Women and priesthood

[bert10]

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH. And the principle would need to be taught to the whole church.

bert10

Edited January 3, 2011 by bert10

[Suzie]

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Please read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843"

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm#Woman

Such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH.

You mean like Plural Marriage in the early days?

[MarginOfError]

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH. And the principle would need to be taught to the whole church.

bert10

You mean like how Smith taught polygamy?

[bert10]

D&C Official Declaration--1

"Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege

that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such

marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past

year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught,

encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy--"

Need I say more?

Like I said such policies is commanded at the top of the Church all the way down. There are no policies for ordaining women at this time.

bert10

[bytor2112]

You mean like how Smith taught polygamy?

Whatever happened to ...the Prophet Joseph Smith or Joseph Smith? You reference him as though he is undeserving of a bit more respect and reverence...particularly on an LDS site....just saying....don't get mad and smite me with your fiery statistical logic :)

Edited January 3, 2011 by bytor2112

[Suzie]

D&C Official Declaration--1

"Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege

that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such

marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past

year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught,

encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy--"

Need I say more?

Joseph Smith first taught plural marriage as early as 1831 to very, very few members. He did not start practicing it until 1835, proclaimed the revelation in 1843 AND the practice in itself remained very secret until Brigham Young announced it in 1852 in a special conference. The whole Church did not practice Polygamy and Joseph Smith did NOT teach about it to the whole Church either.

There are no policies for ordaining women at this time.

You haven't mention yet your thoughts on early women having the Priesthood.

[bytor2112]

Joseph Smith first taught plural marriage as early as 1831 to very, very few members. He did not start practicing it until 1835, proclaimed the revelation in 1843 AND the practice in itself remained very secret until Brigham Young announced it in 1852 in a special conference. The whole Church did not practice Polygamy and Joseph Smith did NOT teach about it to the whole Church either.

So what? The Prophet gave reasons for all that you have mentioned as well. Not good enough? Unless I am mistaken, he first introduced the practice to his brother Hyrum and the Twelve....they could have denounced him and the practice.

You haven't mention yet your thoughts on early women having the Priesthood.

Bert is quite right. We do not confer the Priesthood on women and we don't fully understand...not you nor anyone else participating in this forum fully understands or know the very necessary and intricate details required to understand this bit of trivial church history.

Edited January 3, 2011 by bytor2112

[bert10]

This is not LDS teachings.

Now what I am about to say has not yet been re-confirmed by the Spirit. Woman have their own priesthood and they automatically get it when they are born. They cannot receive the priesthood of men. They receive the same priesthood of their Heavenly Mother have in heaven. The reason for this is because love and to serve others are already woven in the nature of woman. They do serve and love much better than men.

The Lord wish men to learn and love and serve each other as women do. So they must first become worthy of receiving the priesthood and when they do receive it, the priesthood is about Love and service...to each other.

The Father has a role specific to His gender the priesthood for it. And our Heavenly Mother as a role specific to her Gender and nature and the priesthood for it.

This is from myself. Women cannot possibly create life in conjunction with heaven unless they had a priesthood. Pro-Creating life is an ordinance and it requires a priesthood for all things in an ordinance is Holy.

There is a priesthood for women and women receive it automatically at birth and there is a priesthood for men and men must qualify for it. A woman cannot receive the priesthood of men and be given authority over the man.

The Lord by Isaiah prophesied of our day when society has already overturn the Edicts of GOD. The children are become oppressors and women rule over men. And God said that it is the leaders pf the Lord's people that have caused the people to err. Both the LDS and the Christian Leaders have failed in this thing.

In judgment God is going to first ask the man concerning his family. Jut like He did for Adam and Eve. For God has given the authority and responsibility for the family to the husband. Until then the war on who is going to rule in the home will continue to take its toll and remove the peace and the divorce rate will not go down to less than 1 in 10,000 marriages. The last time I read the Stats...90% divorce rate is reached before the 50th anniversary.

