Receiving the Second Comforter-Personal Visit From Christ?

[Just_A_Guy]

I've been looking a bit more into the writings of Messr. Denver Snuffer, and here's one factoid that his apologists may find interesting:

One of Snuffer's hobby horses appears to be that Elijah's visit to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in April of 1836--if it happened at all--did not constitute the fulness of Elijah's mission. In so doing, Snuffer hints that the provenance of D&C 110 is faulty. From his blog (salient points in bold:

Elijah came to visit the Kirtland Temple in 1836 according to the third person account written by Warren Cowdery in the back of the 3rd volume of revelations in Kirtland. It is the last entry made, and the source of all the later claims made about Elijah, his purpose and appearance. The account is third-person, (i.e., The Lord appeared to them... said to them...., etc.) but when it was later discovered it was reworded to the first person (i.e., The Lord appeared to us.... said to us..., etc.). You can read the original document, actually see a photostatic reproduction of the original, in the Joseph Smith Papers. I give the cite in Passing the Heavenly Gift.

. . . .

There is no mention of the Elijah appearance in 1836, nor 1837, nor 1838 nor '39, '40, '41, '42, '43 nor in 1844, though Joseph does say there will be a future return. After Joseph Smith's death, there was nothing said or known in 1844, '45, '46, '47, '48, '49, '50 nor for years thereafter. When the Kirtland Revelation Book was reviewed in the 1850's the first notice resulted in the revelation being published for the first time in November of the year it was found. Along with the publication was an explanation given by Orson Pratt explaining it was quite significant. He garbles the chronology in that article, and the chronology ever since was taken from his first editorial.

Folks, Snuffer is misrepresenting the revelation's place in the original Smith journal; and he is telling flat-out-untruths with respect to the revelation's subsequent "loss".

The original journal entry is available online via the Joseph Smith Papers Project, here. It is dated April 3, 1836, and is in-line with previous entries from April 2, April 1, March 31, and so on. It is not, as Snuffer would have us think, some spurious last-minute addition tucked in by Warren Cowdery.

Moreover, the revelation was not "lost" for the next two decades or even ignored during the rest of Smith's lifetime. Willard Richards included it in his Manuscript History of the Church entry for April 3, 1836 (also available via the Joseph Smith Papers Project, here). This was certainly done in Smith's lifetime--we know Richards had brought the history up through August 5, 1838 at the time of Smith's death--and probably under Smith's direction. For more on the provenance of D&C 110, and allusions to its doctrines in early LDS thought, see this BYU thesis by Trevor Anderson.

So, Snuffer wants us to think that D&C 110 is faulty, and that the Church may not have the sealing power after all. He has told an untruth in furthering his argument--an untruth I was able to ferret out in half an hour of Googling.

Why has he done this?

Edited April 29, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

I've been looking a bit more into the writings of Messr. Denver Snuffer, and here's one factoid that his apologists may find interesting:

One of Snuffer's hobby horses appears to be that Elijah's visit to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple in April of 1836--if it happened at all--did not constitute the fulness of Elijah's mission. In so doing, Snuffer hints that the provenance of D&C 110 is faulty. From his blog (salient points in bold:

Folks, Snuffer is misrepresenting the revelation's place in the original Smith journal; and he is telling flat-out-untruths with respect to the revelation's subsequent "loss".

The original journal entry is available online via the Joseph Smith Papers Project, here. It is dated April 3, 1836, and is in-line with previous entries from April 2, April 1, March 31, and so on. It is not, as Snuffer would have us think, some spurious last-minute addition tucked in by Warren Cowdery.

Moreover, the revelation was not "lost" for the next two decades or even ignored during the rest of Smith's lifetime. Willard Richards included it in his Manuscript History of the Church entry for April 3, 1836 (also available via the Joseph Smith Papers Project, here). This was certainly done in Smith's lifetime--we know Richards had brought the history up through August 5, 1838 at the time of Smith's death--and probably under Smith's direction. For more on the provenance of D&C 110, and allusions to its doctrines in early LDS thought, see this BYU thesis by Trevor Anderson.

So, Snuffer wants us to think that D&C 110 is faulty, and that the Church may not have the sealing power after all. He has told an untruth in furthering his argument--an untruth I was able to ferret out in half an hour of Googling.

Why has he done this?

Why don't you read his books instead of the blog. It would make more sense.

