I actually sympathize with John in this. He knows I don't agree with him, either,
but we've simply agreed to disagree and both agree that it's not really "core"
doctrine. As my old Institute prof, Dr. Larry Dahl (who later became Dean of
Religious Education at BYU) was fond of saying in his classes, "when we aren't
hampered by facts [what John would call direct, or concrete evidence] we're free
to speculate all we want."

The *principle* that something's amiss amongst secular governments and that in
the latter days we'll be headed for hell in a handbasket is the doctrine. That
the CFR is the cause or part of it is not doctrine, but not an unreasonable
deduction (although I personally don't buy it -- I just don't think it's that
simple). So I no longer react with horror when someone mentions this.

Besides, I have my own pet theories I wanna protect ;-)

"John W. Redelfs" wrote:

> At 11:31 AM, Monday, 10/28/02, Gary Smith wrote:
> >I grant you your opinion on the CFR and those who belong to it, however I
> >won't let you get by with equating a belief in the gospel with your
> >belief in a secret combination. There is evidence for believing the
> >gospel, such as the Holy Ghost. There is no solid evidence on any level
> >for the CFR charges.
>
> I never intended you to suppose I was using the gospel to buttress my claim
> that the CFR is a pack of Gadianton Robbers.  The only reason I mentioned
> the gospel was to point out that not all that is true can be proven to be
> true.  I realize that my belief that there is a secret combination hidden
> within the CFR is something that I cannot prove to a skeptic.  The concrete
> evidence isn't there.  The evidence is circumstantial.  But I also realize,
> and I wanted you to realize, that an inablility to prove something does not
> disprove it.
>
> >Your statement is akin to saying that although I can't prove evolution to
> >be true, it just must be because I personally just feel that the GAs
> >agree with me. Empty statements with key points we agree upon does not
> >equate to evidence. In the future, just state your opinion without
> >dragging the gospel into it. Okay?
>
> Had you understood my post in the spirit with which it was written you
> would not be upset with me.  Nevertheless, I apologize.  Please forgive
> me.  I was my responsibility to communicate my meaning more
> effectively.  Apparently I failed in this instance.
>
> John W. Redelfs                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ===========================================
> "I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see more
> and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of
> our solar system." --Jack Handy
> ===========================================
> All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

Guns donít kill people; people with guns kill people

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

${list_promo}


Reply via email to