Jason_J

Members
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason_J

  1. Just wanted to repost this, as madeleine seems to not understand what I was saying when I said that there is "one Kingdom" which has many mansions.
  2. For Latter-day Saints, God's will is for all of us to be in His eternal presence and become like Him. Moses 1:39-"For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." God does not "will" us to receive anything less, even if He provides varying rewards and consequences for us based on our faith and works. What He wants for us is Celestial glory, through Christ's atonement.
  3. That's fine, I'm well catechized in Catholic doctrine . My thoughts on the Trinity can be found here. I don't believe I stated that the traditional Trinity and the LDS Godhead are the same thing. What I do say is that the traditional Trinity, as clearly affirmed in the Athanasian Creed, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct from each other. As both the Catechism and the Athanasian Creed affirm, the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. That is the point that I was addressing. And nowhere did I claim that they are the same thing. If I did, please point it out. In fact, in my last post, I stated-"we differ from traditional Christians as to how exactly the three are one". Right, that is basic traditional Christian teaching. The Son is not a separate being from the Father and the Spirit, however He is a distinct Person from the Father and the Spirit, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms. To say otherwise is Unitarianism or Modalism. Basic LDS teaching does not use the traditional Christian definitions of "being" and "person" to mean separate things. Instead, we use the terms interchangeably, as we do in everyday language. Where the traditional Trinitarian would say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons but one Being, we would say that they are distinct Persons/Beings, since we do not follow the traditional understanding of such terms (which originated in Greek/Latin speaking worlds). They are "One God" in that they are one in purpose, mind, will, and intent. LDS believe that the Celestial Kingdom, eternal life, is living in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They live in Their presence. In contrast, those in the Terrestrial Kingdom are visited by the Son, while those in the Telestial Kingdom are visited by the Holy Ghost. This is right out of the Gospel Principles manual, page 272. The point I am making here is that the belief that the Son visits those in the Terrestrial Kingdom and the Spirit visits those in the Telestial Kingdom does not mean that one is "separating God", anymore than the traditional belief in the Incarnation. You haven't addressed the point that traditional Christians hold that it was only the Son that Incarnated, and not the Father nor the Spirit, since they are distinct Persons, where one is not the other (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 254). In this same way, the LDS belief does not separate God, because if it does, than the traditional view of the Incarnation does. This has nothing to do with equating the traditional Trinity with the LDS Godhead, but with understanding what it means for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be distinct Persons, as the Catholic Church teaches. Quite simply: one Person of the Godhead visiting people in one Kingdom is no different than saying that only one Person of the Trinity incarnated while the others did not. See below. Unfortunately, this is not logical. Your first sentence does not follow a logical progression, and is a misrepresentation of LDS belief (please show where we teach that God "desires" for us to have a part of Himself, as we do not teach anything like that. Saying that the Son visits those in the Terrestrial Kingdom or the Spirit visits those in the Telestial is not saying what you said.). For Latter-day Saints, God wants all of us to receive eternal life, being in His eternal presence, and becoming like Him. All of the ordinances, teachings, and practices of His restored Church point towards that goal. Nothing is aimed at Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms. "Perfection" is not achieved in these Kingdoms, and progression is halted (which, to LDS, can be termed "damnation"). Eternal life is only received through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
  4. But madeleine, you're not explaining how exactly "dividing heaven as Mormons do" does this. It would be helpful for you to expound on what it is Mormons are actually saying, in your understanding. From my perspective, there is no division in God's will in the LDS understanding of Heaven. We each have our own rewards based on our faith and works. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can therefore minister to people based on this, however only those in the Celestial Kingdom will dwell in Their eternal presence. God wants us all to receive eternal life and live in His eternal presence, however not all of us will. LDS belief that there is only one Kingdom of God as well, however His Kingdom has many mansions, as the Bible teaches. God is clearly three distinct Persons, a belief that is found in traditional Christianity as well (it is in the Catechism). Saying that they are "one God" (something that LDS believe, though we differ from traditional Christians as to how exactly the three are one) does not negate the fact of their three-ness. Trinitarians believe that in the Incarnation, only the Son incarnated, and not the Father or the Holy Ghost (to say otherwise would be Unitarianism or Modalism). So, we have God the Son incarnating, while the Father and the Holy Ghost did not. Is this dividing God? In the same way, Latter-day Saints can say that in the Celestial Kingdom, people will be in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while in the Terrestrial Kingdom, people will be ministered to by the Son, and in the Telestial Kingdom, people will be ministered to by the Holy Ghost. None of this negates the oneness of the Godhead, anymore than the Son Incarnating and the other Two Persons not does.