Either way your Elijah question is found below. (40 pages, enjoy the read )

PDF Version

Elijah Talk

MP3 version

Elijah Talk MP3

As for the Sealing power question, really should read the book. His blog does not explain it. I had the same question until I read it in the book and it made sense.

Simple Google search I found someone else that brings up a similar issue (different argument with no answer though)

Upward Thought: Elijah in D&C 110 and HC 4:207-212

When Denver talks about the Sealing power he is (if I remember correctly, someone more familiar could answer it better) talking about the fullness of the priesthood. This is NOT present in the Church today. Thats a direct quote from Joseph Smith quoted below. Yes Joseph Smith received the Sealing Power, Denver states that too.

"All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (TPJS, pp. 180-81).

That is the fullness of the Gospel. The only way to get the fullness is to be ordained by God himself. Not from any man. This is a short answer. I may add onto it later.

[ElectofGod]

Ok I tracked down part of the answer. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. This is NOT denver speaking in the top half. Its just a mans statement to me in a message.

We all have sealing power in degrees. The temple sealing officiator has authority to seal in some respects, but not to bind the husband and wife together for eternity. A sealer worth his salt will even tell the couple the same. Only the Holy Spirit of Promise can finish this blessing with a true sealing of husband and wife. In many cases that is Christ Himself. In some instances it is a human acting with authority in the capacity of the Holy Spirit of Promise.

Snuffer's Blog: Thursday, October 14, 2010

It is true enough that the restored Gospel allows everyone the opportunity to come to the Temple and receive ordinances which hold the promise of an eternal union. But those are relationships where the parties are on probation. They are given as an opportunity to work out your salvation before God. They are given so that if you are true and faithful, the time may come when you are called up and chosen by the Holy Spirit of Promise to be kings and queens, priests and priestesses, whereas now you are only given opportunity to prove yourself worthy to become such.

To be sealed by the holy spirit of promise means the stamp of approval through that spirit. We have the right to bestow the gift of the holy ghost but does that mean they have it? No. They must become worthy of it to the remission of sins. It is the same with the sealing power. Its "preparatory upon our faithfulness". The literal Sealing power referenced by Denver is beyond this sealing power. Its to state "you have been sealed up unto eternal life" no conditions whatsoever.

Any member and apostle will tell you the same. Its dependent upon our faithfulness to receive the final sealing of our lives.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[mikbone]

When Denver talks about the Sealing power he is (if I remember correctly, someone more familiar could answer it better) talking about the fullness of the priesthood. This is NOT present in the Church today. Thats a direct quote from Joseph Smith quoted below. Yes Joseph Smith received the Sealing Power, Denver states that too.

Where do you get this stuff? The Sealing Power is in the present Church today. The quote that you posted:

By Joseph, January 5th, 1841

Answer to the question, was the

Priesthood of Melchizedeck taken

away when Moses died?

All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the Prophets had the Melchizedeck Priesthood and was ordained by God himself.

Clearly states that when Moses died the Israelites lost the Melchizedek priesthood. This is common knowledge. The Above quote has nothing to do with the what you or DS are trying to purport...

You would probably benefit much from sourcing Joseph Smith from the original manuscript instead of TPJS... Please see January 5, 1841

Edited April 30, 2013 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

Why don't you read his books instead of the blog. It would make more sense.

Either way your Elijah question is found below. (40 pages, enjoy the read )

I'm sincerely grateful for the link, but please understand that I had no "Elijah question". I do not look to Denver Snuffer to tell me what's wrong with the canon of scripture; particularly when he has shown himself to be either ignorant of the historical sources or a liar.

Simple Google search I found someone else that brings up a similar issue (different argument with no answer though)

Upward Thought: Elijah in D&C 110 and HC 4:207-212

That particular post regurgitates the Snuffer-inspired canard about the April 3 entry somehow being spurious because it happens to be the last entry in the book. And it may be worth noting that, in that 1840 sermon the author (and Snuffer) cite, had the scribe used "would" instead of "will" in one instance, Snuffer's whole interpretation would unravel.

And while the author of that blog post is asking questions about that 1840 sermon, here's one more for him to chew on:

If Joseph Smith didn't have authority from Elijah to offer animal sacrifices as late as 1840 in Nauvoo, what's he doing (per Wandle Mace's journal) making arrangements for animal sacrifices before then in the Kirtland temple?