This is not the only reason why the marriage rate is so high..there are others. And as long as men and women continue to adopt worldly philosophies and teachings three out of 10 marriages will know hell on the earth. [Anger, hate, jealousies torments etc]

bert10

Edited January 3, 2011 by bert10

[Soulsearcher]

In judgment God is going to first ask the man concerning his family. Jut like He did for Adam and Eve. For God has given the authority and responsibility for the family to the husband.

The issue i have with this is a large number of men take this the wrong way. They exert control and domination and the wife and family suffer a great deal. The husbands rule the family instead of lead in concert with their wives. Being power corrupts the more power a man exerts with out balance the worse off the family. I've heard the justifications many times, but i have yet to see a happy marriage where the man dominates and the woman fully submits. They last out of fear and control rather than anything else. Something tells me the lord didn't want marriages of fear and control, but then again i can't speak for the lord.

[bert10]

Soulsearcher - Have you read what I posted on "Unconditional Love". What others do is not my concern but God's concern. I have no authority over the people thereby I have no responsibility. "Unconditional Love" coupled with praising and thanking God for our pain and situation we are in...works. It is God that open doors and it is God that closes them.

Righteous woman have power with GOD and God can sort out their problems. It may not be in the way they expect...but God will sort it out.

So do righteous men have power with GOD. Jacob by error cursed Rachel and she died later on in childbirth. There certain powers that should only be exercised at the command of GOD. But Jacob never for a moment expected Rachel to have stolen the Idols of his father in law.

So by bringing the power of GOD in our lives we do not need to do anything except love our spouse and let act God in our marriage. IF there is a door being closed..we are not responsible for it...it is GOD's doing and is His will. IF we keep our will out of it...things will be better much quicker.

It is written that "perfect Love" casteth out fear. "Perfect Love" is "Unconditional Love" and people living this love do not force their spouse, nor exert control in a mean way. It is patience, forgiveness, and mercy when our spouse hurt us. And it does not take away the "free will" of our spouse even if it will lead to much hardships down the road.

What you say is true...hence the prophecy of the Lord.. by Isaiah.....I will make men few. Man will be more precious and a golden wedge of Ophir. In other works..Most men are going to be destroyed because of their righteousness.

The ratio of survivors will be 7 women to one man. This is prophesied..as saying that seven women shall take hold of one man and they shall asked to be called by His name in order take away from them the reproach of the Lord.

I know this is true because, Adam and Eve first taught their sons and daughters...that it should be the woman that should do the asking...since they would be putting themselves under the leadership of their husband. And they did counseled their daughters to marry righteous and worthy husbands. In those early days it was forbidden for the man to ask a woman to marry Him. How quickly did Satan turn this around.

However, the world at large is ignorant of this fact and is not held fully accountable by GOD.

Now before I leave...Conditional Love is called darkness by the Lord because it is filled with fears and it is written that fears is torment. Most marriages are based on Conditional Love sense it is our senses that are awakened. And 100% of divorces is because either one or both people in the marriage do not live "Unconditional Love" If one Spouse has hardened their hearts as stones then nothing can reach them until it is broken in small pieces by the Lord. And God is very good at breaking rocky hearts.

bert10

Edited January 3, 2011 by bert10

[Soulsearcher]

The Tao Te Ching says, "Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations; ever desireless, one can see the mysteries."

Some seek to let go of desires, others seek to put it all in God's hands, to have trust and faith...

submitting to another is one way of letting go of desires, of being selfless, of putting it in God's hands. I think it is good to learn to be selfless and humble... (note that humble is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less)

(New Testament | Matthew 11:28 - 30)

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you crest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

When you are able to let go of your ego, when you let go of trying to control others, let go of forcing your way on others, you let go of a heavy burden...

it is not about submitting as much as it is about letting go of personal wants and instead focusing on another... how do I explain it... the Buddhists actually do hold a huge truth regarding controlling desires, letting go of ego, they say it more clearly I think but for Christians I think women are at a huge advantage, and reach spiritual maturity much faster than men, because of the humble role they have been placed in. Women who let go and submit (again, I don't like the word submit - it is a change in perspectives is all, a change in desires - thinking of yourself less) women who can let go of trying to control everything and everyone (and women tend to have to control children etc. etc. so it can be hard to let go of that)... if you can let go, there is sooo much peace to be had.

well... if no one else understood that, it was at least a good reminder for me :)

Except the men must do the same. The idea behind what you are suggesting is more an idea of reaching harmony when both parties have let go of their ego and come to a balance point. The idea you suggest isn't directed only at the women but at all people.

