The Silencing of Richard Price -- Part Three -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:36:39 06/20/13 Thu
Author: George
Subject: The Silencing of Richard Price -- Part Three

>>
>>DAVID But it's being enacted already.
>>
>>O.C> They need to be informed about it...
>>
>>DAVID But it's being enacted already...
>>
>>O.C> That's the administrative right of the
>>administrators, to carry out what's required or called
>>for in Section 156, which is specific guidelines.
>>
>>DAVID Yes, but it's being enacted without being
>>approved, is what you're s... telling me.
>>
>>O.C> The LAW was approved. The guidelines is
>>the administrative function.
>>
>>DAVID But the guidelines have not been
>>approved, but they're being enacted is what you're
>>telling me.
>>
>>O.C> They were approved by the persons whose
>>responsibility it is to approve them, which is the
>>Joint Council.
>>
>>DAVID But the Joint Council cannot change
>>church doctrine.
>>
>>O.C> Well, David, you can deal with that anyway
>>you want to, but that's the way the church had to deal
>>with it, and the way they HAVE dealt with it.
>>
>>DAVID I'm afraid the saints are going to deal
>>with it, uh, also. I might, if I could interject
>>something here, there was something stated about, uh,
>>uh, 156 being the law of the church now. If you would,
>>uh, reference, uh, the Temple School booklet
>>INTRODUCTION TO SCRIPTURE, with all of its faults and
>>difficulties, there's a very pertinent statement
>>toward the end by Brother F. Henry Edwards, where he
>>says after a document is brought to the Conference,
>>passes all the quorums, and passes all the
>>conferences, and is approved by the General
>>Conference, or "the World Conference," I, uh, as I
>>guess we're supposed to say today, it is still
>>not...I'm paraphrasing here...it is still not the
>>workable law of the church, it is still not in full
>>canonization. It is up to the people, then, whether
>>they will implement, or reject...
>>
>>O.C> The guidelines is not a law... Guidelines
>>is...
>>
>>DAVID We're not speaking of guidelines. We're
>>talking about 156. I'm saying that even though the
>>Conference has, uh, tentatively, or has approved, uh,
>>the..the 156, Brother F. Henry Edwards, which, if I'm
>>not mistaken, WAS a member of the First Presidency, is
>>that correct, at one time?
>>
>>O.C> Yes.
>>
>>DAVID He, he states that it is still not the
>>law of the church as such, that it is up to each
>>individual whether they will accept this document.
>>
>>O.C> You're misinterpreting something....
>>
>>DAVID Uh, sir, I don't believe you've read it,
>>as I did last night.
>>
>>O.C> Look, I know the law well enough, David,
>>to know that it's the law of the church. And
>>there's no way one person can change that. It's the
>>law of the church.
>>
>>DAVID Well, we can say the same thing of many
>>scriptures, that there's no way the First
>>Presidency can change the laws of the church, simply
>>by stating that Christ won't return,
>>therefore, he will not return because, uh, Wallace B.
>>Smith has stated so, or W. Wallace Smith stated so, or
>>[last word obscured by O.C>'s response]
>>
>>O.C> Well, Richard, I...
>>
>>RICHARD Go back to the Restoration Voice. Now,
>>do you have some objections here to what I'm
>>publishing?
>>
>>O.C> I object, and I think the World... the
>>church has a right to object to such articles as Ivan
>>Bird wrote, and that you authorized to be put in the
>>Restoration Voice.
>>
>>RICHARD, Well, all right, then you have that
>>right to object. Do you think that he, uh, said the
>>right thing or he said it was true?
>>
>>O.C> What it's doing, is it's creating, uh,
>>confusion, distrust, it is, uh, throwing innuendos
>>left and right, it is placing the leadership of the
>>church under indictment, it's that kind of thing that
>>an elder in the church, Richard, does not have a right
>>to do.
