figuring it
out as they went along (maybe sometimes making it up as they went
along).
Joseph looked back at his earlier experiences and decided that a
couple of biblical priesthoods had been conferred upon him. I don't
think it was until the Nauvoo period that he began to even realize what
biblical priesthood really was-- and his sources of reference were
pretty
outdated and skimpy. If he knew as much about that kind of stuff as
scholars knew today, he would have most likely offered some better
explanations of what he was handing out to the deacons, teachers,
priests,
and elders (not to mention high priests, kings, and whatever).

If enough people like myself whine enough, they may do it as a
revelation-- which would shut me up (always follow the prophet,
you know). But my guess is that George's frog in the pot of hot
water analogy holds here as well.

See Dale. Dale can run. Run Dale. Run Run Run.

Coyle. Jump, Coyle, Jump, Jump, Jump.

Coyle can jump through hoops backwards and not even
be aware of doing so. Oh well, I'm going out for
a tamale-- not one of those phoney Tex-mex jobs,
but a real, jump in yer pickup and drive down to
San Luis Potasi with Jose and Ricardo tamale!

Viya con Dios, hombres!

O'Henry's Robin Hood of the Old West,
El Fago Bacca
(or was that Jose Jimenez?)

Bekus, I think you overlook the obvious nature of Robert's remarks concerning
Elizabeth:-

 b> Robert,
 b> Just curious, why do you keep throwing this out?  We all know that his
 b> wife is Jewish, and not really interested in either your garbage or
 b> anyone else's here on a.r.m.  So why persist in this idiocy???

 b> see ya,
 b> bekus
-
-
   What Robert is not so subtly implying is that he is so debonair and
fascinating that Elizabeth could not help corresponding with him, were she free
to do so. Ergo, Dale must have her locked in the closet.
   George
--
|Fidonet:  Williams 1:106/7861
|Internet: Willi...@7861.conchbbs.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

On Thu, 07 May 1998 09:41:43 +0000, Elizabeth & Dale

That being said (and true in my mind), do you think that Joseph and
Oliver thought it was identical with the biblical institution, or do
you think that they thought it wasn't?  And if the latter, what do you
think they made of what they had received?

There are few men of such integrity.  Congrats.  You are a better man
than I am gunga-din (sp?).

Think so?  Have they moved so far from their roots?  It is always
interesting to see how people/communities spiritually develop.  It
would be fun to read an RLDS church history of the coming millenium -
wonder what it would be like . . . . .

nah, too much effort . . . .

That many words????

see ya,
bekus

: On 7 May 1998 06:38:25 GMT, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.)

: >Clifford Statum (cliff...@netdoor.com) wrote:
: >: Elizabeth's absence from the Internet (at least the pages of anything.
: >: but.mormonism) stems more than likely from her Jewish beliefs, coupled
: >: with an aversion to dealing with schmucks such as yourself.
: >
: >Then why is the listed on the account, listed first no less? Nope, I think
: >Uncle Dale has exercised his priesthood and commanded her not to post.

: I wouldn't be at all surprised if you actually did believe this.

If Elizabeth believes that that her religion prohibits her from posting to
the Internet, she certainly has a unique view of the Jewish faith.

: In article <6irl05$5o...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L.

: > Clifford Statum (cliff...@netdoor.com) wrote:
: > : Robert L. Coyle Jr. <rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in article
: > : <6ionmb$o5...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...

: (snip)

: > : I make no pretensions as to my mental abilities, but doesn't
: > : something seem odd about Coyle's posts emanating from
: > : an .edu address ?
:  
: > No more odd than Brigham Young University, a well-known diploma mill,
: > possessing an .edu address.

: No more odd than Robert L. Coyle posting under his real name now, when not
: long ago he was 'Michael Mancini' and threatening to sue anyone who said
: he was Coyle.

Who is Michael Mancini, and why would I be interested in suing you if you
called me by my name? Where do you dream up these tales? You're an even
better storyteller than Joseph Smith.

Scott and Deb Quantz (qua...@net-link.net) wrote:

: Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

: > Scott and Deb Quantz (qua...@net-link.net) wrote:
: >
: > : Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:
: >
: > : > Craig Anderson (cra...@brigadoonX.com) wrote:
: > : > : On Tue, 05 May 1998 18:34:11 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
: > : > : wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : >On 5 May 1998 11:22:48 GMT, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.)
: > : > : >wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : >>Still keeping Elizabeth in her place, and off the Internet, I see.
: > : > : >
: > : > : >Just curious, why do you keep throwing this out?  We all know that his
: > : > : >wife is Jewish, and not really interested in either your garbage or
: > : > : >anyone else's here on a.r.m.  So why persist in this idiocy?
: > : >
: > : > : One is basically forced to conclude, based on this and all the rest of
: > : > : Coyle's postings, that the fellow is being deliberately obtuse and
: > : > : obnoxious.
: > : >
: > : > You're confusing me with Joseph Smith.
: >
: > : Not likely.  Joseph Smith was intelligent.
: >
: > He was also a polygamist and liar. Perhaps he was more intelligent than
: > the people in his presence, much like the Scientologists.

:   Since you have proven yourself a liar more times than I have digits to count,
: why shuld anyone believe anything you say, Mr. Professor at the University of
: Houston?

Mormons continually lie, don't they? But, I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt on this one. Please prove to me that I am a professor at University
of Houston. If you can't, it's just a tad more proof that Mormonism is
a lie.

Scott and Deb Quantz (qua...@net-link.net) wrote:

: Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

: > Scott and Deb Quantz (qua...@net-link.net) wrote:
: >
: > :   Don't forget mentally deficient and sociopathic...
: >
: > You vreally shouldn't talk about your wife that way, Scott. It's simply
: > not faith-promoting.

