Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

How so?   Honest question.

Also, it doesn't seemed to be empahsised much anymore, but our early Church leaders have said that other gods (lower case) existed.   Who are the council of gods (lower case) mentioned by Joseph Smith?   There may be only one God, but other gods, or at least divine beings that God calls god.   There is God (the only God we worship) and then there are gods.

Different divine persons.  Like the Father, Son, and Spirit.   

Still only ONE God. 

12 minutes ago, Scott said:

My study on religion including henotheism is measured in years, not minutes.  Also, closest definition doesn't mean a perfect definition.   As I have said many time, we are unique.   No one believes as we do.  

Of course, no one is doubting that.  All of these labels also really fall short.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, person0 said:

I gotta admit, despite the fact that I agree we are a monotheistic faith, the above seems either a little disingenuous, or is coming from a paradigm that my brain is not currently using.

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous, nor am I attempting to be clever or cute. This is fundamental to what it means to worship God. I don't pretend to have anything like a perfect understanding, but I know enough to know that we believe in One God. Not many gods (or Gods), but One. I am utterly unpersuaded by "space doctrine" that insists on a childishly naive interpretation of some of Joseph Smith's teachings and weaves out of it a heaven crammed full of Gods who managed to graduate from Earth University with their PhD in God.

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. I am perfectly well aware of the seminary-student-aged model of Daddy and Mommy God leading their unnaughty children to exaltation and coolness. I think there is some real truth in that model, perhaps even profound truth. But it is a vastly oversimplified model. It gives a badly distorted view of reality. And it is not justified by saying that we don't have any other model that's better, so we should go ahead and stick with it. We should not. If we want a model of truth, we should go before the Father and plead for our hearts to be softened and our minds opened, rather than cling to a model that softens the head and befuddles the heart.

Those who insist on bringing so-called "heavenly Mother" into every discussion are very often the selfsame people who love to prattle on endlessly about the wonders of "deification". They would love discussing how many Gods there are, and many would say things about how cool it will be when we get our own planet. And they would probably think they were discussing things of spiritual solidity and depth. I blush even writing such absurdities, yet some of our fellow Saints actually think and talk like that. And not just the teenagers. Consider that when you think about whether this discussion, or others like it, provide any value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

A discussion about whether Latter-day Saints are henotheists centers on two things:

1. What actual belief systems define those who are called "henotheists"?

I believe our difference is that I'm using a dictionary definition and you may be (?) using a historical context pertaining only to the Greeks.

A dictionary definition of the word is simply someone who believes in a single God that we worship, while still acknowledging the existence of other gods (lower case).

Also, you seem to forgetting that I said it is the closest definition (or for clarity, maybe I should say closest dictionary definition) rather than the definition.

Personally, I wouldn't go around saying that "we're henotheistic", but I would most certainly not say that we are monotheistic.  

Quote

 

A discussion about whether men can become "'gods" centers on two things:

1. What exactly is meant by "gods"?

 

That is a good question and a whole different interesting conversation.   

What do you think?

For those of us who grew up in the Church a few decades ago, there was definitely more of an emphasis in that our eternaldestiny is that we were going to become gods (if we reach Exaltation).   It isn't emphasised as much now days, but as far as I know it has never been refuted.


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott said:

For anyone who says that we are monotheistic, here are my simple questions.

1.    Do you believe that other gods exist, even if it isn't the God we worship?

2.    Do you believe that Heavenly mother is a Goddess?

3.    Do you believe that mankind is a God in embreyo, as taught by many of our Church leaders?

This is actually a tricky question.  It depends on what one considers doctrine.

Normally, the only solid doctrine is that which is found in the Scriptures, as everything else seems malleable and thus is not set doctrine.  As per that, many things that we accept as teachings are not actually what we could consider set doctrine, but more of things that have been expressed as opinions by the General Authorities throughout the years.

As per their expressions of belief and theology, they answer some of their own interpretations in relation to your questions above, but doctrinally they did not say...Thus Sayeth the Lord in many instances, or when they have it was discounted by the Church officially later on (for example, how some interpret the Adam/God Doctrine, though I think that was due to how it was misinterpreted by many rather than what it was as we still have many beliefs originating from that belief...such as that of a Heavenly Mother for example).

