Is Mormonism a Religion or a Cult

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

are you telling me I can't put Mormon doctrine (which may not even be mentioned in the Book of Mormon) to the test without first reading the Book of Mormon?  Can’t I simply take the Mormon statement of beliefs for face value?

Do you think someone could really test Christian doctrine without first reading the Bible, and only taking the statement of beliefs for their face value?

 

You could test Christian doctrine without reading the NT, simply by comparing it to the OT (which is EXACTLY how Jesus and the Apostles taught others).  After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

And since the Book of Mormon is simply suppose to be an addendum (doesn’t introduce a new covenant), why not simply compare Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tweed,

If the Apostles didn't have knowledge of the Book of Mormon, why is it necessary for you to have it?  Why is it necessary to add something to what the Apostles taught?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tweed,

"read our material thouroughly, then pray about it" is a common cult brain-washing tactic


...it should be obvious to you that you should examine their claims point by point, before willingly sitting through a brain washing session that is aimed at feeding upon your need to feel a part of something important.

Remember how Satan deceived Eve?  He told her a tale of being a part of something bigger beyond the word of God:

Gen 2:1   He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Read the above passage carefully, and notice how Eve had no trouble understanding the word of God on her own – she correctly quoted and understood what God had told her – because she took it for face value.  She only became deceived when she allowed someone else to interpret it for her, and that deception fed upon her desire to be a part of something bigger.

The problem with Eve is that she didn’t compare what she was being told to the word of God that she already knew.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think the specifics of the doctrine is something like that you read the scriptures to get the specific knowledge, and then when you pray to God he somehow shows you that what you just read is true. From my outsider perspective it doesn't seem to be much different from how you describe your experience - you were studying the Bible at the time and then you felt that bonefire thing or what have you, which you say was the Holy Spirit filling you. (or something along those lines)

Also, just an FYI, it isn't uncommon for Christians of varying stripes to tell unbelievers that we just need to pray real hard and God will reveal himself to us. (failure is of course usually blamed on the person doing the praying) It's not exactly an idea that's exclusive to Mormons.
 

Interesting topic.  Let me do a quick search and see if there are any scriptural examples we could use in this discussion…I’ll get back to you.

[John Dibble]

After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept. There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble:

I can't find any scriptural example of hearing a message that was supposedly the word of God and then praying to God to test the message.  Doesn't mean that one doesn't exist in scripture, just that a) I don't remember such an example, and b) I haven't found an example by searching passages that include the word "pray" (which includes: pray, prayed, prayer, etc).

However, there are examples in scripture of people testing a message, but that test is done by comparing the message to scripture:

Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

...which is why the NT is full of scriptural proofs and doesn't attempt to prove what it is saying by asking people to pray about whether what it says is actually the word of God.

---

Look at it this way:  what if Tweed prays after reading the Book of Mormon and hears a spirit tell him, “Yes, the Book of Mormon is the word of God”…what does that prove other than there is a spiritual force behind the Book of Mormon?  Doesn’t mean the spirit talking to him is a truthful spirit and it certainly doesn’t exempt the Book of Mormon from having to agree with the OT and NT, since the LDS is claiming they are an extention of those books.

So why not simply begin by comparing Mormon doctrine to the OT and NT, before attempting to contact the spirit behind the book?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

After all, the NT doesn’t invent anything that wasn’t already mentioned in the OT.

That's arguably not the case. Most translations of the OT don't mention hell. (some do, but it's likely a mistranslation of a different concept, 'sheol', where the concept of hell is applied retroactively) Jews don't believe in hell and you would imagine that since the OT is a significant part of their theological texts they would if it contained the concept.

So, you think Jesus and the Apostles, who were all Jewish, simply introduced the concept?  Clearly, the concept of eternal punishment is in the OT:

Daniel 12:2:  "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

---

There is a place of fire where some dead go, but it's rather a place of purification where they are cleansed for up to twelve months, with only the utterly wicked being destroyed completely.

Yet that is not a concept presented in the OT – it’s basically made up out of whole clothe.

---

I'm not trying to argue this view is a correct interpretation, just that it's a view that some people take. The view that the OT and NT mesh perfectly may well have a good deal of Christian bias in it. Have you ever asked someone well versed in Jewish theology, such as a Rabbi, why they don't feel the NT meshes up with their theology?

Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.  Of course, they’ve gone out of their way to cover up the proofs of Jesus being the Messiah (e.g. most of them no longer call the Messiah the “Son of Joseph”, because there are simply too many parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Joseph.)

[© tweed]

I don't reply in detail to all of this.  after all I've only read through the first nine chapter of 1 Nephi, and I've yet to quit caffeine or alcohol.  but allow me to say.  as I am affected by postmodern thinking, I reject the Christian binary.  that one must accept something as Canonical or not, as 'true' or not.  no, there is a Holy Spirit: and so much around us is influenced by that Spirit.  to accept or reject any text in totality is to err.  I find the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit: whether this means it is inerrant, well, I am not qualified to say.

[opebo]

Whenever I see two fat and sassy young bastards dressed up in black dress slacks and a white short sleeved shirt.. and ties.. and to top it all off they have the effrontery to ride around on bicycles!

But one time, I saw two fat pale boys dressed up in black trousers, white short sleeved dress shirts, riding in a tuk-tuk, and I thought - 'damned Mormons!'  or 'Mormons go home' or 'fqing Mormons' (you know how your thoughts are sometimes emotions rather than an actual monologue, and can contain several phrases per instant) - but as it turned out these were ordinary desperate miserables - namely teachers - and they've become I won't say friends of mine, but anyway they're tolerable, despite being americans more or less.

But aside from that one time, I used to try to speak to the actual Mormon Missionaries, just as an experiment, and I was gratified by their discomfort and obfuscy in having to deal with a terrible sinner, except for one time one of a pair of them was friendly, and kept talking to me after my initial intrusion, to the obvious consternation of both myself and his symbiote.  I could not help but speculate that this poor enthusiast (who even raved about the Isaan food a I do!) would soon be ejected from the Church and find a happier existence with an amoral girl.  At least I could hope so...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I reject the Christian binary.  that one must accept something as Canonical or not, as 'true' or not.  no, there is a Holy Spirit: and so much around us is influenced by that Spirit.  to accept or reject any text in totality is to err.  I find the Book of Mormon is dripping in the Holy Spirit: whether this means it is inerrant, well, I am not qualified to say.

well, if you're not qualified to qualify it, then you'll simply be blindly following whoever you believe is qualified to decide, and if whoever you choose to follow is also blind...

[© tweed]

I rented a book last year titled 'On Being a Christian'... by a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian, Hans Kung.  and he claims belief in God is "a confidence based in reality itself".  so I don't find myself looking for proof of objective truth, but rather, that confidence... this I told my LDS missionaries on Sunday, and they agreed with the general sentiment.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I rented a book last year titled 'On Being a Christian'... by a 'distinguished' Catholic theologian, Hans Kung.  and he claims belief in God is "a confidence based in reality itself".  so I don't find myself looking for proof of objective truth, but rather, that confidence... this I told my LDS missionaries on Sunday, and they agreed with the general sentiment.

I'm not sure what belief in God has to do with determining whether Mormonism is true - a lot of religions believe in God.  I just assumed by your statement “I’m going to read the Book of Mormon and then ask God whether it is true”, that you were actually looking for truth.

My point about truth is – if the Book of Mormon claims to be additional “scripture” yet doesn’t agree with the OT/NT (which Mormonism itself acknowledge as scripture), then, obviously, Mormonism itself is full of beans.

If [Y] says, “[X] is True”  and “[Y]=[X]”…then it follows that *if* [Y] does not equal [X], then obviously [Y] is NOT telling the truth, regardless if [X] is true or not.

[John Dibble]

Yes, the Jews see even more meshing between the NT and OT than I (a Gentile) do, after all, the NT was written by Jews.  They can point out Jesus’ Jewishness much better than I can.

They simply don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it? And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

---

And how do you know they see more meshing? Have you even bothered asking one, or are you just making a bald assertion about their beliefs?

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?

The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.

[The Mikado]

TBH, and I'm being completely serious here, one of the biggest problems with saying that only people that have read the BoM can criticize Mormonism is that the BoM is a hard book.  As someone that has read both the Bible (OT and NT) and the Koran, I can say that they're both far less frustratingly dull than the BoM is (though the Koran's bizarre formatting and tedious repetition comes close).

[John Dibble]

If the Jews see more meshing than you, why would they not believe it?