  5. Yes, Jesus is referred to as "Father" in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, however He is "Father" in a sense that does not include Him being the Person known as "God the Father/Heavenly Father", as Unitarians would understand Him to be. Agreed.
  6. I think it's quite clear from the scriptures, both ancient and modern, that Jesus is God. I see this (referring to Jesus as "God") not only in the New Testament, but in the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc. Now, this does not mean that Jesus is God the Father, nor does it mean that He is the same Person as the Father (as the Unitarians/modalists would believe). So, I think when asking if Jesus is God, we must be clear as to what we mean by "God". In one sense Jesus is God, however in another, when "God" means "the Father", He is of course not the Father.
  7. Yes of course Catholics consider themselves to be Christians (and the original ones at that). In all of my years as an active Catholic, I've never encountered anyone that said that they weren't Christian, they were Catholic. If they did, they are clearly not in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which considers itself to be the original Church established by Jesus Christ, and Christian. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, and official compendium of the beliefs of the Catholic Church, makes extensive use of the word "Christian" to refer to itself, its members, and its practices. Anyway, as to the OP, well I've only been LDS for about a month, and I would usually say "I'm Mormon". If someone asks me "what church do you go to?", I say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...I'm Mormon".
  8. I'm about to get ready for work, but I thought I'd briefly comment. Actually, anatess did not comment on whether what we are discussing makes the LDS Church true (she specifically stated that "We are not arguing which is true doctrine or not."), so I do not see circular reasoning here at all. We aren't saying that if something wasn't true it would not have been restored. Instead, in this thread, what we are arguing is that many if not most unique LDS beliefs are found in ancient Judaism and Christianity, in contrast to the claim that "uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Christian history, including Jewish history". Such an argument does not necessitate saying that therefore makes the LDS Church the Lord's Church, and none of us are making that argument (even though we of course believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church). Instead, we are commenting on an historical issue, and showing that unique LDS doctrines are quite clearly found in early Christian and Jewish histories, well before the 1800s. Whether or not something is a heresy of course depends on the perspective taken. Jews would of course find the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity as heretical, as well as the Christian belief that God came to this earth and incarnated. The other sides would clearly disagree that these beliefs are heretical. Have a good day!
  9. I know! Well, there is one thread ("my wife is joining me") on the first page from someone saying that he and his wife are leaving the Church for the Catholic Church, and he says that the LDS Church is "a business", lol. But it definitely is an improvement!
  10. Madeleine, as anatess stated, you are misunderstanding what the purpose of the latest posts in this thread are about. I am not concerned with all the beliefs that Origen held, nor am I even focused solely on Origen. What I am concerned with is the statement that "uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Christian history, including Jewish history". The examples I have provided on the pre-mortal existence of the soul show that this is simply not true, and Origen is but one example out of many. Whatever else he taught has no bearing on addressing that statement, and again, I am not focusing on Origen in the first place. In addition to all of the extra-biblical evidences provided, we also believe that the pre-mortal existence is also taught in the Bible.
  11. So an Ecumenical Council took the time to condemn a belief that was merely Origen's opinion? I think from the evidence listed (which is only partial), we see that the pre-existence of souls was more widely taught and known in the ancient Israelite and Christian world than just Origen's opinion.
  12. Latter-day Saints would most certainly agree on not buying into all Jewish beliefs, especially depending on the time period of Israelite history we are talking about. While I would disagree as to whether the references are "obscure" (well, they maybe considered obscure compared to the Biblical texts, definitely), I think that from the sources listed (which are only just a few on the specific topic of pre-mortal existence), we see a clear presence of this doctrine in Israelite history, in response to your belief that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history." Also, if I remember correctly, one of the early Ecumenical Councils actually condemned the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, which was being taught by Origen of Alexandria. Also, just to add, I found this interesting list by Kevin Barney in his article One Preexistence in the Bible: Now, not all of these examples exactly mirror the LDS doctrine, however I think that we can safely conclude that the belief in the pre-mortal existence of the soul is found in early Jewish and Christian history, and is but one example of the historicity of LDS beliefs, and that "uniquely Mormon doctrines" are not as unique as one may think. Hope that was helpful to see where we're coming from on this!
  13. I agree. I was actively posting on CAF from about 2005 to the middle of last year. I've gotten into many spirited debates with ParkerD, dianaiad (mostly surrounding abortion, the Trinity, and the more difficult issues in Catholic history), mfbukowski (who I've also debated at the other Mormon board I mentioned, and who was utterly surprised at my conversion) and of course zerinus.