In this then, it is a harder question to answer.  It is a belief held by many Mormons (both those of that classification in the Church as well as with the fragments and branches from it and those originating from before it), but at the same time, if strictly holding to what is said in the scriptures, is not necessarily Church doctrine.

A prime example would be the King Follett sermon where we get many of the ideas expressed by you in the thread.  It is not found in our scriptures today.  You cannot find it in our canon of scripture, however, the impact it has on many of the beliefs of the Saints who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is undeniable.  We find many of it's tenets in our manuals and other teaching materials and even commentary upon many of it's thoughts in talks in General Conference.  It could be seen as a foundational sermon in relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teachings.  However, it is not actually doctrine...if that makes sense.

Which makes the questions you raise in the thread somewhat tricky for some.

My thought overall...

In theory, one could say that the LDS as a religion may be henotheistic, however, as there is no knowledge of any other deity beyond God, there is no way to really say that the LDS are henotheistic as there are no other references to other deities or their names.  In that light, I'd say we may be no more Henotheistic than any other Christian sect, though whether they would qualify as Henotheistic as well is debatable.

This as opposed to that of the Greeks who had names for different Deities (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Ares, etc...) and devotion to just one of them could be seen as a Henotheistic approach.

On the otherhand, as belief among the Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has quite a bit of leeway in regards to belief, where one may believe one thing and another something different, and a wide latitude given between them, it is entirely possible for one Latter-day Saint to be completely monotheistic, while another would be Henotheistic...in my current thought in relation to your ideas.  I think it is relative to each members understanding and interpretation of the scriptures in relation to other statements and ideas presented by the Brethren through the years.

For me, I feel as I am Monotheistic in my belief.  For me we only have our God, the God that we worship.  We have Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and is also the Father in that he created all things, and saved us from Sin and Death.  He is also our Savior and who we approach the Father through, for it is through him we pray and him that our salvation is achieved.  We have the Holy Ghost through which all things are manifest and which we can know the truth and be comforted.  But, we worship God who is the Father of all things and Master of All there is.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Scott said:

I believe our difference is that I'm using a dictionary definition and you may be (?) using a historical context pertaining only to the Greeks.

Scott, I know that sometimes I come across in this forum as scolding or severe, or even petulant. But I usually don't mean to be that way. I admit that this particular subject matter bothers me, like discussions on Kolob or how women actually already hold the Priesthood or other such irritants. But I don't mean to put that on you. It's the ideas I find irritating, not the people discussing them. I'm not aware that I've been unkind in this particular series of exchanges, but if I have, I sincerely apologize. That has not been my intent.

Now, to your point:

"Henotheism" is a technical term. It was coined for a particular discussion and in reference to a particular belief set, which is described as "worshiping one god but believing in the existence of other gods." BUT THAT IS AN OVERSIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION. It's a "shorthand" description. The word does indeed refer to people who worship only one god but believe in the existence of others—in a specific context. And that context is that of ancient Greeks and the evolution of their pantheon.

Like many or most other ancient peoples, the ancient Greeks believed in all sorts of gods, some local, some more general. There was a god of fire, and a god of water, and a god of the hearth, and a god of the doorsill, and a god of hunting, and a god of growing grain, and a god of growing turnips, and a god of love, and a god of carnality, and a god of fertility, and a god of alcoholic beverages, and a god of conducting business, and a god of trees, and a god of clouds, and a god of thunder, and a god of stones, and a god of metal, and a god of woodworking, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. The Greeks were so afraid of leaving out some minor god and incurring his wrath that they built a special temple to "the unknown god", so that any overlooked god might assume that the temple was built for him. That way, the god of bad breath wouldn't curse the people for forgetting to worship him. 

Some of the very ancient Greek tribes (and others) worshiped what they thought was the most powerful god, or maybe the one they were most likely to get favors from. They did not deny the existence of all the other gods; they simply concentrated on the one they devoted themselves to.

That is the meaning of "henotheism".

