| OCR Text |
Show MAISJA UNITE!) E{AYTEJA lHUtH REV. W.P. WALTERS 117 N. HAMLTON MARISSA, ILL 62257 Good News: Phone 618·295·2063 Christ died for our 51m ... And rose again the third day ... September 30, Mr. Dan 6542 Vogel Tillamook Mr. Dear I Vogel: appreciate Adam God. remarks I rather because this 92683 CA Westminster, on 1979 your total the cohesiveness. logical borrowed a He and (3) There On the from the kind was one of me your of tone coherent reactions to Mr. Vlachos' paper letter that it contains scattered your position on the Adam God matter. I say impact of your letter is one of confusion and a lack of It reminds me somewhat of the story about the Arab who jug and broke hadn't borrowed (1) with sharing presume than any it nothing it. in When he the wrong with side you seem to because we can't it, he had three excuses (2) It was broken when he got it, he brought, it back. returned first place, when it suggest that we can't really know much about the Young is queries since it does not a non-sequitur follow that because we can not settle all questions or know someone fully, we On this basis no one therefore can know nothing about what is specifically stated. could know anything about Shakespeare's plays because Shakespeare is such anelusive character. On the other side, however, you seem almost dogmatically certain about some matters But even these certainties have inherent contra relating to Adam-God. dictions. For example, you indicate that one cannot understand Mormonism from the outside in. Yet later you fault Turner and Mormon apologists as not under Are you standing either, even though by your definition they would be insiders. sure you are not simply saying that anyone who does not agree with your conclusions obviously doesn't understand Mormonism whether he is an insider or outsider? Adam-God such an affair "illusive" character. answer This in all the itself and furthermore is thClt 1 (as well as otbers) have misunderstood what Brigham Again you suggest that he only meant he had gotten it from Joseph Smith by revelation and further that it was only intended to be mere speculation. This implies that Brigham never intended to teach the Adam-God doctrine and that weare the ones, in our Then you turn misunderstanding/who have blown it a1.l out of proportion. about and suggest that it was really Brigham's head-strongness and pride that made him blow it out of proportion and teach as the truth a doctrine he really cared Then you reverse your field again and seem to suggest that Brigham little about. meant -- |
