Subject: Re: SEEKING RECONCILIATION
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:27:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Trimm <jstrimm@home.com>
To: purnhrt <purnhrt@flash.net>
References: 1
 
 
 

>
>James, I did not misunderstand your article on the Secret of Intercalation of
>the Hebrew Calendar. YOu clearly said that Mosheh received two Torahs
>[Thoroth]. One was wrotten and one was oral. That the oral one was a companion
>to the written and you could not follow the written without the oral. There is
>no misunderstanding that.

True but at no time did I say that the Talmud IS the Oral Law.
I did quote the Talmud as well as the Midrashim but only because I believe
that the Oral Law has been preserved in them, but that does not mean
that everything in them is the Oral Law.  There are many things in them
with which I object.  So no I do not claim that the Talmud is Torah or that
it is the Oral Torah.  I only claim that it can be shown that an Oral Torah
existed in Moses
day.  What the content of that Oral Torah was and how much of it is
accurately preserved in the Talmud; and what percentage of the Talud is
actually that Oral Law is
all up for debate.

> I made myself very clear at
>EliYahs that I object to Rabbinic Judaism that contradicts Thorah. That does
>not make me anti-semite.

No it does not and that is not what led me to that coclusion.

> The Qaraiym do not accept Talmud and have a mass
>library of writings showing the contradictions against Thorah. Are you
>going to
>tell me that they, who are Yahudiym are anti-semitic?

No but that is importand and lets rember that as we discuss this.  The
Qaraiym reject the Oral Law and the Talmud.  That will become important
later.

>I
>made myself quite clear to you again that I was not anti-semitic.

Realize that most anti-semites claim that they are not.  In fact most
anti-semites actually do not believe that they ARE anti-semites.  Can you
imagine asking someone if they are an anti-semite and them looking at you
and saying "why yes I am"  or do you think that they would even be thinking
that they are?  In most cases "no".  This is not to say that you are or are
not an anti semite.  It is only to say that the fact that a person says
that they are not an anti semite relly tells one very little, since they
would say the same thing even if they were (and likely believe it).  This
is often accomplished by redefining the terms.
An Anti-Semite will abandon the dictionary definitions of the terms involved.
The anti-semite will ussually begin by arguing that 1/3 of mankind, all of
the sons of Shem are Semites (some will even pronounce it Shemites).  They
will argue that they themselves are Semites and that they do not hate
themselves.  They will argue that they are not anti-Semites and think to
themselves just how much they love Arabs or even AngloSaxons (whom they
believe are Semites).  The most extreme of them will also argue that todays
Jews are not Semites and/or not even true "Jews".  They will do this in
various ways.
They will argue that they are all descendants of Khazar converts.  They
will argue that they are not "praisers of Yah".  They will argue that they
are the literal seed of Satan and/or Canaanites and/or Hammites.  At any
rate they will often argue that todays "Jews" are not true "Jews" and/or
not even Semites.  After all of these terms are redefined they have created
a doublespeak by which they are not, according to their own definition
anti-Semites (according to their definition in some of these cases neither
was Hitler) but anyone who opposes them is.

So initially we have to define the terms.  According to Webster's a Semite
can mean many things one definition is "a Jew".  It is clear from Webster's
definition of "Anti-Semite" that this is the definition of Anti-Semite is
based on the root word "Semite" meaning "a Jew" since it applies
"anti-Semite" only to Jews.  A quick look at the Webster's definition of
"Jew" makes it clear what these definitions mean by "Jew"... todays "Jews".

OK those are the definitions we should be using.  Not Dan's or anyone elses.

>From this point forward in our discusion we know that for our purpose of
discusion
the "Semite" in anti-Semite refers to "Jews" as generally understood as an
ethnic group.

> The
>misunderstanding that occured were wholly on your part. Everyone that has gone
>to that site or checked the threads I copied to mine, has written back and
>declared that I was not anti-semitic and that I did not say the things you
>accuse me of, including saying that I backed Dan Chaputs book. I have never
>done that and told you then that I did not back it and felt it should have
>been
>worded better. How is it that they can all see that and you cant?

Well this brings us to the real problem.  As I see it Dan's book Chapter 12
is filled with vilely anti-Semitic IDEAS regardless of how they are worded.
Anti-Semitic ideas should NOT be "worded better" they should NOT BE WORDED
AT ALL.

>
>I want shalom and I have been trying every avenue possible in order to get it.
>If you are truly being genuine in this,

I am.

>it is not a difficult thing to write an
>apology for all the lies and slander you spoke against me and make the
>retractions at your forum and everyone that you sent it to.

It seems though that we do not agree as to what is a "lie" what is
"slander" and what
is an opinion that you may not agree with.

> If, on the other
>hand, this is not genuine and there is another motive, then that will only
>make
>matters worse.

No I really want to get to the bottom of this.  I will send another e-mail
explaining what things you said that I took as anti-Semitic.

>I have also mentioned from the very first post that I made, that
>an apology was due the H's for the slander saying that they slandered and
>lied about this matter.

I think that this should be between myself and the H's.  Perhaps there
have been misunderstandings, but I have to discuss such issues only with
them.

And by the way we are moving in that direction.  I hope to achieve peace
with them.

> That also needs to be made right.  And the Beit Din
>ruling against them dropped.

Now I cannot drop the Beit-Din ruling.  That is beyond my power.  I will
say that the
beit-din ruling was unrelated to the issues you have addressed.  The
[H's] were disfellowshipped for issues that do not relate to me or the
Book of Mormon.  And it would
be unethical to discuss them with you.  They should be discussed only with
the [H's].

Moreover the [H's] have stated that you do not act on their behalf which
reinforces the point that I cannot discuss it with you.  It is enough to
say that you do not know all of the facts related to the [H's] and you
have no right to know them as they have stated clearly that you are not
their agent.

> I hope that you act righteously in this matter.