LDS religious understanding is utterly alien to this. We believe in the Father, the Creator of all things including, in some sense, our very selves. We believe in the Son as being, in essence, the Father's hands in creation and government. We believe that the Son was called to be our Savior, and that he wrought an act of reconciliation between us and the Father, something we call "Christ's atonement". We don't understand the mechanics of the atonement, not at all, not even a little*. But that doesn't matter. We believe in the Holy Ghost, literally a spirit from God, a divine being who can dwell within us and reveal the Father and the Son to us, whose influence on us can cleanse us and make us worthy, able, and eager to stand in the very presence of God and bathe his feet with our tears of gratitude and love. And these beings are God, each of them and all of them. We also believe we have a Mother who is fitted for and equal to our Father, and to whom we therefore assign qualities like "perfection" and "omniscience" and "omnipotence". But we don't really understand what we're saying. Mostly, these are just words, and we use them because they are all we have. But if we have the Spirit, then the words might be revealed to us, and we have some actual understanding, not just words but real knowledge.

*(I am convinced we never will understand the mechanics of it until far in our future, after our resurrection, both because it is so far beyond our comprehension of how spiritual mechanics work that we literally have no context to understand, and because the mechanics of the atonement are as irrelevant as the chemical mechanics of how we digest our food. The important point is that the thing works, not that we understand how it works.)

So now, are we really going to use a word that was invented to describe an evolutionary state of primitive religion among ancient peoples three thousand years ago as a modern description of latter-day revealed truths? What possible sense does it make to say that Latter-day Saints are "henotheists"? Does it increase anyone's understanding of eternal principles, even a little tiny bit? Does it bring anyone to Christ? Does it create in the minds of people, Latter-day Saints or otherwise, an accurate picture of what it is to be a member of the kingdom of God?

I submit it does none of these things. It does the opposite. It creates confusion and ambiguity. It adds needless complexity and obfuscates what it is supposed to illuminate, all for the sake of using a ten-dollar word.

We are not "henotheists". Period. No way. I agree that the correct worldly term to describe us and our belief system does not exist, unless that word is "reality". But saying that we are "reality people" doesn't help anyone come to Christ. So if we're going to describe ourselves in the most truthful way possible using the inaccurate terms at our disposal, "henotheism" is the wrong choice. "Monotheism" is, without a shadow of doubt, the best available term. Whatever it lacks in nuance, it more than makes up for in creating an overall accurate and reasonable picture in the minds of the hearers. We are not henotheists or polytheists. We are monotheists.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 3:55 PM, brotherofJared said:

Conversion comes through the Holy Ghost regardless of who the person believes is God. A Muslim who prays to Allah 5 times a day can be just as equally saved as the Christian who prays and preaches the word from the Bible. There is no wrong way to worship. But our worship is significantly enhanced when we know who we worship and why we worship him.

There are some very wrong ways to worship. Cain discovered this. The Canaanites discovered it. The Israelite soldier who rushed to prop up the falling Ark of the Covenant discovered it. Certainly, the prophets of Baal found this out. It is true that some religions that I might consider "false," can prepare souls for the gospel. There are reports of Muslims seeing Jesus in visions/dreams, telling them He is the Son of God. Since Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet they listen. Once they understand, some convert. Had they not been taught that Jesus is a prophet they may not have. So, yes, some wrong ways of worship can still help prepare...but of themselves, they are still wrong. I am thankful for God's mercy, and try hard to be slow to speak and quick to listen. Also, I suspect we all do our best missionary work when we lift up Jesus and our faith rather than try to tear others' beliefs down. Still...I cannot say there is no wrong way to worship.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
40 minutes ago, Maureen said:

What if they thought well of you? Could they still go rot?

M.

Jeff: Hey Laura, will you go out with me?
Laura: No thank you. 
Jeff: Good, because I didn't like you anyway

 

The rest of us: Jeff, you obviously did like her because you just asked her out. You are just saying that now to make yourself feel better.

Same thing. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous, nor am I attempting to be clever or cute. This is fundamental to what it means to worship God. I don't pretend to have anything like a perfect understanding, but I know enough to know that we believe in One God. Not many gods (or Gods), but One. I am utterly unpersuaded by "space doctrine" that insists on a childishly naive interpretation of some of Joseph Smith's teachings and weaves out of it a heaven crammed full of Gods who managed to graduate from Earth University with their PhD in God.
. . .

Okay, if that is how you see it, it appears we are in disagreement, I suppose.  It is possible I may be misunderstanding the intent of your words, but to me, the teachings are clear.  The Church has published the King Follet sermon in the Ensign, and even recently has sanctioned a Gospel Topics Essay devoted to the subject of becoming like God.  The Gospel Principles manual teaches becoming like God as an eventuality for the exalted.  I have seen you post, many times, a disagreement of such principles on this forum; I do not understand your disagreement.  Based on your characterization in the post from which I quoted you, I imagine you hold some sort of animosity toward the teaching, as you have characterized it in a way I believe belittles the intent behind the teaching.