When Denver talks about the Sealing power he is (if I remember correctly, someone more familiar could answer it better) talking about the fullness of the priesthood. This is NOT present in the Church today.

If Snuffer claims that the fullness of the priesthood is to see God, and Snuffer claims that that fullness is not in the Church today, but Snuffer also claims to have seen God, . . .

See the problem? Snuffer arrogates for himself a power he claims the Church is currently denied.

Moreover, reading through Snuffer's scattered blogs, there seems to be a great deal of incoherence. Joseph had the fullness, but Brigham didn't. Joseph didn't have the fullness. The GAs today are the lawful successors to Smith. Oh, wait--my previous books were written on the "assumption that the Church is what it claims to be", which assumption my latest book doesn't make, so I have "no position". Your temple ordinances are important. Your temple ordinances are null and void due to the loss of the sealing power. If you follow the GAs you will be safe. If you follow the GA's you will be subject to the final burning.

Snuffer claims he's just asking questions. Well, Denver, if I walked up to a guy and said "pardon me, sir, but have you ever considered that your wife bears an extraordinary resemblance to a basset hound", would I be allowed to wriggle off the hook by employing your "hey, I'm just asking questions!" schtick?

Will the real Denver Snuffer please stand up?

Edited April 30, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Wow, i as about to answer your questions but if you are going to ask a question based off one paragraph and think you understand what he was saying without reading 40 pages you are the one that is jumping to conclusions. Read what he says than make judgment. I don't judge everything Brigham young said because he told us God had sex with Marry or Adam was our God. Guess he was a fallen prophet. I won't read what else he has stated.

See the problem?

I used that quote to show there are Degrees or potions of MP but its all MP.

If you need the MP to see God than how did moses get it if its given by God? If you need the MP to have angels minister how did he get it?

Its the same problem. Where there is a question there is an answer.

how did Joseph at age 14 see God? Its right in D&C that states God will not be manifested without the priesthood as well.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the aordinances thereof, the power of bgodliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the aauthority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is bnot manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no aman can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wow, i as about to answer your questions but if you are going to ask a question based off one paragraph and think you understand what he was saying without reading 40 pages you are the one that is jumping to conclusions. Read what he says than make judgment. I don't judge everything Brigham young said because he told us God had sex with Marry or Adam was our God. Guess he was a fallen prophet. I won't read what else he has stated.

Did Brigham Young lie about the provenance of a scripture in order to get me to disregard it and buy into Adam-God or any other gospel hobbyhorse? Because it sure looks like that's what Snuffer did.

I used that quote to show there are Degrees or potions of MP but its all MP.

How did that relate to the sealing power?

Do you really think that Denver Snuffer wrote Passing the Heavenly Gift, or delivered the lecture you link to, merely to make sure his readers understood that the Church does not currently do animal sacrifices?

[ElectofGod]

Lets talk about the fulness of the priesthood. Jospeh Fielding Smith stated:

Fullness of the Priesthood

Then in 1841 the Lord revealed to the Prophet that "the fullness of the priesthood" was

available to men only in the temple, in "a house" built to his name. (See D&C 124.) And

in 1843 the Prophet said: "If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God, he has to get

it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the

commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." (Documentary

History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 244.)

Let me put this in a little different way. I do not care what office you hold in the Church -

- you may be an apostle, you may be a patriarch, a high priest, or anything else -- but you

cannot receive the fullness of the priesthood and the fullness of eternal reward unless you

receive the ordinances of the house of the Lord; and when you receive these ordinances,

the door is then open so you can obtain all the blessings which any man can gain.

Do not think because someone has a higher office in the Church than you have that you

are barred from receiving the fullness of the Lord's blessings. You can have them sealed

upon you as an elder, if you are faithful; and when you receive them, and live faithfully

and keep these covenants, you then have all that any man can get.

This entire paraphage he talking about the fullness coming not by being confered to the MP but receiving it in the temple and through our faithfulness. Have you had your endowments? We must obey all the ordinances taught therein (covenants) THAN we will receive the fullness of hte priesthood. There is no other way.

http://emp.byui.edu/jexj/new/talks/talks/JF_S%20Fulness%20of%20the%20Priesthood.pdf

The temple means nothing without obedience. AFTER we are obedient the LITERAL blessings (spiritual) will be given to us. The act of going through it means nothing wihtout living up to our convenants. "Let him converse with the lord through the veil".

