DaveH, I think you are allowed to comment on statements that have no question marks. If you disagree with what I have said, feel free to give your opinion, or the opinion of the LDS, or not. You don't need to hem and haw about how I didn't ask questions or how I don't want to know how you reconcile it. This is just avoiding the issue. If you have something to say, say it. If not, save the bandwidth.
Perry
>From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] just the BIBLE Dave
>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:14:56 -0800
>
>
>
>Charles Perry Locke wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Actually, DaveH, the original post was a comment to David M on the
> > topic...there really were no questions. However, if you feel compelled
> > to respond to the original post, I look forward to reading it. I
> > mentioned your name because of my slight recollection that we broached
> > this topic some time ago. Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't
> > recall that I have ever gotten a reasonal rebuttal to the comments on
> > polygamy from any LDS member on this.
> >
> > The bottom line is that Joseph Smith delivered a command, supposedly
> > from god, that anyone not practicing polygamy is damned.
> > DAVEH: As you know, we do not define terms (such as 'damned') in
> > quite the same way, so trying to explain it in detail is going to be
> > difficult. I'll just try to give you a brief glimpse of my thinking.
> > I suspect you know some of the answers I'll give though.
> >
> > First......to me, 'damnation' is the impedance of eternal
> > progression. So.....assuming your explanation of JS's comments is
> > correct, not practicing polygamy in mortality impedes (slows, if you
> > will) our progression. That does not mean that it is stopped forever
> > though.
> > This command has never been revoked by God, so it still holds.
> > DAVEH: Who is arguing?
> > The church did make a statement indicating that polygamy would not be
> > practiced,
> > DAVEH: I'm not quite sure you understand it quite correctly. Perhaps
> > currently "practiced" in mortality might make a little more sense.
> > but this was because the government threatened to punish polygamists,
> > not because a prophet received a new revelation from god un-doing it!
> > DAVEH: Perry......you went from asking me
> > questions......to.....telling me what happened. Believe what you
> > want, as whatever I say is not going to change your mind. But, if you
> > want to know what I believe, then refrain from telling me the answers
> > you want to hear.
> > So, polygamous LDS are breaking the laws of the land, and
> > non-polygamous LDS are damned, according to prophecy delivered by JS,
> > and are breaking the laws of god. Again, no questions, just comments.
> > DAVEH: Without questions.......what can I say, other than.....I
> > respectfully disagree, Perry.
> > I believe that if the government eased or removed laws prohibiting
> > polygamous relationships, LDS would gladly continue to practice it
> > without an further commandments from god since the original decree is
> > still in effect.
> > DAVEH: Apparently you don't care to know how I reconcile this.
> > Perry
> > >From: Dave
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] just the BIBLE Dave
> > >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:03:07 -0800
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> > >
> > > > DaveH,
> > > >
> > > > I recall that we have touched on this topic in the distant past,
> > > > DAVEH: I don't recall such......but frankly, I've been inundated
> > by
> > > > so many posts, I've had to shelve hundreds of them due to lack of
> > time
> > > > to respond. And.....this past summer was really a problem for me,
> > as
> > > > I simply had too much on my plate for most of the summer to
> > > > participate in TT much. I've got a dozen responses started (some
> > in
> > > > reply to you, I think) that are sitting in my DRAFTS folder
> > because I
> > > > didn't have time to complete them.......I placed some of them
> > there
> > > > last year!
> > > > but my present comment was to indicate that you won't touch it
> > today,
> > > > not in the past. I have asked more than one LDS member about this
> > in
> > > > the past, and none have ever had a reasonable rebuttal.
> > > > DAVEH: OK Perry. Why don't you frame it in a simple question and
> >
> > > > I'll try to respond. Your original comment (that I responded to
> > > > below) seemed to be rhetorical rambling, so I didn't feel
> > compelled to
> > > > say much more about it than I did. Clean it up a bit and start a
> > new
> > > > thread and I'll try to travel the path where you say other LDS
> > folks
> > > > fear to tread.....! :-)
> > > >
> > > > (But......please don't bury me with a bunch of garbage. I don't
> > mind
> > > > having a nice ----may I suggest, respectful?--- discussion, but I
> > > > don't want to jump into the muck with you.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > > >From: Dave
> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] just the BIBLE Dave
> > > > >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:12:39 -0800
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DaveM, I do not think the official doctrine of the LDS church
> > is
> > > > > > against polygamy...in the D&C the Mormon god says that any man
> > who
> > > >
> > > > > > does not practice polygamy is damned...and the mormon god
> > never
> > > > > > revoked that command. They do not practice polygamy (at least
> > > > mopst
> > > > > > don't) today simply because it is against the US law, and they
> >
> > > > > > realized that if they continued in polygamy that the US Gov
> > would
> > > > come
> > > > > > down on them...so, they violate their own law of god, and they
> > are
> > > >
> > > > > > placing man's law above god's law. This is a telling
> > inconsistency
> > > > in
> > > > > > the LDS system, one of many against which LDS members are
> > blinded.
> > > >
> > > > > > DavidH won't touch this one.
> > > > > > DAVEH: ???? I do not recall ever discussing
> > this.........When
> > > > did
> > > > > > you ask, Perry???? You've certainly posted more than I can
> > > > respond
> > > > > > to, so perhaps I've overlooked it.
> > > > > > He has no logical explanation.
> >
>
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Dave Hansen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.langlitz.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>If you wish to receive
>things I find interesting,
>I maintain Five email lists...
>JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
>STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
>
----------
"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.