>>
>>RICHARD Ah, remember that it was not a
>>Restoration Voice, or Brother Bird, who, uh, started
>>all these things that you're speaking of. It's the
>>First Presidency who have changed, uh, the laws of the
>>church and the beliefs of the church, as far as
>>they're concerned, uh, and, of course, the church
>>doesn't change. The church is the same as it was when
>>Joseph Smith left it, and Joseph Smith the third, and
>>Israel A., and Fred M.; it has not changed, and it
>>will not change, and anybody who comes up with, uh,
>>doctrines and beliefs that are contrary to that,
>>disjunctive to that, are out of order, in apostasy,
>>and therefore, the only thing that can happen is that
>>the First Presidency must come back to the original
>>beliefs of the gospel, or, the church will split. And
>>you know that. There's no other way to go. The, uh,
>>people who really believe the gospel, as found in the
>>Three Standard Books, are not going to give it up.
>>They're not going to accept this that we've been
>>hearing for the last twenty years. Regardless of what
>>happens, they will not accept it, and they will, uh,
>>not continue to attend church where they are not
>>allowed to have it. That's why you're seeing all these
>>independent branches, uh, uh, coming here and there,
>>developing here and there.
>>
>>DAVID We might add that we, my father and I, do
>>not sanction individuals starting new or different
>>churches, or declaring themselves "mighty and strong,"
>>or whatever else.
>>
>>RICHARD You suggested at Enoch Hill that if the
>>people didn't like that, they could leave. Oh, these
>>people aren't going to leave; that is, they're not
>>going to leave the church.
>>
>>O.C> I didn't say they could leave the church.
>>
>>RICHARD There are a group of people out here in
>>Michigan who are leaving the church. They think
>>they'll have a thousand members by the end of the
>>year, but I'm opposed to this, because they are
>>saying, "Turn in your membership." They even sent me a
>>letter, "Turn in your membership, and come and join
>>us." But I won't turn in my membership. I'm going to
>>be here when these men are gone.
>>
>>DAVID Even if you have to meet in your home in
>>the meantime.
>>
>>O.C> You don't think for a moment that your
>>writings over the years have contributed to that, uh,
>>that divis....divisiveness?
>>
>>RICHARD No, I didn't divide the church. The
>>First Presidency did. [unintelligible,] because all
>>I've ever taught and wrote came right out of the
>>scriptures. And if you can find anything that I've
>>written which is not in accord to the scriptures, then
>>I am going to publish that I have made a mistake, and
>>I'm going to apologize for it. But everything that I
>>have written is according to the scriptures and
>>according to the church history, and, uh, I can't
>>apologize for anything like that.
>>
>>DAVID I'm sure that....
>>
>>RICHARD Now we can't say that about the First
>>Presidency. Their materials are all disjunctive.
>>
>>[2 second pause]
>>
>>DAVID Before my father was, uh, forced into
>>this situation, you might say, was, as an elder who,
>>in the sixties and seventies, early seventies, was
>>after working a forty hour week, would go out to
>>homes, visiting on his own spare time. He, uh, and,
>>and also later on in, in contact with [unintelligible]
>>people who would come to him for counsel, we heard of,
>>uh, family break ups, and mental breakdowns, and even
>>heard of suicides, and individuals leaving the church,
>>individuals who were told they couldn't come back to
>>the congregation because they believed the Three
>>Standard Books. And I was myself chased out of, of a
>>Pennsylvania congregation, uh, treated very, uh, very
>>evilly, uh, uh, I had, uh, countered the church's
>>position on abortion, and, uh, also the National
>>Council of Churches,' and, uh, a high priest, uh, came
>>to my house to berate me that, uh, my position was
>>wrong, because even though abortion was murder, uh, if
>>the First Presidency said that it was all right, that
>>we were to support him. And, as my wife was beside me
>>there in the room, hearing it, five months pregnant,
>>uh, this is the type of thing that is happening.
>>People are... I had, uh, my, my, best man, uh,
>>confessed his belief, and he'd finally found Christ,
>>and believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and
>>the Book of Mormon was true, and came to our church,
>>and saw such confusion and, and, uh, uh, hatred and
>>the way my father was treated, he went through a, a�I
>>don't make any excuses for it, but he, he lost his
>>faith temporarily, I guess you would say, and, uh,
>>tried all sorts of things to, uh, get over his pain,
>>and finally died one night, drunken, in a motorcycle
>>wreck. And I only think that if, if, if he hadn't seen
>>the confusion and the hatred against my father, that
>>maybe he'd be alive today. People have died because of
>>this situation.
>>
>>O.C> I don't know anybody that....
>>
>>DAVID And my father has NOT divided, he has not
>>confused, he has not cast innuendo. He is trying to
>>save lives.
