"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >
> > > DAvidH, Thanks for your reply. Concerning your responses to my LDS
> >concerns,
> > > they are full of cute witticisms and side-steps. You are clever.
> >
> >DAVEH: Hmmmmmmm...........am I to assume that is a criticism, or a
> >compliment? If you find my comments not to your liking, I'm sorry 'bout
> >that. I just like to keep TT discussions light an airy. Sometimes the air
> >here can be pretty heavy and
> >depressing when some of us take these discussions too seriously. At least
> >that's the way I see it.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that when I bring up controversial issues
> about LDS docrtrine, you often give a cute witticism, and thus avoid a
> serious response.
DAVEH: I do not recall such, but that doesn't mean I didn't do what you say........I
have a terrible memory. Give me an example, Perry.
> Maybe I should accept the fact there are some aspects of
> Mormon doctrine that are indefensible, and when I bring those up, there can
> be no reasonable response.
DAVEH: Or, it could be that I sometimes tire of rude comments. I've had my nose
bloodied enough times in TT that perhaps I am sometimes reluctant to stick it out
again. Again, please give me an example or two.
> Perry
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.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.
