From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose; ANSWERING ------> Willard
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:53:39 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <17967@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <0dB202s=30N.01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>
>>>In that case, I'm sure they would be anxious for you to divulge
>>>their names in support of your cause so we could check you out
>>>on this, and perhaps add their voices to yours.
>>
>>Perhaps this would prove nothing except that they would get a million
>>emails from you guys criticizing them for doubting the "ONE true CHURCH".
>>I'll let them speak for themselves.  Either way, it proves nothing.
>>
>
>I certainly wouldn't send them any nasty mail and I don't
>hold with this "One True Church" talk anyhow.  It's just that
>I have my skepticism about your effectiveness as a converter
>of Mormons to protestantism.  If they came forward, it would
>at least give us some evidence that you were not exaggerating.
>You see, your style is so nasty that it is hard for me to
>see how anyone could be attracted to your preaching.
>
>I've met lots of Mormons who have become agnostic, but very few
>that have become protestants.  Oh, I know a few that changed
>religions because of marriage, but these were never and are
>not now serious about religion anyway.  I have met two or
>three who "found Jesus" the way you are talking about it,
>but none of them were raised Mormons, and I suspect they
>joined the Mormon Church the same way the "found Jesus"
>moving from one new religion to another and not finding
>a stable home.  I would indeed be enlightening to hear from 
>your converts about their background in the LDS
>church, and how religious they were before and after.  I think
>we have only one example of an ex-Mormon here on the net, and
>if I recall correctly, he was a Mormon in name only, and was
>not a serious Mormon.  
>
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gordon:

Once again, you have turned this discussion from the relevant issues,
into a discussion of me and my personal character and tactics. Really,
it doesn't matter how you interprete the amount of "nastyness" in my
posts. What does matter is, if what I say is true or not. It doesn't
matter if I tell you that you can't prove that Brigham Young DIDN'T
teach and believe that Adam was the God and Father of our spirits, or if
John Doe tells you, or if President Bush tells you, or if you grandmother
tells you.  Who tells you and the way they tell you doesn't matter. What
does matter is wether or not what they say is true.  It is true that you
cannot prove that Brigham Young didn't teach that Adam was the Father and
God of our spirits. If he did, then according to Deut 13:1-5, he is as
false prophet.  When this and other facts are brought to the Mormon mind
that is open for truth, they react on it and research it theirselves and
discover the truth.  Not all Mormons do that, not even most.  But some do,
and "find Jesus", as you would put it.  My numbers and tactics mean
absolutely nothing.  I convert no one.  Like the Apostle Paul said, "some
plant and some water, but the growth comes from God".  I take credit for
nothing.  You personal accusations mean about that much as well.

May the Holy Sprit convict you,
-tony