Original Merger Letter

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Could it even be "unity of the faith." (DA will appreciate the "revisionist" history point. But then again, as you said, there have always been differing views of the merger.)

Your legitimizing the holocaust of 1992 ... with supposition .... which is direct contradiction to the spirit of the merger ... evident in this letter ... quotes from participants ... and other primary documents ... they agreed to meet half way ... RR ... and that means just that.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Does the words "UNTIL WE ALL COME" mean anything in this discussion?

I think it is the point.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Does the words "UNTIL WE ALL COME" mean anything in this discussion?

Not according to DA. They actually wrote something they did not believe.


Go figure....and he thinks I have a revisionists view?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Your legitimizing the holocaust of 1992 ... with supposition .... which is direct contradiction to the spirit of the merger ... evident in this letter ... quotes from participants ... and other primary documents ... they agreed to meet half way ... RR ... and that means just that.

The holocaust of 1992? And you want to claim intellectual credibility with such a term?

Come on, now. Try to be a little more credible. Calling the AS decision as holocaust is akin to saying that an inch of rain was The Great Flood.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I think it is the point.

Indeed. And if it is not the point then why are those words there at all?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Not according to DA. They actually wrote something they did not believe.


Go figure....and he thinks I have a revisionists view?

Appeal to authority ... Matt and Epley are who they are.

Historical data is showing a quite different view ... where is your data to show that the intent was not only unity but uniformity?

If this is the approach in scholarship you subscribe to ... I have to question it.

[SDG]

The point is that this was a direct quote from scripture ... not the authors of the clause ... their intent is evident in the many primary documents and eyewitness accounts of the day ... not our convenient readings of the Fundamental Doctrine years later. We must take this FD clause and reconcile w/ other data ... and you have none.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Appeal to authority ... Matt and Epley are who they are.

Historical data is showing a quite different view ... where is your data to show that the intent was not only unity but uniformity?

If this is the approach in scholarship you subscribe to ... I have to question it.

Hey, who said uniformity? But then again, wouldn't "unity of the faith" infer uniformity in faith? The word uniformity is one you have thrown into the mix.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The point is that this was a direct quote from scripture ... not the authors of the clause ... their intent is evident in the many primary documents and eyewitness accounts of the day ... not our convenient readings of the Fundamental Doctrine years later. We must take this FD clause and reconcile w/ other data ... and you have none.

Oh, I get it now. The eyewitness accounts you want to refer to are okay. The ones Bro. Epley wants to refer to are not. I get it, I really get it. Sheesh....

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Oh, I get it now. The eyewitness accounts you want to refer to are okay. The ones Bro. Epley wants to refer to are not. I get it, I really get it. Sheesh....

Again we are now talking about the merger ... not his quote of a friend about Goss holiness views .... keep your head in the game and eye on the ball