[bert10]

To all: Hopefully this is my last post on this subject... I gave the reasons why things are the way they are today.

It should not be hard to foresee a day soon where Women are going to be called

1. "Priestesses and Queens unto the Most High" and men shall be called

2. "Priests and Kings unto the Most High."

The Man and the woman are ONE And so is the Priesthood. All things are ONE in GOD.

The Mighty and Strong one as it is prophesied in LDS prophecies ....shall come and set the house of GOD in order. In all things pertaining to priesthood and inheritances and ordinances.

So for you woman...reading my posts...hang tight and do not be discouraged.

The things the way they are today...is not the last words on this. And for men reading my posts...

Anyone acting under the guidance of the Spirit is justified in all things that the Spirit commands. Even if it is given to a woman to do the lay on of hands for a healing.

Now if any woman does act in the capacity of a priest. I for one will not judge her. She may be acting by the Spirit of GOD. And GOD has been known in the past to do things to astound us.

Also it is not my business if a woman decides to act in such manner. It is not my church nor my gospel. Miriam was a prophetess and the office of prophets belongs to the priesthood. Though Miriam was not permitted to act in the Church...Moses could have changed this. But He did not.

bert10

[MarginOfError]

Please read D. Michael Quinn "Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843"

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/women/chapter17.htm#Woman

You mean like Plural Marriage in the early days?

Rats, you beat me to it.

Whatever happened to ...the Prophet Joseph Smith or Joseph Smith? You reference him as though he is undeserving of a bit more respect and reverence...particularly on an LDS site....just saying....don't get mad and smite me with your fiery statistical logic :)

I usually use only one word after establishing that I'm talking about him in a discussion. In spiritually oriented discussion, I'll usually use the term Joseph, and in intellectually oriented discussions, I'll use Smith. It isn't meant as a sign of disrespect, but as 1) I feel stupid when I say "Joseph Smith" 100 times in a discussion when it's well established who we're talking about, and 2) I'm too lazy to type the full name all the time.

[MarginOfError]

This is not LDS teachings.

Obviously.

Now what I am about to say has not yet been re-confirmed by the Spirit. Woman have their own priesthood and they automatically get it when they are born. They cannot receive the priesthood of men. They receive the same priesthood of their Heavenly Mother have in heaven. The reason for this is because love and to serve others are already woven in the nature of woman. They do serve and love much better than men.

So pretty much what you're claiming is something you wish were true because it would resolve the cognitive dissonance you feel over the issue. At least we're being objective.

Also, your use of stereotypes is absurd. It's been my experience that men and women serve and love equally well. The only difference is the general way in which the sexes manifest love and service. The fact that women approach it in a way that you value more doesn't make them better at it.

The Lord wish men to learn and love and serve each other as women do. So they must first become worthy of receiving the priesthood and when they do receive it, the priesthood is about Love and service...to each other.

The Father has a role specific to His gender the priesthood for it. And our Heavenly Mother as a role specific to her Gender and nature and the priesthood for it.

Still more conjecture from a fantastical mind.

This is from myself. Women cannot possibly create life in conjunction with heaven unless they had a priesthood. Pro-Creating life is an ordinance and it requires a priesthood for all things in an ordinance is Holy.

And all this time I thought a woman only needed a working uterus and ovaries. Tell me, should we be invoking the authority of that priesthood when we make love?

And what of people who pro-create without proper authorization, ie outside of wedlock? Are their pregnancies less valid? less real? less worthy?

There is a priesthood for women and women receive it automatically at birth and there is a priesthood for men and men must qualify for it. A woman cannot receive the priesthood of men and be given authority over the man.

