He knows he left somethign good behind. THat's why he's here. He's trying to figure out why there is somethign good if he thinks it isn't true, and wants others to confimr that pat of his conlusion. THough he will deny it, it remains troubling to him at some level. Besides, what if Mor-mon is the right answer?

I will now leave all future psychoanalysis to MW.

This post is only to register disagreement with creekster and Archea's latest comments.

SU was born in the covenant, he is the blood of Israel. He can no more shake away the gospel than a zebra can lose its stripes.

I told you he'd deny it. See? I must be right.

Disagree.

I support Archea in this argument ... your questions endeavor to disect an answer into prosecutable portions.

That logic has furthered a lot of causes.

I remember watching Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold on Larry King one night (way back when they were an item and before they married that woman) and Roseanne was talking about her recovered memories of sexual abuse by her parents. When asked about confronting her parents, she noted that they vehemently denied the acusation, which Roseanne cited as concrete proof of their guilt.

Roseanne was funniest when she wasn't trying to be.

It reminds me of a torture chamber we visited in Holland which they used to use to determine who was and wasn't a witch. They had this giant frying pan that they would lower the suspect's feet onto with the belief that if they were innocent, God would prevent their feet from burning.

We were told that no one was found innocent.

Every month the torture chamber reported a %100 success rate. It's hard to argue against those numbers.

I hope those guys got bonuses.