:   Whoa... I am just devistated by your witty retort!!!  The only thing
: better would have been a "nyah, nyah,nyah" after it.

Debbie, like Elizabeth, isn't allowed to post. Tell me, Scott, is she also
Jewish?

: And while I have you... I offer a challenge.  You keep claiming the Church
: wouldn't dare excommunicate you so I challenge you to take the posts of the
: past few weeks here on the ARM to your Bishop and tell him he wouldn't dare
: excommunicate you.  I am interested to see how fast the court would be
: convened.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to go see my Bishop (who is
really a Branch President, but you can call him a Bishop if you get a
charge out of it). However, if you want to do that on your own, knock
yourself out.

Scott and Deb Quantz (qua...@net-link.net) wrote:

: Robert L. Coyle Jr. wrote:

: > Clifford Statum (cliff...@netdoor.com) wrote:
: > : Robert L. Coyle Jr. <rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in article
: > : <6ionmb$o5...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
: > : > Elizabeth & Dale (dbroa...@gte.net) wrote:
: > : > : rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.)
: > : > : <6io6h5$li...@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
: > : > : =====================================================
: > : > : > Because he keeping stating that his posts are from
: > : > : >"Elizabeth and Dale," yet he is the ONLY one posting.
: > : > : > Is there something in the Jewish faith
: > : > : > that keeps one from posting to the Internet?
: > : > : If it will make you feel any better, I'll go back into
: > : > : the browser preferences and eliminate Lizbeth's name
: > : > : every time I post to arm--
: >
: > : > Please...don't go through all that trouble. Just release Elizabeth from
: > : > her shackles so that we can be illuminated by her wisdom. Pretend that
: > : she
: > : > has the Priesthood, if that makes you feel any better.
: >
: > : I make no pretensions as to my mental abilities, but doesn't
: > : something seem odd about Coyle's posts emanating from
: > : an .edu address ?
: >
: > No more odd than Brigham Young University, a well-known diploma mill,
: > possessing an .edu address.

:   This is Coyle's way of saying he can't get a diploma at all...

Actually, I have two degrees, neither of which is from BYU. But again, I
shall extend the benefit of the doubt to you. Please prove to all of us
that I DON'T have a degree. If you fail to do so, you will prove once
again that Mormons are liars.

: In other words, Sammy being Jewish is irrelevant.  

Not to Sammy. And if you said that to him in person (and he were alive),
he would probably punch you out.

:       Boy, racking up those errors.  Better be careful next time.

The pot is now calling the kettle black.

You have a problem using the words God, Jesus, Christ, and Christian,
but not Mormon? Does this mean Mormonism is true, and the others are
false, or the other way around?

DR>From: dunn...@aol.com (DunnRon)

<snip>

DR>Yup.  They used to do that, much to the amusement of people like Auerbach,
who founded a department store out here.  I believe he was the one who quipped,
"Only in Salt Lake am I a Gentile."  We're still all goyim, though, and I think
Nephi and his ilk even thought of themselves as goyim from certain BOM
passages.

I was not (and am still not) familiar with the term "goyim", so I looked it up
in my dictionary. That didn't help too much, as that particular definition was
not very informative.

 GOY
 goy (goi) noun
 plural goy·im (goi¹îm) or goys
 Offensive.
 Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew.

 [Yiddish, from Hebrew gôy, nation, one who is not Jewish,   non-Jew, Jew
ignorant of the Jewish religion.]
 — goy¹ish adjective
                                The American Heritage Dictionary

Apparently it is an offensive term to be used in a disparaging way towards
non-Jews. What exactly does the term mean?

If it is a disparaging term, why would "we" non-Jews (or Nephi) refer to
ourselves as goyim?

<snip>

Karl
Just wondering.

<1998050806012300.CAA10...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

Karl,

There is an old saw, "One man's meat is another man's poison."  Many years
ago, I had a good friend that frequently referred to me as his "favorite
honky."  Under normal circumstances, "honky" is not a term of endearment.
But, it never bothered me.  I knew where he was coming from.

Yes, goyim is a disparaging remark, but I am not Jewish so what does it
matter to me if it is used in a disparaging way.  There is only One that I
must stand in judgement before.  It is His observations that we need to
concern ourselves with.  We can run through life getting bent out of shape
at the way people refer to us; Gentile, goyim, cultist; and bending others
out of shape; bigot, racist, sexist.  Or, we can concern ourselves with how
the Heavenly Father will describe us.  I think the latter is probably a far
wiser course.

Dave

On 07 May 98 22:25:12, Willi...@7861.conchbbs.com (Williams) wrote:

        So that is what he meant?!  Thanks George . . . .

        see ya,
        bekus

On 8 May 1998 06:00:59 GMT, rco...@Bayou.UH.EDU (Robert L. Coyle Jr.)
wrote:

        I have no problem using words like G-d, J, X, and Xtian, nor
Mormon.  However, Mormon, a purported man, is not worshipped by
Mormons as G-d.   Therefore, he isn't an idol, and so I can say his
name without doing avodah zarah.
        And, for me, I would say both are false.  This is certainly
true since I don't buy into the whole Xtian belief system - so,
certainly I wouldn't buy into the Mormon belief system.  They both
stand or fall on whether J is a messiah or not.

        see ya,
        bekus

Karl, when you see the word "Nations" as in "Why do the Nations so furiously
rage together" the word is "goyim."  In Biblical Hebrew, as I understand it,
it's not necessarily negative, just as "barbarian" isn't necessarily negative
in the original Greek, or "heathen" in the Old English.  That these three terms
may have some negative connotation is true, but when I use it, I certainly
don't use it negatively, but rather in a mildly self-depracating manner.  Maybe
Naomi can set us all straight.  To Nephi, the term wouldn't have been offensive
at all, I suspect.