Gospel Principles and Job 38:7

[David Bokovoy]

David,

Thanks for sharing your impressive resume. It sarcastically illustrates a point we agree upon, namely, that not all "Where were you" questions presuppose the nonexistence of the person to whom they are directed. It does not in any way touch the actual argument I gave on Job 38. Nor does it amount to anything more than a fallacious appeal to authority with respect to the doctrinal point at issue in LDS theology.

Look at it this way: I am not "trying to teach you Mormon theology." I am presenting my honest understanding as differing from yours and inviting you to correct me if you can. If I'm incorrect, I welcome the correction, because i desire to represent what others believe as accurately and fairly as I can. I won't learn nearly as much, however, if I meekly roll over and accept what you assert in the face of what appears to me to be contrary evidence.

Thanks for the kind words. I hope you know that my comment was posted "tongue-in-cheek." Despite our disagreements, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to avoid sensationalism and to seek for accuracy, it comes through via your criticisms.

Best

[consiglieri]

Where were you when I sat taking notes in every General Conference from 1980-2009?

Okay, now I am officially impressed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David Bokovoy]

Okay, now I am officially impressed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You crack me up, man! I've got to get to that other thread of yours! In the meantime, I agree with you that Job 38:3-7 doesn't work well as a "proof text" for LDS theology. Truth be told, I'm not into proof texts as whole. The Bible contains a multiplicity of voices, some congruent with LDS theology and others which present a contrary view.

Love ya,

--DB

[consiglieri]

You crack me up, man! I've got to get to that other thread of yours! In the meantime, I agree with you that Job 38:3-7 doesn't work well as a "proof text" for LDS theology. Truth be told, I'm not into proof texts as whole. The Bible contains a multiplicity of voices, some congruent with LDS theology and others which present a contrary view.

Love ya,

--DB

I'm glad you have a good sense of humor. So many people don't. My first wife, for example.

Don't waste any time getting to the other thread, though.

Margaret Barker has actually weighed in . . . after a manner of speaking . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

Despite our disagreements, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to avoid sensationalism and to seek for accuracy, it comes through via your criticisms.

Best

I second that. You may have recieved some flack here, but I certainly have nothing personal against you. You disagree respectfuly, which is always refreshing.

[Ron Beron]

David,

You wrote:

Angels (created spirits).

If I may interject some of my own thoughts here. The expression

[Rob Bowman]

David,

Thanks very, very much.

Thanks for the kind words. I hope you know that my comment was posted "tongue-in-cheek." Despite our disagreements, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to avoid sensationalism and to seek for accuracy, it comes through via your criticisms.

Best

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I'm grateful for this comment. Thank you!

I second that. You may have recieved some flack here, but I certainly have nothing personal against you. You disagree respectfuly, which is always refreshing.