More conjecture...unless you can provide any reference to justify such a claim. But again, it stinks of a fantasy to explain away the fact that women don't exercise the priesthood. I won't hold my breath for references, however. You've never been one to provide references for any of your wild claims.

The Lord by Isaiah prophesied of our day when society has already overturn the Edicts of GOD. The children are become oppressors and women rule over men. And God said that it is the leaders pf the Lord's people that have caused the people to err. Both the LDS and the Christian Leaders have failed in this thing.

Exactly how have we failed?

In judgment God is going to first ask the man concerning his family. Jut like He did for Adam and Eve. For God has given the authority and responsibility for the family to the husband. Until then the war on who is going to rule in the home will continue to take its toll and remove the peace and the divorce rate will not go down to less than 1 in 10,000 marriages. The last time I read the Stats...90% divorce rate is reached before the 50th anniversary.

That's odd: I'm pretty sure that in Moses 3, when the Lord appears he speaks to Adam and asks "Did you eat the fruit?" Adam quickly responds by pointing the finger at Eve, who then points the finger at the serpent. But the Lord addressed each of them individually, not collectively.

And 90% divorce rate? There's something wrong with that statistic. Were marriages that dissolved by death censored? What's the denominator? What was the median time to follow-up? Again, if you're going to use statistics like that, you need to provide a reference. Professionally, I highly doubt the veracity of that value.

This is not the only reason why the marriage rate is so high..there are others. And as long as men and women continue to adopt worldly philosophies and teachings three out of 10 marriages will know hell on the earth. [Anger, hate, jealousies torments etc]

bert10

Soulsearcher - Have you read what I posted on "Unconditional Love". What others do is not my concern but God's concern. I have no authority over the people thereby I have no responsibility. "Unconditional Love" coupled with praising and thanking God for our pain and situation we are in...works. It is God that open doors and it is God that closes them.

Righteous woman have power with GOD and God can sort out their problems. It may not be in the way they expect...but God will sort it out.

So do righteous men have power with GOD. Jacob by error cursed Rachel and she died later on in childbirth. There certain powers that should only be exercised at the command of GOD. But Jacob never for a moment expected Rachel to have stolen the Idols of his father in law.

So by bringing the power of GOD in our lives we do not need to do anything except love our spouse and let act God in our marriage. IF there is a door being closed..we are not responsible for it...it is GOD's doing and is His will. IF we keep our will out of it...things will be better much quicker.

It is written that "perfect Love" casteth out fear. "Perfect Love" is "Unconditional Love" and people living this love do not force their spouse, nor exert control in a mean way. It is patience, forgiveness, and mercy when our spouse hurt us. And it does not take away the "free will" of our spouse even if it will lead to much hardships down the road.

What you say is true...hence the prophecy of the Lord.. by Isaiah.....I will make men few. Man will be more precious and a golden wedge of Ophir. In other works..Most men are going to be destroyed because of their righteousness.

The ratio of survivors will be 7 women to one man. This is prophesied..as saying that seven women shall take hold of one man and they shall asked to be called by His name in order take away from them the reproach of the Lord.

I know this is true because, Adam and Eve first taught their sons and daughters...that it should be the woman that should do the asking...since they would be putting themselves under the leadership of their husband. And they did counseled their daughters to marry righteous and worthy husbands. In those early days it was forbidden for the man to ask a woman to marry Him. How quickly did Satan turn this around.

First, I'd like to know where it is recorded that Adam and Eve taught their sons and daughters anything of the sort, and how you can confirm that it is divine mandate and not social custom.

Also, I think you completely fail to grasp the context of Isaiah's prophecy. The prophecy was given of a time of war from a time when unmarried and childless women had very little social standing. The seven to one ratio was indicative of many men being lost at war, and women seeking out any man that they could in order to get a married name and impregnated for the purpose of social standing. Their motives for the union were not for family or love or to rule over the man, but to improve their social position. When looking that the scripture in it's proper context, I fail to see how it has any relevance to your overall point.

However, the world at large is ignorant of this fact and is not held fully accountable by GOD.

