"Charles P. Locke" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Just check the post prior to this one, David. You racked up two in that one.
DAVEH: Perry, I find your response to be evasive and difficult to understand. WHAT
PRIOR POST??? Why did you sidestep the question instead of simply answering it with a
cut/paste example or two? There are lots of posts flying around TT, and you are
expecting me to know not only which one you are referring to, but also the specific
instances within that post?!?!?!?!
Please.......If you want to accuse me of something, I'd appreciate you giving me a
specific example. There may be a reason I answer the way I do that may not be
understood by you. Or it could be that I perceive your question as rhetorical and I'm
trying to be amusing with my response. Or heck....perhaps I'm trying to evade you.
But until I know what you are referring to, I don't know how to respond. I'm not
trying to ignore your questions. I do like to discuss many of these things, so if you
don't like the way I answer, say so and ask the question again. If I don't want to
answer it, I'll probably say so.
> > > 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.
>
> I can understand why. When the Bible says that Christians will be prosecuted
> for the name of Jesus, LDS take that to mean them.
DAVEH: That's interesting you would say that, Perry. Once again you have sidestepped
my question.
I've heard that comment made previously by other TTers. Now you have made it
too. Why?!?!?!?! I personally don't think getting my nose bloodied in TT qualifies
as persecution. If I did, I would probably not post anything. Have you heard other
LDS folks say that they feel persecuted by simply discussing theology?
> Again, see my prior post.
>
> 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.