>>
>>O.C> I don't know anybody that hates Richard. I
>>do know a lot of people who feel like Richard has made
>>a number of serious mistakes in, uh, the attacks he's
>>made on the persons who have written, who've spoken,
>>by, uh, uh, reinterpreting for them what his point of
>>view was about what they had to say, or what they had
>>to write, and that in some cases, those people have
>>been greatly offended and felt that the right to do
>>what he did was not his.
>>
>>RICHARD You, uh, mean to tell me that the First
>>Presidency mean to tell me that First Presidency
>>doesn't believe what I said they believed? Uh, and the
>>writers of the church, uh, you don't really believe
>>that these men don't believe what they're saying.
>>
>>O.C> Well, let me cite you an example,...
>>
>>RICHARD Yeah...
>>
>>O.C> Richard. Uh, in your "Examiner" article in
>>1983, you had the fourth section. You identified
>>specifically the, uh, idea that the church was being
>>taken into the NCC and the WCC.
>>
>>RICHARD You're speaking now of the, uh, one
>>that, uh, had to do with, uh, polygamy?
>>
>>O.C> That's right...
>>
>>RICHARD [unintelligible] uh, Brother Howard.
>>
>>O.C> In the fourth section you didn't deal with
>>polygamy, you dealt with what you interpreted �the
>>liberalists of the church."
>>
>>RICHARD Uh, huh.
>>
>>O.C> Well, even though the Presidency denied
>>they were taking the church into the World Council and
>>National, you persisted in saying that they do.
>>
>>RICHARD But Brother Cole said that he was proud
>>of the work that Brother Holmes had done in getting us
>>into the National Council of Churches.
>>
>>O.C> We aren't in the National Council of
>>Churches, so...
>>
>>RICHARD Uh...
>>
>>O.C> ...Brother Cole was referring to some
>>commission work not the....
>>
>>RICHARD He was referring to eight different
>>departments of the National Council of Churches that
>>our church belonged to. And, uh, we even had the names
>>of them in "The," uh, "Saints at the Crossroads."
>>You've got three chapters there about our relationship
>>with the National Council of Churches, and the
>>Presidency has never had anybody write...sit down and
>>write out what was wrong with it, so I could make a
>>retraction. Uh, you tell them this, that I'd be
>>glad to retract, uh, anything that I have, uh, that
>>isn't in plain English, black and white.
>>
>>O.C> Did you read the March first Herald?
>>
>>RICHARD Yes. Surely.
>>
>>O.C> And that's a pretty clear statement that
>>they have made there.
>>
>>DAVID But there's a clearer statement by
>>Brother Tyree...
>>
>>RICHARD Yes, the clear statement is that they
>>are trying to tell this lady and all these other
>>people, whoever, that they believe in open discussion,
>>and they're interested in answering people, and this
>>kind of thing. And yet they go on to, to whitewash the
>>Position Papers again, which they had written, written
>>to their specifications, and then they proceeded to,
>>uh, try to tell us we shouldn't have it. They, uh,
>>tried to whitewash the Presidential Papers by saying
>>that we don't use it anymore, even though it says
>>right here, which you've already quoted, that they are
>>the basis for the Faith to Grow program. So, uh,
>>[unintelligible].
>>
>>DAVID Something needs to be addressed here.
>>We've stated that the Presidency in no way, uh, wishes
>>to join the, uh, National Council of Churches, or, uh,
>>I guess associate. Here are the quotes of Brother
>>Tyree saying, stating that, uh, that we need to, we
>>must uh....
>>
>>RICHARD Join the World Council of Churches....
>>
>>DAVID Both...
>>
>>RICHARD And Brother Cole's statement is in here
>>also....
>>
>>DAVID ...that "the struggle is just beginning
>>to join them, and that," uh, uh, "it would be
>>regrettable indeed if a single jurisdiction of the
>>World Church would see its way clear to make such a
>>move to not join while the remainder of the church DID
>>join," he tells us.
>>
>>RICHARD Now...
>>
>>DAVID We view, uh, many view association with
>>the NCC as traitorous, but they fail to see all the
>>wonderful things the WCC and NCC can do for us, and
>>how we must, we, we must join them, and join with
>>them. We're told over, and over, and over again,
>>chapter and verse: it's all here in the Presidential
>>Papers.