From what I know of you, I imagine your resistance to the principle that we may become gods like our Father in Heaven stems from a sincere desire to lead others away from an improper focus and toward a focus on the most important aspects of the gospel.  I agree that it is not something upon which people ought to place their focus, however, I disagree that steering them away from the teaching altogether is appropriate.  I believe we should distinguish exactly what we know and teach to be true, and designate all else as wasteful speculation.

Church sanctioned resources available to all teach statements such as:

Quote

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” . . .

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:  They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62). They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23). . . They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

(Gospel Principles CH 47 - Exaltation) emphasis added

Quote

Since that sermon, known as the King Follett discourse, the doctrine that humans can progress to exaltation and godliness has been taught within the Church. Lorenzo Snow, the Church’s fifth President, coined a well-known couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.43 Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught. When asked about this topic, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley told a reporter in 1997, “That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.” When asked about the belief in humans’ divine potential, President Hinckley responded, “Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.” . . . Humankind’s divine nature and potential for exaltation have been repeatedly taught in general conference addresses, Church magazines, and other Church materials.

(Gospel Topics - Becoming Like God)

Either we can become gods or we can't.  Just because we don't understand in full measure what it means, doesn't mean we should ignore, or cast aside, the few things we do understand.  It is completely accurate to suggest that very little has been revealed about the 'history' so to speak of God our Father and that we ought not to speculate.  It is 100% true that it is unnecessary, inappropriate, and a waste of focus for people to be speculating about Heavenly Mother, or really even making suggestions beyond the simple recognition that she exists.  We should call those people out, and point to and encourage them to focus on things of greater spiritual value.  For all we know, the process of becoming like God to the extent that we are taught is possible will take millennia or more; in fact Joseph Smith taught as much:

Quote

"It will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave”

I believe that I can become a god, like God our Father and Christ our Savior.  I believe that means I can become like them to the extent of possessing all power, knowledge, and perfections.  I have no idea what or how long it will take to accomplish such a magnanimous task, I only know what we are taught we must do in this life to begin to prepare for that possibility.

If there is something I have written above in this post that is not in direct agreement with current teachings of the Church, please feel free to point it out.  However, I am confident that what I have written is accurate, and the sources from which I have drawn are valid and appropriate.

In my opinion, I think a fairly accurate way to explain the Latter-Day Saint position on the concept of 'gods' would be to say that we assert our worship of and belief in the One True God while remaining agnostic to the existence of any other.  Regardless, I think individuals should focus on the principles that draw them nearer to Christ by perfecting themselves as much as possible right now and shouldn't worry themselves with trivial, and especially, speculative matters.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it, I haven't really been reading everything, but the thing I haven't seen is this:

Henotheism (if I understand correctly) is a belief that there are multiple gods who are all worship-able, but I'm just going to worship this one that I prefer.

Monotheism says there is only one worship-able God.

And that is why we are monotheists and not henotheists.  No matter whether we become gods or not, we will always have exactly one worship-able God.  No matter whether there are other gods who are currently "peers" with our God (whether in this universe or their own other universes), they will never be worship-able for us.  They cannot bless us, save us, exalt us, redeem us, condemn us, or buy us an ice cream - they are not and can never be ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

"It will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave”

Doctrine and Covenants 132:37 gives us an approximate timeframe for how long it has taken some people: from the time of the death of Jacob until 1831 - 1843. We may be able to narrow the timeframe down further if we accept the idea that Christ was resurrected before anyone else.

37  Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:37)

As to the idea that we can become gods, we don't need to rely on the King Follette discourse to establish that. Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 makes it pretty clear. 

20  Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them.  Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:20)

For what its worth, verse 19 of section 132  also gives a slight idea of one of the responsibilities of these other gods:

and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:19)

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2019 at 8:01 AM, prisonchaplain said:

Before we go further I would love some input on this. My understanding is that believing in many gods but worshiping only one is called henotheism. Some LDS scholars accept that the LDS Godhead could be called henotheistic. However, such is not church doctrine. Most here, and I believe the official church stance, is that LDS are monotheistic--that the Godhead is truly one God. So, before I go about defending belief in the one God, can others help and inform us as to whether there is an official church teaching on this (or perhaps utterances from prophets)?