Now before I leave...Conditional Love is called darkness by the Lord because it is filled with fears and it is written that fears is torment. Most marriages are based on Conditional Love sense it is our senses that are awakened. And 100% of divorces is because either one or both people in the marriage do not live "Unconditional Love" If one Spouse has hardened their hearts as stones then nothing can reach them until it is broken in small pieces by the Lord. And God is very good at breaking rocky hearts.

bert10

To all: Hopefully this is my last post on this subject... I gave the reasons why things are the way they are today.

It should not be hard to foresee a day soon where Women are going to be called

1. "Priestesses and Queens unto the Most High" and men shall be called

2. "Priests and Kings unto the Most High."

The Man and the woman are ONE And so is the Priesthood. All things are ONE in GOD.

The Mighty and Strong one as it is prophesied in LDS prophecies ....shall come and set the house of GOD in order. In all things pertaining to priesthood and inheritances and ordinances.

So for you woman...reading my posts...hang tight and do not be discouraged.

The things the way they are today...is not the last words on this. And for men reading my posts...

Anyone acting under the guidance of the Spirit is justified in all things that the Spirit commands. Even if it is given to a woman to do the lay on of hands for a healing.

Now if any woman does act in the capacity of a priest. I for one will not judge her. She may be acting by the Spirit of GOD. And GOD has been known in the past to do things to astound us.

Also it is not my business if a woman decides to act in such manner. It is not my church nor my gospel. Miriam was a prophetess and the office of prophets belongs to the priesthood. Though Miriam was not permitted to act in the Church...Moses could have changed this. But He did not.

bert10

And now it seems like you've entirely reversed position. What are you trying to say.

More importantly, what are the sources that lead you to this conclusion?

And that is your general problem, bert, is you like to make extraordinary claims and the only reference or authority you cite is yourself. But, so many of your claims are so far beyond ridiculous, it's impossible to take you seriously. Feel free to join us at the big kids' table when you're ready.

[Suzie]

So what? The Prophet gave reasons for all that you have mentioned as well. Not good enough? Unless I am mistaken, he first introduced the practice to his brother Hyrum and the Twelve....they could have denounced him and the practice.

Please follow the debate, otherwise we will be going in circles.

My mention (and Margin's one as well) about Polygamy was a rebuttal to this post:

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH. And the principle would need to be taught to the whole church.

bert10

Bert and you are sharing opinions about women and the Priesthood today YET you haven't been able to explain/share thoughts about women having the Priesthood in the early days of the Church and what happened from here.

[Suzie]

People, don't take it wrong but if you cannot present evidence/documented sources on some of your claims (specially the wild ones) then please state that it is just your personal opinion and that you do not have proof. So I won't bother in asking for it.

This is a thread with historical connotations. I think that if you guys are going to do a rebuttal about the early women having the Priesthood, then it is only fair and logical that you guys will also provide evidence/documented sources that disproves it.

[bytor2112]

Please follow the debate, otherwise we will be going in circles.

I responded to your senseless response to Bert's post of the declaration. Maybe you should have been more clear in your post that you were responding to something else. And frankly, your post regarding the Prophet and polygamy made it sound as though you believe he did something wrong.

[bytor2112]

People, don't take it wrong but if you cannot present evidence/documented sources on some of your claims (specially the wild ones) then please state that it is just your personal opinion and that you do not have proof. So I won't bother in asking for it.

This is a thread with historical connotations. I think that if you guys are going to do a rebuttal about the early women having the Priesthood, then it is only fair and logical that you guys will also provide evidence/documented sources that disproves it.

Aren't you siting personal opinion as well....hmmm. I mean you weren't really there and don't really have proof do you?

[Backroads]

People, don't take it wrong but if you cannot present evidence/documented sources on some of your claims (specially the wild ones) then please state that it is just your personal opinion and that you do not have proof. So I won't bother in asking for it.

This is a thread with historical connotations. I think that if you guys are going to do a rebuttal about the early women having the Priesthood, then it is only fair and logical that you guys will also provide evidence/documented sources that disproves it.