  14. It's gotten a little better. I don't post there anymore, but I do lurk. They have a new moderator that doesn't tolerate the stuff that used to go on, and has banned many non-Catholics AND Catholics for not following the rules. Some stuff does get by him, but it's such an active forum that it's hard to get it all.
  15. SteveVH, whenever you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts on these posts discussing just a few of the historical evidences for the LDS belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls (in response to your statement that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history."): http://www.lds.net/forums/573316-post40.html http://www.lds.net/forums/573389-post41.html http://www.lds.net/forums/573394-post42.html I know there's a lot going on in this thread since you are "The Non-LDS" in this thread, so I understand if you need some time. Now you see how the LDS at CAF feel, haha!
  16. Hi SteveVH, thanks for responding :) I agree that the distinction cannot be ignored, and I hope that I was not implying that it should be ignored or was trivial. My point in the quote you responded to was that just because we don't believe that the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine does not mean that the bread is "only bread" for us, no different than having bread for breakfast. As a priesthood ordinance, the bread and water are blessed by God, and are part of a sacred covenant that we are entering into with God through the Sacrament, as well as renewing the covenants that we made with God at our baptisms, thus effecting a remission of sins, as well as the presence of the Spirit to be with us continually. So, while our view of the Eucharist/Sacrament is different from the Catholic view in various ways, our view is also different from the low-church Protestant symbolic view, especially because we firmly believe that the priesthood of God is involved and actually blesses and sanctifies (words used in the prayers of blessing) the bread and water. Right i know By "Catholic Church", I was referring to the entire "universal church", including all 23 particular churches. Right, however I hope you understood my point as far as your comment that you are doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". Right, yes, I understand the symbolism. I was mentioning this for the same reason as above, on the point of doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". Jesus did not instruct us to do that. I don't have a problem with it (I like the symbolism), I'm just responding to that point. For Latter-day Saints, baptism is also a free gift from God, brings us into the family of God, and makes us a new creature (we are "spiritually reborn"). We do not follow the low-church Protestant view of baptism of it being merely a symbol of something that has already happened (as you say, a "public statement"), and we firmly believe that baptism saves and is for the remission fo sins. In contrast to many Evangelicals, we believe that priesthood ordinances actually do something, and are effected by the power and authority of God. We also believe that, as an ordinance, baptism is a covenant that is made between us and God. That's fine, my view is that there are clear similarities besides just what they are called, and that there are of course differences (my view that there are similarities besides the name does not detract from the clear differences, which, as a Latter-day Saint, I of course accept as a distinction between our two faiths). None of the links and information I and others provided are attempting to evidence the historical authenticity of the Restoration of ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs by referring to the unique LDS scriptures. completely understand what you are saying though, and we typically only refer to our unique scriptures in these discussions when showing why we believe something, since they are part of our doctrine and explain our doctrine. If we are talking about historical and archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, I believe that there are many such examples (I've read all about the supposed anachronisms and problems with the Book of Mormon, since as a former critic, I used to refer to such issues many times ), which of course is a whole other issue. I also think that the statement "evidencing massive ancient civilization in the State of New York as described in the Book of Mormon" is making an assumption about where the Book of Mormon takes place that most LDS apologists don't hold to, but that great topic is probably best for a separate thread devoted to it. Thank you Steve, and I'm glad you're participating here. Also, as I mentioned before, if you would like even more perspectives, perhaps you would be interested in the more active Mormon Discussion and Dialogue Board.
  17. What do you mean by "revelation given to [the Catholic] Church"? Is revelation given to the Catholic Church therefore binding on all Catholics, since it is God giving revelation to "The Church"? This would thus fall into public revelation, wouldn't it? Revelations such as the Marian apparitions are private revelation, and Catholics are free to accept or reject them, so I wouldn't necessarily call such events "revelation given to our Church", but revelations given to individuals which other individuals are free to believe or not. Unless you were thinking of something else?
  18. Volgadon, I'm so grateful that you are participating in this thread as well, because of your awesome knowledge of Judaism, both ancient and modern. And if I remember correctly, you live in Israel and are ethnically Jewish and religiously LDS? Feel free to add more of your thoughts on our "uniquely Mormon doctrines" and ancient Israelite beliefs! :) I'll add more later today.