Hi @prisonchaplain I've only read bits and pieces of this thread so perhaps your question has already been answered, but I think the best and simples statement of official doctrine on this topic is our first Article of Faith - We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost (Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:1)

I would be a little surprised if someone hadn't mentioned it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

And the Trimurti is ALSO one deity.  It is three deities and ONE deity.  The Three aspects are also three different beings, each expressing a different action and idea.

This is incorrect.  Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not 3 aspects of one deity.  They are 3 deities.  The Trimutri does not create one deity out of them.  Rather, the Trimutri combines their 3 aspects to encompass the entirety of human existence.  Although Brahma is believed to have done something awful which caused him to fall completely under the direction of Vishnu and Shiva, neither Vishnu nor Shiva act as a single entity.  The fact that Brahma can do something that which Vishu and Shiva are against proves that the Trimutri is completely incomparable to the Trinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, person0 said:

I gotta admit, despite the fact that I agree we are a monotheistic faith, the above seems either a little disingenuous, or is coming from a paradigm that my brain is not currently using.

For Christians, what @Vort stated is actually the ONLY answer.  God has told us that there is no other God but Him.  All others are false gods - or, in other words, not god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Scott said:

I am speaking of more than just Persons in the Godhead.   I am speaking of other gods existing that are not in the Godhead.  Our church has taught that for a long time (dating back to Joseph Smith).

There are no other gods existing that are not in the Godhead.  Every person that attains Godhood becomes a Person in the Godhead.  There is One God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scriptures and modern revelations are clear in there declaration of One True God that we worship.  Of the man created theisms Monotheism fits that best.  But then scriptures and modern revelation throw us a "Mystery of Godliness" that One True God is the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.  As a mystery we do not fully understand it, and we should not be surprised that something we do not understand we can not define very well.

While we can acknowledge that it pushes the definition of Monotheism... all the other theism destroy the plain and simple truth of Oneness and as such they are even worse and more misleading then Monotheism... That leaves Monotheism as still the best answer.

The other theism all require a division among the Gods in question.  The scriptures and modern revelations are clear God is not divided.  When such scriptures talk about the differences it is always in the context of how it all works together.  Both Hentotheism and Polytheism suggest/require divisions that are contrary to the revealed word of God on the matter and are therefore more incorrect then Monotheism.

Now the Restored Church of Christ takes it even farther then the rest of Christianity with the ideas of Exaltation and Heavenly Mother.  However no doctrine supports the idea of anyone being able to achieve such a status without first becoming One with the Father and Son.  With that oneness there is no division.  Thus we have a very clear line.  Either they are One with God (no matter the number or role) or they are false Gods.  And that still fits Monotheism best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Every person that attains Godhood becomes a Person in the Godhead.

Um, source please?  That is a dangerous road.  By that definition, according to D&C 132:37, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all current members of the Godhead and as such are worshiped when we worship the One True God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, person0 said:

Um, source please?  That is a dangerous road.  By that definition, according to D&C 132:37, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all current members of the Godhead and as such are worshiped when we worship the One True God.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and any other people in the Plan of Salvation including prophets seers and revelators and even angels are not current members of the Godhead because they have not attained Godhood as far as is revealed.  Judgement Day has not yet come to pass. 

In the revealed gospel, there are 3 Persons in the Godhead - The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  God did not see fit to talk about Heavenly Mother.  We simply assume by inference she is a person in the Godhead as we assume the Father and Mother are eternal companions.

When we pray, we specifically pray to the person that is The Father in the Godhead in the name of His Son Jesus Christ.

For scripture reference:  John 17:11

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob . . . have not attained Godhood

Okay, whatever.

Quote

Abraham . . . Isaac also and Jacob. . . have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.  (D&C 132:37)

_______________________________________________________________________

Why can't we all just admit and acknowledge the fact that there is one God, that we worship the One True God, but that the intricacies of exaltation and our capacity to become a god, like God our Father is complicated?

_______________________________________________________________________

Given the absence of a response to my lengthier post above, for now, I will assume a silent (perhaps grudging) acknowledgement of its accuracy and veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share