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I’ve spoken with Jews on several occasions.  They’ve actually educated me on the Jewish roots of many of the details of the NT.[/quote]

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, the Jews had a grand conspiracy to cover up the 'proofs'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Popular terminology changes over time for a variety of reasons. Do you have any actual evidence that they didn't change which terminology they favored for other reasons?
[/quote]

The Jews didn’t expect the Messianic analogy of Joseph to include many of the aspects of the story of Joseph which reflect poorly upon the Jews and favorably upon the Gentiles…their Jewish pride is offended, and the Christian use of the detailed aspect of the analogy become too much for them to bear. so the analogy is swept under the rug.[/quote]

Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

---

Are these Jews who have converted to Christianity? Or are these Jews who still didn't think the NT meshed enough to believe it?

Both Christian and nonChristian Jews.

---

Ok... and I should accept that this is their actual viewpoint because...?

…it’s the most plausible answer given a) Jewish pride, and b) the historical record of decreasing emphasis on referring to the Messiah as the “Son of Joseph”, and c) the fact that Christianity drew much deeper parallels to the story of Joseph.

Also, understand these parallels aren’t explicitly mentioned in the NT (though they are alluded to by the fact Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph – Luke 3:23 “He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…”), yet they are undeniably engrained into the NT story and NT historicity (proving that the parallels weren’t simply contrived by later generations of Christians) – unless someone wants to claim that the parallels are mere coincidence.

Not only is Joseph a central character in Genesis (the blueprint of God’s plan for man), but more chapters of Genesis are dedicated to Joseph’s story than any other character:

Abraham – 12 chapters (Gen ch 12-23)
Isaac – 3 chapters (Gen ch 24-26)
Jacob – 10 chapters (Gen ch 27-36)
Joseph – 14 chapters (Gen ch 37-50)

An analogy to Joseph prophesying to his own brothers that he would be their savior, then being rejected by his fellow Hebrew brothers, handed over by Jews to Gentiles, being placed into the earth and rising out of it, his fellow Jews conspiring with Gentiles and lying about the location of his body, him being accepted as lord by the Gentiles, with Joseph marrying a Gentile bride, then finally revealing himself to the Jews which previously rejected him…is a bridge too far for Jewish pride.

[John Dibble]

Big picture answer: because God hasn’t called them yet.  Small picture answer: every unbeliever, Jew or Gentile, claims to have some excuse.

I love how it's an 'excuse' if we don't accept your claims. It can't be a reason, it has to be an excuse, because you are most definitely right and there's no way that anyone could possibly have a legitimate reason not to believe your claims. I swear it's like arguing with a mule.

That’s because you’re ignoring the big picture part.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks. 

Let’s approach it from another, hopefully more production, direction, shall we?

Remember the test I gave Tweed for Mormonism – you can’t prove something is true, but you can prove something is false:  if Y claims X =True and Y claims X=Y, if Y<>X, then Y is False.

So, let’s look at the claims Christianity has made in regard to winning the acceptance of the Jews:

Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be more accepted among the Gentiles than the Jews?  And did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim this would be the case throughout the church age?  Did not Christianity, from the beginning, claim that it would be preached to all nations?

So, even though this particular test doesn’t prove Christianity is true, it does prove Christianity passed this particular test with flying colors – its prophecy concerning Jewish/Gentile degrees of acceptance was spot on.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tweed,

Still haven’t found a scriptural example for the approach, “Read our scriptures, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true”.  On the surface, this may seem like a proper religious practice, but it is actually brain-washing (which is why it is not scriptural).  This is no different than saying, “Whenever you read your bible, make sure you have [the study guide we provided you] handy at all times.”

It’s brainwashing because it takes a person who is not normally religious (or one whose previous involvement in religion was lukewarm), and asks them to engage in a religious activity (praying and/or reading the bible) while having the cult’s doctrine on their mind – so that at the very least, their experience with the cult makes them feel more religious and a part of something bigger than themselves.

That is NOT the way Jesus and the Apostles spread the gospel, rather they simply preached the message.  And to the members of their audience who already knew the scriptures, they welcomed scriptural examination of their claims against an exterior source (the OT).  They relied upon God to open the spiritual eyes of their audience, they NEVER attempted to brainwash their listeners by having nonChristians engage in religious activities in the context of Christianity.

But, by saying, “Read the Book of Mormon, then pray to our Heavenly Father and ask him if it is true” is asking nonMormons to engage in religious activities (praying) in the context of Mormonism.  That’s NOT lifting up Christ, rather that is lifting up the Mormon Church.  Obviously, for the non-religious, the simple act of praying is going to make them feel more “religious”, and thus brainwash them into believing the Mormon church is true, for, after all, they do feel more religious.  

I would rather the Mormon Church simply say, “Please examine our beliefs against exterior sources (the OT/NT)”.

