
#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra>

(...)

# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?

Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or any other Latter-day Saint...
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."

# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.

Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.

#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.

(...)

# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.

#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)

kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-origin (and of those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.

(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)

#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim

Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.

#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.

In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.

#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.

Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).

(...)

#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.

The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