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

All physical ordinances are symbolic of the spiritual blessings.

2nd anointing is a physical ordinance of this same concept. according to Brigham Young, the participant "will then have received the fulness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth."[11]

Do you have to have your 2nd anointing to receive those blessings? No. The endowment is symbolic of it and tells us what to do to receive it. It is to receive your C&E. To be sealed up by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

[Just_A_Guy]

None of which I disagree with, EoG.

What happened in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836?

[mikbone]

Be Not Deceived, Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1963

[ElectofGod]

Be Not Deceived, Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1963

I just showed you how we don't have the fullness of hte priesthood. I just PROVED it by showing its not confered on us. I am not deceived. It is given to those who have been obedient to their temple covenants. ONLY THEY have the fullness of the piresthood. Do leaders of the church have it. Yes but only if they too have conversed wiht the Lord through the veil. BUT not from the conferal of the MP.

[ElectofGod]

None of which I disagree with, EoG.

Good so you agree with the fullness of the priesthood not being in the church. It is received from the temple ordinances. By being sealed up by the Holy spirit of promise. To receive our C&E. THAN we will have the fullness of the priesthood because its given to us by God.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Eowyn

[ElectofGod]

As for the Sealing Power question I am not entirely sure I will have to read on it to see if he is saying something different than what I am currently saying. I don't wish to speak for him. So I will speak what I believe after I read up on it a bit more. I THINK its referring to the fullness of hte priesthood because Sealing Power is another name for it. ITS DIFFERENT than the sealing power the temple officiators use. Thats my first instinct not certain.

[mikbone]

I just showed you how we don't have the fullness of hte priesthood. I just PROVED it by showing its not confered on us. I am not deceived. It is given to those who have been obedient to their temple covenants. ONLY THEY have the fullness of the piresthood. Do leaders of the church have it. Yes but only if they too have conversed wiht the Lord through the veil. BUT not from the conferal of the MP.

You tread on unstable ground. We have the Melchizedek priesthood. It is enough for this life. I don't care to have a debate about the temple ceremony in a public web-based format. It is disgraceful at best. We hold these things sacred.

D&C 107:

18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—

19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

We will not have the fullness of priesthood until we become as God is. That is not required of us in this life.

[ElectofGod]

I probably shouldn't keep saying anything on this. I do not know very much about it. I should leave it to someone else who knows what they are talking about. I could be stating things wrong adn I do no choose my words very carefully. I usualy write than fix any problems later that I accidently wrote.

[ElectofGod]

We will not have the fullness of priesthood until we become as God is.

Correct. Though our context of "becoming as God" may be slightly different.

That is not required of us in this life.

Well nothing is required of us in this life. Its only an extra privilege to the ones who do receive it.

I was only talking about the Fullness if Denver is stating something differnt THAN I DONT KNOW WHAT HE WAS SAYING. I should have said that from the beginning.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

d&c 107:

18 the power and authority of the higher, or melchizedek priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—

19 to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of god the father, and jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[mikbone]

See if you can pick out the error in the following passage...

On another occasion, President Romney recalled taking President Grant home following a speech in then-Bishop Romney's ward:

"Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on Denver Snuffer and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"

[ElectofGod]

See if you can pick out the error in the following passage...

On another occasion, President Romney recalled taking President Grant home following a speech in then-Bishop Romney's ward:

"Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on Denver Snuffer and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"

You don't have to tell me anything about Denver. I never heard of the guy myself until a month ago or two ago. What I learned was without the guy. I have not read a single book of his. Only have friends who know the guy personally and readers.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

BTW here is a statement straight from Elder Eyring on the church's sealing power. This is the answer.

The way to do that is clear. The Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come. President Harold B. Lee explained what it means to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise by quoting Elder Melvin J. Ballard:

“We may deceive men but we cannot deceive the Holy Ghost, and our blessings will not be eternal unless they are also sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Ghost is one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men, and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, efficacious, and of full force.”

When Sister Eyring and I were sealed in the Logan Utah Temple, I did not understand then the full significance of that promise. I am still trying to understand all that it means, but my wife and I decided at the start of our nearly 50 years of marriage to invite the Holy Ghost as much as we could into our lives and into our family.

So this is the answer. The Holy Spirit of Promise is what "sealing power" is missing from the church. That part is given by God.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[mikbone]

So this is the answer. The Holy Spirit of Promise is what "sealing power" is missing from the church. That part is given by God.