  19. Brief Historical Evidences of the Restoration By "uniquely Mormon doctrines", I take it that you are referring to such doctrines as the Pre-mortal existence of souls, creation from pre-existing materials, the Godhead, eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, etc. As one can see from the links I provided earlier, it is clearly erroneous to state that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history. ". Here are a few brief examples as to why. Pre-mortal Existence of Souls The LDS doctrine on the pre-mortal existence states that our souls existed before we were conceived on the earth. We lived with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven. Traditional Christians reject such a notion, and instead believe that our souls come into existence at conception. From "Restoring the Ancient Church": "An intriguing account of the great council occurs in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Abraham, which had its origin in Judaism but in its present form has been modified by Jewish Christian groups. (Note the similarities between this ancient account of Abraham's vision of the council and that translated by Joseph Smith in Abraham 3, quoted above.) 'And everything I had planned to be came into being: it was already pre-figured in this, for all the things and all the people you have seen stood before me before they were created. And I said, Mighty and Eternal Ruler, who then are the people in this picture on this side and on that? And he said to me, Those on the left side are the many peoples which have existed in the past, and after you are appointed, some for judgement and restoration, some for vengeance and perdition, until the end of the age. And those on the right side of the picture, they are the people set apart for me from the people with Azazil [satan]. These are the people who are going to spring from you and will be called my people.' (The Apocalypse of Abraham 22, in H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 384.) Additionally, David Winston reports that the Bereshith Rabba and Ruth Rabba tell of God consulting the souls of the righteous before deciding to create the world.(David Winston, "The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran," History of Religions 5 (1965): 212.). The Wisdom of Solomon, in the Apocrypha, states: "As a child I was born to excellence, and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble; and I entered into an unblemished body."(Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 NEB). The Midrash Kee Tov states that all the souls of the righteous, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. "were with God before the creation of the world."(Sefer Haparshiyot, Midrash Kee Tov, "Alef" Machon Lehotzaat Sefarim, 31, quoted in Nissim Wernick, "A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in the Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings" (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1968), 22). ... Origen quoted a Jewish apocryphal document called the Prayer of Joseph, which asserted that Jacob was one of the archangels in his premortal existence: Thus Jacob says: "I, Jacob, who speak to you, arid Israel, I am an angel of God, a ruling spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were created before every work of God; and I am Jacob, called Jacob by men, but my name is Israel, called Israel by God, a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every creature which God caused to live."(Origen, Commentary on John 2:25, in ANF 10:341) The Enoch texts also contain the common element of the pre-existence. (This is significant, since the early Christians apparently took at least one of these documents very seriously. Indeed, Jude referred to one of them in his general epistle. (See Jude 1:14) 2 Enoch states that, "all souls are prepared to eternity, before the formation of the world," (Secrets of Enoch 23:2, in Rutherford H. Platt, Jr. , ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden (New York: Random House, 1980), 89), and cites Adam as the prime example: 'And I placed on the earth, a second angel, honorable, great and glorious, and I appointed him as ruler to rule on earth and to have my wisdom, and there was none like him of earth of all my existing creatures . . . . I called his name Adam.' (Secrets of Enoch 30:12-13, in Platt, ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden, 92). Also, 1 Enoch relates that before God created the world he held a consultation with the souls of the righteous. (1 Enoch 39:4-7, 40:5, 61:12. Quoted in Wernick, "A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in the Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings," 23.) Interestingly, 1 Enoch is regarded as scripture by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. A quick wiki also shows that apparently various Early Church Fathers such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian regarded 1 Enoch as scripture (though we know of course that the Early Christians had a somewhat fluid canon, accepting works such as the Shepherd of Hermas as scriptural as well. Anyway, that is just a beginning of the ancient Judeo-Christian evidences for the Latter-day Saint belief in the pre-mortal existence of the soul. Clearly we see that it did not originate in the 1800s, and that this unique Mormon doctrine is found in early Judeo-Christian history. I'll get to the others either later tonight or tomorrow, I need to finish my chemistry homework! :)
