satan's plan

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: satan's plan

Post by Luke »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:15 am
Luke wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:11 am
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:07 am
Luke wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:00 am

Then show me where God said these things.
That the Lord said the LoF? I can't. That's the point
I never claimed that the Lord specifically said that the Lectures on Faith were revelations. There's nowhere that I know of where He explicitly said those words.

However, I have claimed that Joseph Smith and others vouched for the Lectures and that they were written under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You on the other hand no doubt maintain that these recent policy changes are based on revelation given your absolute unwavering devotion to the leaders.

You are the one who is under the burden of providing evidence to prove your point.
Joseph saying "I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication " is code for "written under the influence of the Holy Ghost"?

I have the burden of proving a point you made up?
“Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature. The classes, being mostly Elders gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ, to be ready to do His will in carrying glad tidings to all that would open their eyes, ears and hearts.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:175-176, 1 December 1834)

“During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:180, January 1835)

“We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. * * * We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.” (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, Lectures on Faith, Preface, 17 February 1835)

“Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” (DHC 2:244, 17 August 1835; Messenger and Advocate 1:161)

“The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate, not at present.” (John Taylor, Letter to Orson Pratt, 25 April 1879, CHL)

User avatar
Being There
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2868

Re: satan's plan

Post by Being There »

onefour1 wrote: July 19th, 2022, 7:27 pm One thing is certain, Satan wants to lead you away from God our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ his son. Anything that promotes disbelief in God is suspect of being inspired by Satan. Learning all we can about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will open our eyes to see the opposition.
Satan wants to lead you away from God our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ his son
I guess then - what the key question would be -
what things are leading us away from God and Jesus Christ ?

Or - could it be - also -
WHO - is leading us away ? or is it astray. *

YES - The (WHO) World Health Organization - is definitely leading us away from God;
but that's not quite what I meant and who I had in mind.

I think what many TBM - the "all is well in Zion" member would say, and include - is that -
it's anything that leads you away from the church.
Would that really be true ? -
or is it quite the contrary.

* Could it be - that the church itself, is actually leading members way from God and Jesus Christ ?

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say:
All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth,
all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!
25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!
2 Nephi 28
Last edited by Being There on August 1st, 2022, 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Luke wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:16 am
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:15 am
Luke wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:11 am
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 9:07 am

That the Lord said the LoF? I can't. That's the point
I never claimed that the Lord specifically said that the Lectures on Faith were revelations. There's nowhere that I know of where He explicitly said those words.

However, I have claimed that Joseph Smith and others vouched for the Lectures and that they were written under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You on the other hand no doubt maintain that these recent policy changes are based on revelation given your absolute unwavering devotion to the leaders.

You are the one who is under the burden of providing evidence to prove your point.
Joseph saying "I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication " is code for "written under the influence of the Holy Ghost"?

I have the burden of proving a point you made up?
“Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature. The classes, being mostly Elders gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ, to be ready to do His will in carrying glad tidings to all that would open their eyes, ears and hearts.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:175-176, 1 December 1834)

“During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 2:180, January 1835)

“We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe. The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. * * * We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.” (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, Lectures on Faith, Preface, 17 February 1835)

“Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.” (DHC 2:244, 17 August 1835; Messenger and Advocate 1:161)

“The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate, not at present.” (John Taylor, Letter to Orson Pratt, 25 April 1879, CHL)
If only those quotes supported your claim....

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: satan's plan

Post by darknesstolight »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:50 am
Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:31 am
Artaxerxes wrote: July 31st, 2022, 11:55 pm They treated it as lectures.
No they did not treat it as lectures. They treated it as holy scripture, as part of their canon. They treated it as doctrine and even called it the doctrine portion of the D&C.

Do you understand that significance? It was the "doctrine" portion of our scripture!
Well at least you've given up your unsupportable claim that it was a revelation, so that's progress.

You:They didn't treat them as lectures!

The book itself:
Screenshot_20220801-074951.png
I got you. Treated as just some random lectures because lectures do not come from the Spirit.

Being a part of the D&C is meaningless.

The only reason brainwashed Mormon cultists who venerate the leaders reject the LoF is because they been told to do it by their idols. And obeying the leaders is what makes you a good Mormon and qualified for the CK.

...

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

darknesstolight wrote: August 1st, 2022, 10:27 am
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:50 am
Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:31 am
Artaxerxes wrote: July 31st, 2022, 11:55 pm They treated it as lectures.
No they did not treat it as lectures. They treated it as holy scripture, as part of their canon. They treated it as doctrine and even called it the doctrine portion of the D&C.

Do you understand that significance? It was the "doctrine" portion of our scripture!
Well at least you've given up your unsupportable claim that it was a revelation, so that's progress.

You:They didn't treat them as lectures!

The book itself:
Screenshot_20220801-074951.png
I got you. Treated as just some random lectures because lectures do not come from the Spirit.

Being a part of the D&C is meaningless.

The only reason brainwashed Mormon cultists who venerate the leaders reject the LoF is because they been told to do it by their idols. And obeying the leaders is what makes you a good Mormon and qualified for the CK.

...
Awful lot of people making things up on the forum today.....

I don't reject the LoF. I think they're great. Someone was just claiming that we should use the test of comparing current teachings with prior revelations, implying that the LoF were a revelation. They weren't. Unlike some, I'm able to accept that there's something in between "a revelation" and "rejection," but you do you.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:53 am you were clearly implying that the LoF were a revelation.
Aren't all means of the Lord revealing scripture to his saints revelatory?

What I'm trying to say though, is that the canonizing of scripture is the apex. There is nothing more binding upon the saints.

You can't get around the fact that it was the doctrine Joseph chose throughout his ministry.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Alaris wrote: July 31st, 2022, 11:16 pm The God - The King is coming here. Don't miss it. :-)
Is this your way of intellectually conceding and bowing out of the dialogue?

Is it fair of me to say that JS completed supported LoF as scripture and that you do not?

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 11:32 am
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 8:53 am you were clearly implying that the LoF were a revelation.
Aren't all means of the Lord revealing scripture to his saints revelatory?

What I'm trying to say though, is that the canonizing of scripture is the apex. There is nothing more binding upon the saints.

You can't get around the fact that it was the doctrine Joseph chose throughout his ministry.
And then he learned more and corrected the LoF. Why focus on his prior statements when we know he learned more and gave more information later?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 11:41 am And then he learned more and corrected the LoF. Why focus on his prior statements when we know he learned more and gave more information later?
He did not correct the LoF in the least. Nothing could be further from the truth. Joseph very specifically chose to keep them in our canon in the 1844 edition of the D&C right up to his martyrdom. Joseph can't correct heavenly inspired scripture. Once it's heavenly inspired it is God's word.

One does not "learn more" by learning previous scripture you canonized and testified of actually isn't true. God does not canonize scripture only to later uncanonize scripture. The thought is laughable. God word is his word and he says he does not vary from that which he has said either to the left or to the right. And you want us to believe that he does a 180?

There is also one more point you continue to avoid. Joseph DID NOT chose section 130 in the 1844 edition of the D&C. Why not? He had plenty of time to do so. If he had felt it was correct teaching why would he chose to not include it in scripture. That is one more smoking gun against you.

Admit it, you are emotionally invested in your paradigm and the scriptures from God take a backseat to your worldview.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:06 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 11:41 am And then he learned more and corrected the LoF. Why focus on his prior statements when we know he learned more and gave more information later?
He did not correct the LoF in the least. Nothing could be further from the truth. Joseph very specifically chose to keep them in our canon in the 1844 edition of the D&C right up to his martyrdom. Joseph can't correct heavenly inspired scripture. Once it's heavenly inspired it is God's word.

One does not "learn more" by learning previous scripture you canonized and testified of actually isn't true. God does not canonize scripture only to later uncanonize scripture. The thought is laughable. God word is his word and he says he does not vary from that which he has said either to the left or to the right. And you want us to believe that he does a 180?

There is also one more point you continue to avoid. Joseph DID NOT chose section 130 in the 1844 edition of the D&C. Why not? He had plenty of time to do so. If he had felt it was correct teaching why would he chose to not include it in scripture. That is one more smoking gun against you.

Admit it, you are emotionally invested in your paradigm and the scriptures from God take a backseat to your worldview.
You're reasoning in reverse. Things aren't inspired because they're scripture, they're scripture because they're inspired.

God didn't canonize the LoF. A committee did.

Joseph didn't choose to include the LoF either. Again, a committee did. Same as Section 130.

If he felt it wasn't a correct teaching that the Holy Ghost was a personage, why did he say it?

Admit it, you are emotionally invested in your paradigm and the scriptures from God take a backseat to your worldview. Section 130 is true, you just need to set aside your preconceived notions to see it.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm God didn't canonize the LoF. A committee did.
So now JS is a committee? The entire First Presidency that was told by God are equal with Joseph in holding the keys, they are a committee. The First Presidency who was tasked by the Lord to "receive the oracles for the whole church."

You know damn well you read through Luke's quotes showing where JS takes complete ownership and expects to be held accountable to God for them. Now you're just being a tool.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 2:47 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm God didn't canonize the LoF. A committee did.
So now JS is a committee? The entire First Presidency that was told by God are equal with Joseph in holding the keys, they are a committee. The First Presidency who was tasked by the Lord to "receive the oracles for the whole church."

You know damn well you read through Luke's quotes showing where JS takes complete ownership and expects to be held accountable to God for them. Now you're just being a tool.
I did read them. Did you?

“During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.”

Preparing them is not canonizing. He points to a committee for that.

Again, Joseph said that he supported the LoF. He then taught that the Holy Ghost was a personage. You're cherry picking to support the first because it supports your worldview, rather than recognizing that Joseph continued to learn and continued to teach more and more doctrine.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm If he felt it wasn't a correct teaching that the Holy Ghost was a personage, why did he say it?
It doesn't matter why he did or didn't say something. He himself taught that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet. What does that mean? It means, he is telling us that sometimes he will speak as a man. How do we know the difference? He testifies himself of a teaching by declaring it scripture and the Lord provides other PSR's to act as witnesses. So who cares what his personal opinions might have been.

I don't care if you believe in section 130 or not. You can believe it all day. What I want you to do is grab your balls and admit Joseph could have included in the 1844 edition of the D&C but chose not to.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:00 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm If he felt it wasn't a correct teaching that the Holy Ghost was a personage, why did he say it?
It doesn't matter why he did or didn't say something. He himself taught that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet. What does that mean? It means, he is telling us that sometimes he will speak as a man. How do we know the difference? He testifies himself of a teaching by declaring it scripture and the Lord provides other PSR's to act as witnesses. So who cares what his personal opinions might have been.

I don't care if you believe in section 130 or not. You can believe it all day. What I want you to do is grab your balls and admit Joseph could have included in the 1844 edition of the D&C but chose not to.
So he speaks as a prophet when he agrees with you, and not when he doesn't? Lol!

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm preconceived notions
Do you see the hypocrisy in telling me I have "preconceived notions"? You are the one clinging to what you have been spoon fed from the church. I am the one who has been an agent unto himself and been willing to let go of many false teachings. That is the opposite of clinging to any previous notions.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:02 pm So he speaks as a prophet when he agrees with you, and not when he doesn't? Lol!
Holy crap, I didn't say that. Here's what he I said.

It doesn't matter why he did or didn't say something. He himself taught that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet. What does that mean? It means, he is telling us that sometimes he will speak as a man. How do we know the difference? He testifies himself of a teaching by declaring it scripture and the Lord provides other PSR's to act as witnesses. So who cares what his personal opinions might have been.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:04 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 12:11 pm preconceived notions
Do you see the hypocrisy in telling me I have "preconceived notions"? You are the one clinging to what you have been spoon fed from the church. I am the one who has been an agent unto himself and been willing to let go of many false teachings. That is the opposite of clinging to any previous notions.
I'm clinging something from a book, unlike you who are .... clinging to something from a book?? Lololol!

You're too much.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:07 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:02 pm So he speaks as a prophet when he agrees with you, and not when he doesn't? Lol!
Holy crap, I didn't say that. Here's what he I said.

It doesn't matter why he did or didn't say something. He himself taught that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet. What does that mean? It means, he is telling us that sometimes he will speak as a man. How do we know the difference? He testifies himself of a teaching by declaring it scripture and the Lord provides other PSR's to act as witnesses. So who cares what his personal opinions might have been.
Oh, so he didn't just say it. He testified it. Gotcha
Screenshot_20220801-140850.png
Screenshot_20220801-140850.png (527.31 KiB) Viewed 1171 times

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:07 pm I'm clinging something from a book, unlike you who are .... clinging to something from a book?? Lololol!
With a big difference. My book comes with JS testifying of it, along with 3 other PSR's. Your book does not.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:19 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:07 pm I'm clinging something from a book, unlike you who are .... clinging to something from a book?? Lololol!
With a big difference. My book comes with JS testifying of it, along with 3 other PSR's. Your book does not.
Section 130 wasn't testified to by PSRs? Come man. This is getting ridiculous.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:20 pm Section 130 wasn't testified to by PSRs? Come man. This is getting ridiculous.
Of course, it wasn't, or else we would have their testimonies. Besides, that is not how the Law of Witnesses works. It is he who brought forth the doctrine who has to testify of it, just like I would have to be at the intersection at the time of the crash to be a witness. This is why the Lord says in the mouth of two or three witnesses will every word be established. The establishment of a word is right at the beginning, not many years later.

Also, no PSR would testify of it if they believe Joseph's teaching that scripture is never undermined by an alleged new teaching. It must comport with current scripture or make God a liar.

To help out, maybe you could imagine Joseph saying Paul's words: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:36 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:20 pm Section 130 wasn't testified to by PSRs? Come man. This is getting ridiculous.
Of course, it wasn't, or else we would have their testimonies. Besides, that is not how the Law of Witnesses works. It is he who brought forth the doctrine who has to testify of it, just like I would have to be at the intersection at the time of the crash to be a witness. This is why the Lord says in the mouth of two or three witnesses will every word be established. The establishment of a word is right at the beginning, not many years later.

Also, no PSR would testify of it if they believe Joseph's teaching that scripture is never undermined by an alleged new teaching. It must comport with current scripture or make God a liar.

To help out, maybe you could imagine Joseph saying Paul's words: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The law of witnesses requires that you vouch for what you yourself said? What?

... Of course we have the testimonies of PSRs testifying to Section 130. You're really going on this diatribe without doing any reading about it? Both George Q Cannon and Joseph F Smith referred to the new section of the D&C, including 130, as "revelations from God" when they introduced them for canonization at general conference.

That is not the standard.

Yes, what did Joseph say about Paul's writings, and whether he was okay contradicting them?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:59 pm Both George Q Cannon and Joseph F Smith
So both Cannon and Smith are admittedly liars? Both knowing full well there was never such a revelation? Even the chapter heading says "items of instruction". Even if it was a revelation, which clearly it wasn't, two people can't testify of it being from God when they themselves weren't there to witness it coming from God. Testimony after the fact is fine and dandy for testimony meeting, but not for the law of witnesses. Again, God establishes his word at the establishment, not decades later and not by two apostles who are not PSR's.

I see you are still avoiding manning up and admitting JS specifically chose not to include this section in the 1844 D&C.

Bottum line, JS trumps everyone else and the scriptures trump JS.

Artaxerxes
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2298

Re: satan's plan

Post by Artaxerxes »

Shawn Henry wrote: August 1st, 2022, 4:15 pm
Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:59 pm Both George Q Cannon and Joseph F Smith
So both Cannon and Smith are admittedly liars? Both knowing full well there was never such a revelation? Even the chapter heading says "items of instruction". Even if it was a revelation, which clearly it wasn't, two people can't testify of it being from God when they themselves weren't there to witness it coming from God. Testimony after the fact is fine and dandy for testimony meeting, but not for the law of witnesses. Again, God establishes his word at the establishment, not decades later and not by two apostles who are not PSR's.

I see you are still avoiding manning up and admitting JS specifically chose not to include this section in the 1844 D&C.

Bottum line, JS trumps everyone else and the scriptures trump JS.
"They have to been supported by PSRs."
"Not like that!!!!"

Joseph was dead when the 1844 edition was published, so I don't know that he made a lot of decisions at that point.

Except when Joseph says the scriptures are wrong. As he did. A lot.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: satan's plan

Post by Shawn Henry »

Artaxerxes wrote: August 1st, 2022, 3:59 pm The law of witnesses requires that you vouch for what you yourself said? What?
Do you intentionally or unintentionally translate what I say into your own form of gibberish?

The Law of Witnesses requires that the originator of the work also testify of the work. I can't do a work in secrecy and have you later testify of it. That is not how God works. A work is at least partially invalidated when its author won't testify of it.

Post Reply