I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit of Promise is missing from the Church. Like the Church is deficient...

It is not the role of the Church to be the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is our duty as MP holders to partake of and perform ordinances. And live up to our covenants.

Holy Spirit of Promise

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise (Acts 2:33). He confirms as acceptable to God the righteous acts, ordinances, and covenants of men. The Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses to the Father that the saving ordinances have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept.

They who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise receive all that the Father has: D&C 76:51–60; ( Eph. 1:13–14; )

All covenants and performances must be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to have force after this life: D&C 132:7, 18–19, 26;

Using your argument I could likewise say that you are deficient because you are missing a uterus.

Edited April 30, 2013 by mikbone

[ElectofGod]

I wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit of Promise is missing from the Church. Like the Church is deficient...

It is not the role of the Church to be the Holy Spirit of Promise. It is our duty as MP holders to partake of and perform ordinances. And live up to our covenants.

Holy Spirit of Promise

Using your argument I could likewise say that you are deficient because you are missing a uterus.

I take no stance on this. I am just stating what Denver stated as I told Just_days I would find an answer for him.

Just Days asked a question about denver. I was explaining the answer according to Denver not me. He asked how does the church not have the sealing power. I was explaining while the church has the ability to conditionally seal using the power, it does not have the functions of the Holy spirit of Promise. If it did we would NOT need the ratifications of the Holy Spirit of Promise for our temple sealings.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. (D&C 132:7).

I've pointed out that our ordinances contemplate a further ratification from heaven. In D&C 121: 36-37 the power of heaven must ratify priestly power, or it is nonexistent. This is the same principle Joseph wrote about in Liberty Jail. (D&C 121: 36.) In D&C 132: 26 the ratification through the "Holy Spirit of Promise" must confirm a sealing for it to become eternal. Then in D&C 132: 7 we learn it is possible for this to be conferred "on but one on the earth at a time" which made it possible for Joseph Smith to seal up to eternal life. In effect, Joseph became the Holy Spirit of Promise through operation of the Divine appointment to hold the right. That term "Holy Spirit of Promise" we use without adequate appreciation that it can be an office held by Divine appointment. The office is held by more than just a single mortal man at one time, and includes others who minister here as well. These, at a minimum, are the Lord, John the Beloved, the Three Nephite Disciples, Elijah, other angelic ministers, as well as potentially others about whom we know nothing (D&C 49: 8). There is also the meaning of limiting it to one man "on the earth at a time" when it comes to widely separated people without any probability of contact during their lifetimes. An example would be when the Lord in His post-resurrection ministry appointed Apostles in Palestine and Disciples in the New World. He also may have had others in other locations during His many appearances in that season, all of whom were given similar authority to seal. Were they so geographically separated they could be said to be on different earths for all practical purposes? Or is there an exception undiscussed in Section 132 because the world has become smaller and more integrated since the Meridian of Time? I take no position on that, only pose the question.

from the desk of Denver Snuffer: Question on Sealing

THIS power was not transferred to BY only the temple sealings (conditional sealings) was transfered. I think that is what Denver stated. (as Just days asked earlier, what power was he referring to) There are 300 pages explaining what this means.

I am happy to discuss whether this is true. I am just posting Denver's stance.

Edited April 30, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Good so you agree with the fullness of the priesthood not being in the church. It is received from the temple ordinances. By being sealed up by the Holy spirit of promise. To receive our C&E. THAN we will have the fullness of the priesthood because its given to us by God.

But according to that logic, the gift of the Holy Ghost isn't in the Church either; because it--like the sealing power--comes from God, and because it--like the sealing power--may not necessarily come immediately just because someone has received their ordination to it.

I can see how what you're saying is true in one sense; indeed, a lot of this boils down to semantics. But then, why does Snuffer use the turns of phrase that he does if he doesn't mean for us to take them at face value? Does he enjoy shocking his readers?

And, why did he lie?

Given some of the statements in Passing the Heavenly Gift (which I won't quote here, but which have been discussed in detail on other forums); I fear Snuffer is trying to lay the groundwork for something very troubling indeed. It will be interesting to see where all of this takes him. (I found his likening the Church to the "Zion Reich" in the PDF you provided, particularly charming.)

Edited April 30, 2013 by Just_A_Guy