  20. Latter-day Saints do not believe that it is just a "piece of bread". I can eat a piece of bread anytime and it does not mean I'm participating in a sacred ordinance. LDS believe that the Sacrament is a covenant that we enter into with God, and is also a renewal of the covenants we made at our baptisms. Significantly, the elements used in the Sacrament must be blessed by priesthood authority. These are clear differences between how LDS view the Sacrament and how many Evangelicals view the symbolic Lord's Supper. For us, the elements do not have to be turned into the body and blood of Christ for us to enter into real covenants with the Lord and have a remission of sins. Sure, as we all can. However that isn't what an ordinance is. See above. It isn't just about eating a piece of bread, which I can do at breakfast. Agreed. I think you meant to say "leavened bread is never used in the Catholic Church", since unleavened bread is of course used in the Latin rite. But either way, I assume you are not familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? They follow the Orthodox tradition of using leavened bread in the Eucharist. That is what I was referring to with having both leavened and unleavened bread being used in the Eucharist/Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Church. See above. Did Jesus use unleavened or leavened bread? If it was unleavened, then part of the Catholic Church (the Eastern Catholic churches) are not doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". This isn't problematic for us, however I'm trying to show you how that argument doesn't necessarily follow through. Further, at least in the West (I've attended multiple Divine Liturgies however I haven't seen up close what happens at the altar since it's behind the iconostasis), some holy water is mingled with the wine, which Jesus did not do either . There are of course multiple other examples. Right, I understand. For LDS, baptism is for the remission of sins (this is how it is referred to), and our sins are actually forgiven. Sins are further forgiven as we renew our baptismal covenants through the Sacrament. Also, we believe that all ordinances are actions on the part of God, since they are done with priesthood authority, which is the power of God. I too have been corresponding with Mormons for many years, and was an LDS critic on CAF and on an LDS forum for some time. I agree that there are many fundamental differences, however there are many fundamental similarities. My point was that there are a number of similarities between Catholic sacraments and LDS ordinances beyond just what they are named. Steve, I hope that at some point you will engage the materials that I have provided. They provide documented evidences for the restoration using non-LDS sources. The scholarly historical research has been done and is available. This article provides a brief summary of some of those issues, and if anything, i hope that you will read that one. I am particularly fascinated by the evidences for the belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls, creation from pre-existing materials, and the Divine Council. I am about to go to class, but tonight I'll post some excerpts from the articles I linked to previously that evidence that LDS beliefs do not originate from the 1800s, but can be found in ancient Judeo-Christian sources.
  21. Actually, the LDS Sacrament does not follow the Protestant tradition at all. I assume by "Protestant" you are referring to the "low church" varieties, since many Anglicans and Lutherans accept some sort of "real presence" in the Eucharist. While Latter-day Saints do not accept the belief that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ while retaining their appearance, we also do not accept that the Sacrament does nothing and is merely a symbol. Instead, we believe that the Sacrament renews our baptismal covenants, and provides a remission of sins, as well as the Spirit to be with us as we keep God's commandments. We believe that the Lord provided revelation on the matter. The fact that both leavened and unleavened bread are used in the Catholic Church shows that it isn't necessary to use exactly what Jesus used at the Lord's Supper. However Latter-day Saints believe that God has provided further instructions through revelation in the latter days. LDS believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. What is "entirely different" about how LDS view baptism (since it seems as if you are implying that Catholics believe that baptism cleanses us from our sins while LDS do not believe that)? Quite briefly, both Catholics and LDS believe that Confirmation provides the gift of the Holy Ghost, as well as various gifts of the Holy Ghost. Both Catholics and LDS believe that ordination must be done by the laying on of hands by someone that holds priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that consecrated oil should be used to anoint the sick, and that it can have an actual healing effect. Both Catholics and LDS believe that major sins should be confessed to a priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism isn't just a symbol, but is for the remission of sins. There are clearly similarities besides just what the name of the sacrament/ordinance is. Actually, the links that I have provided show that LDS beliefs are indeed a restoration, and are connected to ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs. I highly recommend that you peruse the links that I have provided to get a sampling of the scholarship that evidences a genuine restoration of the Lord's Church. They show that unique LDS beliefs were not simply invented by Joseph Smith and/or his associates in the 1800s, but can be found anciently. It simply is amazing how much has been restored based on what was known in the 1800s, especially with recent discoveries and historical research. No problem!
  22. Agreed. As a Catholic, I knew that while praying the Rosary, we were not simply repeating prayers mindlessly or "in vain", but meditating on various parts of the life of Jesus Christ.
  23. Thanks :) I'm familiar with SteveVH from Catholic Answers Forum, since I used to post there when I was an amateur Catholic apologist (and I posted extensively against Mormonism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy (obviously for different reasons) for some time (I think I first posted there in 2004). I prefer not to reveal who I was there though I was also an LDS critic at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, and they were VERY surprised when I said that I was being baptized into the Lord's Church. As I mentioned elsewhere (as well as in my testimony at my baptism), it was not an easy decision for me to make, coming from such an active (not just in reading Catholic apologetic works and posting in such environments, but also active in the Catholic Church) background. Anyway, I'm glad SteveVH is here!
  24. Also, if anyone is interested in beginning studies into the relationship between the Lord's restored Church and ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs, I highly recommend, in addition to the articles listed, the book "Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity" by Barry Bickmore, as an intro to some historical evidences for a genuine restoration. It can be read in full at the link provided.