>>
>>RICHARD It's been in the Herald for years and
>>years and years everything that the World
>>Council does is great. They come out and tell about
>>it....
>>
>>DAVID Here's a whole pink pamphlet....
>>
>>RICHARD ...but never anything against it.
>>
>>DAVID ..."Join None of Them" were, was, uh,
>>Cumorah Books' pamphlet, over and over and over again
>>proves it. Now which quotes are incorrect? Which are
>>incorrect?
>>
>>O.C> Uh, the official position of the First
>>Presidency you'll find quoted in that March first
>>Herald. It says, "No."
>>
>>DAVID Even though they have...
>>
>>[RICHARD & O.C> talking at once,
>>unintelligible]
>>
>>O.C> ...the First Presidency.
>>
>>RICHARD Of course, they can change that
>>position tomorrow, when they get us in a position to
>>go in, and say, "Well now we've changed our position."
>>
>>O.C> It also says that we have "no intention."
>>
>>RICHARD All right. Uh, maybe they're going to
>>do like the National Council. They never did join it,
>>but they did get permission to join it. He sent
>>Brother Holmes to New, New York to meet with them, the
>>National Council, and he got permission, and I have a
>>letter from them, the National Council of Churches,
>>saying that they accepted us.
>>
>>DAVID What you're saying is that....
>>
>>RICHARD Maybe they won't ever sign the papers,
>>but they'll go along with them in every way. Uh, how
>>come it is, even the latest is, that Ann Smith, the
>>prophet's wife, is a member of the board of "Bread
>>for the World," which is a World Council of Churches
>>organization? Uh, maybe this is evidence that they're
>>never going to sign the papers to officially join, but
>>they are going to cooperate with them a hundred
>>percent. It's like, uh, somebody comes to Enoch Hill,
>>and, uh, doesn't join the church, but they join the
>>Zion's League, and the wife joins the women's
>>organization, and the man joins the, uh, men's club,
>>and attend church every Sunday, but they never are
>>baptized. And we have the same relationship here, with
>>the World Council of Churches. Brother Neff [name
>>obscured] got up and said at conference, that he was
>>in favor of joining the World Council of Churches. So,
>>uh, I don't know what kind of uh, what they have in
>>mind, but it sounds like double-talk.
>>
>>O.C> I'm able to quote you their statement of
>>an official in the official part of the Herald.
>>
>>RICHARD I read it.
>>
>>O.C> The official statement?
>>
>>RICHARD Yes, I know their official statement.
>>
>>DAVID Can't you see...
>>
>>RICHARD But it's exactly opposite of their
>>actions.
>>
>>DAVID Can't you see how it confuses the
>>membership, and how they are dividing the
>>membership and confusing the membership with all the
>>money, and saying, "No we have nothing to do with it,"
>>and the next day they say, "We have everything to do
>>with it." Does that, doesn't that concern you a little
>>bit, that? Can't you see how the people would take
>>that to that the Presidency IS telling nontruthful
>>statements, that they are being misleading, they ARE
>>saying confusing things?
>>
>>RICHARD If there's a problem in what is being
>>the confusion here, it's the Presidency that needs to
>>straighten out the confusion. Uh, what I have said is
>>not confusing. Uh, people can read it, and see that
>>what I'm writing has, comes right straight out of the
>>scriptures and has directly to do with the, uh,
>>original beliefs of the church. Now, the Presidency
>>themselves have published, uh, this idea of change.
>>Brother Draper, you know, I quote him in "Decision
>>Time," saying that they want to get rid of the church,
>>in which he didn't mean to get rid of the people or
>>the buildings, but to get rid of the Restoration
>>Movement.
>>
>>DAVID I believe the word he used was "destroy,"
>>wasn't it?
>>
>>RICHARD No, it's "to get rid of."
>>
>>DAVID Excuse me.
>>
>>O.C> It also reminds me of the statement that
>>you made in that same fourth section that, uh, they
>>were trying to get, uh, to take the, uh, to take
>>Joseph Smith out of the church.
>>
>>RICHARD Then what was the purpose of Brother
>>Howard's whole business here?
>>
>>O.C> I don't know, but Brother Howard is not
>>the First Presidency.
>>
>>RICHARD But Brother Howard is paid by the First
>>Presidency, and he doesn't say anything that they
>>don't approve.
>>
>>O.C> What he does or doesn't say does not speak
>>for the First Presidency.
>>
>>RICHARD Oh, yes, they wouldn't allow...do you
>>realize, you know them better than I do, that Brother
>>Tyree reads every word that goes through the Herald,
>>and nothing goes through without his permission. And
>>here....
>>
>>O.C> Oh, Brother, Brother Richard, they've said
>>many times, and not long ago, said it again, that
>>there are many articles that are written in the Herald
>>which, uh, they feel the people have a right to
>>express their point of view about, and may write it,
>>but if you want to know what the Presidency's official
>>position is, you find that on the official page.
>>
>>RICHARD Uh, I...
>>
>>DAVID The Restoration Voice reflects the
>>general theological outlook of, uh, the editors, and
>>editors-in-chief, and I'm sure the Herald reflects the
>>general theological outlook of the editors and
>>editors-in-chief. I can see a general slip-up every
>>once in a while, but year after year after year, of
>>this type of thing, uh, the only thing that I could
>>imagine here is the Presidency is so out of control of
>>the church that they cannot even control what is in
>>the church magazine. If in fact they don't agree with
>>these things, and if in fact they're going in month
>>after month after month, I'd be embarrassed to admit
>>that, if I were you. Either they are out of control of
>>what's going in, and they're just riding this wild
>>horse over the cliff, or they're helping it to go in.
>>
>>RICHARD They're absolutely in control of it, as
>>you know. Now, are you trying to tell me, uh, uh, I
>>don't mean anything personal here, and the same way
>>with them, I have nothing against any of these men, I
>>don't dislike any of them, uh, I've never had any
>>run-ins with any of them. In fact, Alan Tyree and I
>>worked together out here in the Missouri development
>>area years ago, and got along very nicely. But are you
>>trying to tell me that you don't believe that, uh,
>>what they have put in the church publications all
>>these years is true? Do you really believe that the
>>Presidency IS trying to hang on to Joseph Smith and
>>the Three Standard Books?
>>
>>O.C> Absolutely.
>>
>>RICHARD How can they do it, and put out the
>>Presidential Papers that said there wasn't any
>>Restoration or apostasy?
>>
>>DAVID That Christ DIDN'T appear, uh, didn't
>>appear to Joseph Smith in the grove.
>>
>>RICHARD How can you believe that? Chet, I, I
>>wonder, uh, and again I don't want to be personal, but
>>I don't understand how that you can take the position
>>that you have.
>>
>>O.C> My faith is that great. My belief.
>>
>>RICHARD You believe in the Three Standard
>>Books? And in Joseph Smith as a prophet?
>>
>>O.C> Absolutely.
>>
>>RICHARD And yet, you believe that these men are
>>not trying to get rid of all that?
>>
>>O.C> No, sir, they are not.
>>
>>[Side One of the tape comes to an end, although the
>>conversation does not. It resumes again in progress on
>>Side Two]
>>
>>O.C> ..or do. It is not an intent to support
>>the official church.
>>
>>RICHARD Uh, you mean the church leaders. The
>>official church is the Three Standard Books, and the
>>people who stay with them. That's the official church.
>>That's where I am.
>>
>>O.C> You have to interpret that, I guess, to
>>suit yourself.
>>
>>RICHARD Well, yes. But that's the
>>interpretation that... so go ahead your doubt about
>>defending the church leaders.
>>
>>O.C> I told you Sunday night, uh, I didn't plan
>>to use a tape recorder, you know...
>>
>>RICHARD [unintelligible]
>>
>>O.C> ... to sit down and talk with you face to
>>face doesn't require a tape recorder on my part.
>>
>>RICHARD Uh,
>>
>>O.C> I'm just as concerned about protecting the
>>church as you are.
>>
>>RICHARD Well, uh, I won't deny that, uh, I
>>don't understand, but then, I, uh, know that people
>>have different perspectives.
>>
>>O.C> Well, obviously the intent is that you
>>want to quote me. You want to quote me according to
>>whatever way it will support your plan or your
>>approach to any, uh, writings that you might want to
>>do, and you know, I, I have a question about that, as
>>to where the, where are the ethics in that kind of a
>>situation? What, where is the trust in it?
>>
>>RICHARD Well the ethics is, that, uh, you're a
>>church-paid man, and that whatever you do, then,
>>affects the whole Center Stake. And maybe further. And
>>that, uh, therefore, uh, since I was called to be an
>>elder, I'm responsible, too. And, uh, therefore, we
>>have to, uh, stay with what is right as we understand
>>it.
>>
>>O.C> Brother, I've had twenty men in here
>>today, and I've never had one bring up a tape recorder
>>with him.
>>
>>RICHARD Well,
>>
>>O.C> I suppose I go through that every day,
>>about that number, and I...
>>
>>RICHARD [unintelligible]
>>
>>O.C> ... and I never had one bring up a tape
>>recorder.
>>
>>DAVID It's obvious why the tape recorder's
>>here. This isn't, uh, a friendly or a social visit.
>>You called us for the purpose of counseling my father
>>on his actions. This goes without saying. Uh, this is
>>standard in all of boardroom, uh, conversations, many
>>business briefings, the World Conference is recorded
>>for historical purposes, legal conversations are
>>recorded for, for legal purposes, there's nothing
>>wrong with a tape recorder.
>>
>>RICHARD Uh...
>>
>>O.C> David, I asked to speak with your dad; I
>>didn't...
>>
>>RICHARD uh...
>>
>>O.C> ...ask you to come. He did.
>>
>>RICHARD I'll repeat...I'll agree with what he
>>said. Uh, the tape recorder is for, uh, my benefit and
>>yours. And whatever I publish out of it, I'm not going
>>to try to, uh, to uh, malign you at all. It was for my
>>protection, because, uh, I need to be able to know
>>what I said and what you said. Uh, we never know but
>>what we'll get into a situation...I don't know you.
>>Uh, and when [name unintelligible] came in to talk to
>>McArthur, uh, McArthur, uh, shouted at him, and, uh,
>>something fierce. And, uh, if I was going to have
>>that, well, I wanted [unintelligible] some protection.
>>
>>O.C> I don't intend to shout.
>>
>>RICHARD I see that.
>>
>>DAVID If, if my, my parents' home....
>>
>>RICHARD [unintelligible]
>>
>>DAVID If my parents were sued for their home as
>>Dorothy Christina was, uh, a tape of these proceedings
>>would be, uh, valuable.
>>
>>O.C> Well, I'm not here tonight, Richard, to,
>>uh, talk about your membership. I do think the whole
>>question about what's happened over the past...what
>>has happened over the past several years brings into
>>question your eldership. But it doesn't bring into
>>question your...I'm not here to discuss your
>>membership. It was Dorothy Christina's membership that
>>was in question.
>>
>>RICHARD Well, she didn't have membership.
>>
>>O.C> Well, whatever. But in this case, I think
>>the, the question about your eldership has to be
>>brought into question. And let me just tell you that
>>my interest in Richard Price in no way is predicated
>>upon any desire to inflict any hurt or damage on that
>>man.
>>
>>RICHARD I appreciate that.
>>
>>O.C> I, I'm interested, if it's at all
>>possible, to bring about some reconciliation.
>>
>>RICHARD Well....
>>
>>O.C> It's obvious from the position you're
>>taking this evening, and everything else I've heard
>>you say or write, uh, it isn't in the cards right now
>>for you to restate, review, or even reconsider the
>>positions you've taken, because they're pretty firm.
>>
>>RICHARD Well, let me say that if there's
>>anything that I've written and, uh, I might say that
>>all of what I write, of what's tape recorded, uh, is
>>my official position. Anything I've written, if they
>>can find it isn't true according to the scriptures, I
>>will gladly retract. Anything. But, I want to say
>>this, that the position I've taken in the things that
>>I've written are to defend the scriptures and proclaim
>>the original beliefs of the church. That's my
>>business, to proclaim the original teachings of the
>>church. And I want to stay with that as long as I
>live.
>>
>>O.C> Can't you do that, Richard, without
>>attacking individuals?
>>
>>RICHARD I haven't attacked individuals. I have
>>quoted them and told how they have mis, uh,
>>quoted, how they have told falsehoods, how they have
>>departed from the scriptures, how that they are not
>>any longer in tune with the Reorganized Church ...
>>
>>DAVID ...by their own admission...
>>
>>>((Cont in next post)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]