Re: [TruthTalk] false notions

[Dave]

Kevin Deegan wrote: Why go to all that  length just produce some etremely obvious statements on some of the other doctrines you have a problem with. The LDS will still try to weasel out of it. You had a long list.   No matter what you produce they will find problems with it. Even though they are not apostles who hold the keys, they will fluff off an Apostles words. DAVEH:  Hmmmmmm......that's interesting.  You do not consider non Canonical thoughts to be binding, but you don't think LDS apostles can publish theories and beliefs without it being considered Canon?  From my perspective, there are many high ranking LDS authors who publish material that I do not consider necessarily doctrinal.  McConkie (Mormon Doctrine) is an example, IMO.  And, Pratt's SEER is another good example.  That does not mean that their writings are not interesting or useful or true.  They may even be (and frequently are) doctrinally spot on.....But, they are not viewed with the same perspective as Canon.     You remind me of an old RCC joke......     Catholics doctrine teaches the Pope is infallible, but few Catholics believe it.  LDS doctrine teaches that the Prophet is fallible, but few Mormons (and in your case, Kevin....anti-Mormons) believe it.      FTR:   Nobody in the LDS Church is infallible, and that is especially true of me.  For you to think that every word spoken by a Mormon that is not revealed by God has to be absolutely correct......I strongly disagree. Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DavidH, If I produce a statement from one of the LDS prophets that says it WAS a physical union, will you change your position? Or will you deny that the one who stated it was a prophet? Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.