I agree and thank you for bringing this up, but the trouble with historical sources is that you can't assume that they represent all of the historical situation.

[Suzie]

I responded to your senseless response to Bert's post of the declaration. Maybe you should have been more clear in your post that you were responding to something else.

Bytor, with all due respect you are either not reading properly or just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. I don't how more clear I should have been when I quoted what he said and I replied.

What is senseless about it? The historical data? His position was that such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH and we know it was NOT the case with Polygamy. Please point out what is so senseless about my reference on Plural Marriage on this case.

And frankly, your post regarding the Prophet and polygamy made it sound as though you believe he did something wrong.

Ah, pure speculation on your part.

[IAmTheWork]

I mean you weren't really there and don't really have proof do you?

This is part of the reason I don't tend to get involved in many discussions from a 'factual' point of view. There are for and against arguments for everything, with each party involved 'proving' matters with their 'evidence'. I use those words in that way because often concrete evidence turns out to be partially or not at all accurate, rendering the arguments somewhat a waste of time (which is what I meant by 'waste of life' earlier).

In terms of the church, I'd say that what's called factual, and then changed later, is often the reason people leave. It's certainly a reason so many argue constantly about what's true or not. But still, I'm finding this thread an interesting read.

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Punctuation.

[Suzie]

Aren't you siting personal opinion as well....hmmm. I mean you weren't really there and don't really have proof do you?

Oh, so when you share with non-members your beliefs about Christ being the son of God, when you tell them about the story of Joseph and the First vision, etc you tell them they are just your...umm...personal opinion? I didn't know a person has to be "there" in order to prove something (Poor Jesus) and darn it for all those documents through history, they are now wortheless!. Geez, do you know really know what you are saying?

In this case, Margin and I have provided the documentation (and for some reason you are choosing to either ignore it or not comment on it) but I do understand it can make some people uncomfortable, however doesn't change the fact that the evidence is there.

Please prove that the documentation provided it's wrong and inaccurate or at least comment on it in order to have a logical debate. Thanks.

[bytor2112]

Suzie...if you are going to rebutt Bert's post:

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH. And the principle would need to be taught to the whole church.

bert10

Then you could have made that clear by quoting that post rather than the one regarding the declaration...no?

What is senseless about it? The historical data? His position was that such a thing would need to be a commandment to the whole CHURCH and we know it was NOT the case with Polygamy. Please point out what is so senseless about my reference on Plural Marriage on this case.

Senseless in that it had or seemed to have no bearing on Bert's quote which you were responding to :

Originally Posted by bert10

D&C Official Declaration--1

"Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege

that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such

marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past

year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught,

encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy--"

Need I say more?

Ah, pure speculation on your part.

Well....your post is the cause of the speculation:

Joseph Smith first taught plural marriage as early as 1831 to very, very few members. He did not start practicing it until 1835, proclaimed the revelation in 1843 AND the practice in itself remained very secret until Brigham Young announced it in 1852 in a special conference. The whole Church did not practice Polygamy and Joseph Smith did NOT teach about it to the whole Church either.

I dunno maybe it's just me....but your post sounds like something that could be lifted from Sandra Tanner. Why bold "very secret". Unless you are trying to convey some other message? JMO

Edited January 3, 2011 by bytor2112

[Suzie]

Suzie...if you are going to rebutt Bert's post:

Where did GOD instruct J. Smith to give priesthood to woman? And give me the name of the person who was ordained as a priestess?

Then you could have made that clear by quoting that post rather than the one regarding the declaration...no?

Senseless in that it had or seemed to have no bearing on Bert's quote which you were responding to :

*sigh* Please READ post #27.

I dunno maybe it's just me....but your post sounds like something that could be lifted from Sandra Tanner. Why bold "very secret". Unless you are trying to convey some other message? JMO

I didn't know Sandra Tanner has exclusive rights over the term "very secret". Bytor, that's quite paranoid on your part. Please do not hijack the thread.

[IAmTheWork]

Who is Sandra Tanner?

Googled it. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, revised church history, etc?

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork