Steven Montgomery wrote:

> I agree with you regarding "the basis for materialism." Marxist scientists
> have for decades attempted to establish a material basis for spiritual
> experiences, that is nothing new. However, that is not what Pratt was
> driving at. Pratt clearly states that there is a relationship between the
> brain and spiritual experiences but that we need to be careful not to draw
> conclusions without taking both the spiritual and material elements into
> consideration. Imo, the brain acts as sort of an interface, if you will,
> between body and spirit.
>

That's fair enough. Perhaps I was quick to judge, but I just got the impression
that he was trying to "materialize" the spirit somehow, sort of like those
experiments where scientists have tried to "weigh" a "soul" by euthenizing animals
on a scale. Er, results are, well, inconclusive. Can't get the durned things to sit
still long enough...

>
> Imo, Pratt is very much into the doctrine behind Moses 6: 63, that all
> things bear record of Christ.

Ah, yes, but only to the believer who has the witness of the Holy Ghost.

> If it is true that "all" things bear record
> of Christ then it should not be surprising that astronomical and
> calendrical events might also bear testimony in some majestic way of the
> Savior of all mankind (See my sig file below). I look at Pratt's research
> in much the same manner as I do Avraham Gileadi's. Gileadi was a
> pathbreaker by exposing lay members of the Church to "the learning of the
> Jews" and how that learning can broaden and deepen ones understanding of
> scripture. Pratt does much the same thing in a different manner by exposing
> members of the Church to celestial and date events and how those can indeed
> bear record of Christ. I don't agree with all the conclusions that Gileadi
> makes and neither do I with Pratt, but I also don't throw out all of their
> good and valuable research as "crackpot" just because I have disagreements
> with various areas of their work. Besides, I don't base my testimony or
> doctrinal understanding on personalities, and you can be assured that If
> and when somebodies actions does become "pretty scary," aside from
> Samuelson's wrong headed opinion of a harmless skit, that I'll distance
> myself completely from that particular personality.
>

Well, I still find his skit business (and Samuelson wasn't the only source for my
skepticism) spooky. Making signs and tokens outside the public is going too far (if
this is what indeed happened, and I'm not saying it did -- Samuelson and my other
source both claimed to have seen something you would normally only see in the
temple).

Speaking of the star of Bethlehem, I'm sure you have heard most of the theories as
to what it might have been. What would be your reaction if you learned that it
might actually be an astrological phenomenon, and that it didn't happen in 1 A.D.?

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

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s 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      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===============================================================

Reply via email to