[John Dibble]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't accept it as valid and true because no good reason has been given to me to do so. Are you really so dense that after this much time you still don't get that? If your skull is really so thick that you can't understand something so basic then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Hey, hey, hey…easy with the personal attacks.

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts. The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)
3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

---  

I don't know the specific passages you are referring to, but let me give you some feedback on these notions before you give them:

1. If the passages are from Paul, this is problematic. Paul is not "at the beginning of Christianity", rather he would be after it since he would have been persecuting Christians before his conversion. As such he would have noted how much the Jews did not accept the new theology before writing anything that ended up in the Bible, so it wouldn't necessarily be predictive since he would have already had observational data.
2. The Gospels are also somewhat problematic in the same regard, though possibly less so since they are supposedly accounts of the words of Jesus himself rather than someone coming after the fact, because they were actually written down decades after the crucifixion, with not all necessarily by the apostles who supposedly authored them, and we lack the original manuscripts.

Prophesies related to the Messiah’s message being rejected by the Jews and received by the Gentiles originate in the OT, not the NT...then, it is reiterated in the Gospels by Jesus (which , Viewed from a secular perspective, was a very bold prediction since he didn’t even preach to Gentiles), and then reiterated throughout the rest of the NT.

---

The same observations Paul made could have been inserted. (while we lack the original manuscripts, early manuscripts show that later ones which made it into the Bible contain at least some forged content)

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

And, if you use the bible’s own rule of using two or three witnesses, the corruption of the additions and translational errors (the 0.5% that is not in agreement) will fall by the wayside.

---

3. An evangelical religion claiming that it would one day be preached across the world is not unusual, and that one happened to be successful doesn't indicate any veracity to the events being due to divine prophecy.

As I already stated, you can’t prove it true, but you can prove it false if its claims do not hold up…and it did pass that particular test, thus it has not been proven false by its own claims.

It’s easy to prove something wrong if its own claims do not hold water – which is why I recommended that Tweed start by examining the claims of Mormonism PRIOR to subjecting himself to a brainwashing session.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@Tweed

There’s what, 5600 ancient copies of the NT, with 99.5% agreement within those copies?  Both the number of copies and agreement between the copies is basically unparalleled in human history.

(Note:  I stated 5600 just to avoid argument and take the lowest possible number…the real number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25000.)

I’ve heard, due to the contradictions between the bible and Mormon doctrine, that the LDS claims the bible, along with the “true” Gospel, became corrupted and that the Book of Mormon is more accurate…but since the Gospel had already spread to many many countries during the lifespan of the original Apostles, why is there such a high degree of agreement between the manuscripts if at some point corruption was introduced?  Barring an implausible conspiracy across many non-unified nations with language and geographical barriers, doesn’t the very high degree of agreement between the texts prove that the writings of the Apostles have been preserved and that no vast corruption was introduced, contrary to LDS claims?

[John Dibble]

I'm sorry if it offends you that I called you thick skulled, but you really don't seem to have any capacity whatsoever to even try considering someone else's perspective with any degree of honesty. Do you have any idea how utterly and completely arrogant it is to say that the reasons others have for not believing as you do are mere excuses?

Again, you’re taking my words out of context – first I stated a bigger picture:  God hasn’t called them (which is exactly what the NT says, so blame the arrogance on its author).  Second, as a result of the bigger picture, I gave an individual’s explanation from the nonbeliever’s perspective:  they name some excuse, even in the face of contrary evidence.

*bangs head on desk* For crying out loud man, that's exactly how I interpreted it. The problem is that you don't have any real evidence for your big picture assertion. If you can't back up your big picture argument with something real (no, scripture alone does not count) then asserting anyone who disagrees with you on it is merely giving an excuse is nothing short of arrogance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give the specific passages, please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The oldest, most reliable copies and the copies that actually were used in the Bible are the ones that matter the most. Agreement between latter copies amongst themselves have a bit less relevance.

Furthermore, not only where there additions (John 7:53 to 8:11, for instance) and mistranslations there are also ones where entire portions of the gospels seem to be copied significant amounts from other Gospels. (specifically Matthew and Luke appear to be very much based on Mark due to the similarity of the Greek wording, which would not likely have been the case if they had either been written directly by the Apostles or simply been solely written from it being orally passed down) Plagiarism kind of makes the two witnesses thing problematic, because it will by necessity agree with the first witness.

[© tweed]

jmf, I appreciate the degree of attention, but as I am but a novice in LDS history and doctrine, I must indefinitely suspend meaningful conversation on these points.