Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Book of Mormon is a conundrum.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, champatsch said:

You don't know much about this, I gather. If you haven't studied any of this material somewhat carefully, then you can't know that what you just wrote here is accurate. It isn't accurate, and you don't know the subject matter, but that hasn't dissuaded you from asserting things. I guess it doesn't matter to you that you may be recklessly throwing out a lot of misinformation.

On a general note, the Book of Mormon has many patterns and individual instances that are archaic but different from biblical patterns and individual instances. MANY. Over and over. They are not in pseudo-biblical texts. They had entered obsolescence by Joseph's time, or were truly obsolete. This applies to the vocabulary and the grammar, including syntax.

I’m not claiming expertise on linguistics and I’m not attempting to be wreckless with my commentary.  I would like to know what evidence you have to support the claim that the words of the BoM dictation would constitute a “foreign language” to Joseph Smith specifically, not just other written texts by different authors.  That’s a pretty strong claim that some might consider unsupported by actual evidence and perhaps even wreckless.  

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not claiming expertise on linguistics and I’m not attempting to be wreckless with my commentary.  I would like to know what evidence you have to support the claim that the words of the BoM dictation would constitute a “foreign language” to Joseph Smith specifically, not just other written texts by different authors.  That’s a pretty strong claim that some might consider unsupported by actual evidence and perhaps even wreckless.

It doesn't "constitute a foreign language" but is strongly analogous to a foreign language. In other words, Joseph's ability to use a variety of EModE features in his dictation was about as likely as his ability to suddenly start spouting off Chinese. The working assumption is that it is highly unlikely that Joseph was ever exposed to the collective EModE features in the BofM, and therefore they would have essentially been foreign to his working vocabulary. 

When it comes to Joseph's ability to understand the EModE in the text, however, it is different matter and isn't really analogous to a foreign language. Notice that champatsch contextualized his statement in regard to what Joseph could speak, rather than just what Joseph could read or comprehend. 

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
2 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I tend to agree with you. There comes a point where you have to seriously consider that things were simply made up or copied.

Or not.  There comes a point at which intertextuality takes over in rich and compelling ways well beyond any human capacity. For example, what does one do when the facile notion of plagiarism meets with sophisticated and strategic deletions of spurious words or verses?  Wouldn't that require a degree from Harvard?  After all, Joseph did live nearby with his uncle in Salem, Mass, for awhile.  How could Joseph know that the rivers of Eden should not appear in the Book of Abraham because they are a late gloss in Genesis?  Likewise, how could he know that the Greek  eikē "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22  was a spurious addition, and thus left it out of 3 Ne 12:22?

2 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

There are A LOT of “coincidences” in church history. 

Of course, but that would likely always be the case among God's covenant people, as it has been for the Jews.  If you're in for a penny of holiness, you may just have to be in for a pound (or pocketful) of miracles.  For example, as one of many very striking chronological coincidences for the Mormons, consider the formal Exodus of the Saints to the Great Basin (D&C 136):  The two main companies headed West in a Jewish Jubilee Year, at the center of which was the miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets.  No Mormon at that time realized the coincidence.

It would be easy to dismiss as mere coincidence the massive gathering of the Jews to the Holy Land in our time, but Joseph sent Orson Hyde to the Holy Land to dedicate it to the final gathering of the Jews and to the building of their temple -- which Orson dutifully did on the Mount of Olives in 1841 (His prayer in Hebrew and English can be found there today in the Orson Hyde Garden).  These and a host of other events need not be taken seriously.  They are after all only coincidences.

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It doesn't "constitute a foreign language" but is strongly analogous to a foreign language. In other words, Joseph's ability to use a variety of EModE features in his dictation was about as likely as his ability to suddenly start spouting off Chinese. The working assumption is that it is highly unlikely that Joseph was ever exposed to the collective EModE features in the BofM, and therefore they would have essentially been foreign to his working vocabulary. 

When it comes to Joseph's ability to understand the EModE in the text, however, it is different matter and isn't really analogous to a foreign language. Notice that champatsch contextualized his statement in regard to what Joseph could speak, rather than just what Joseph could read or comprehend. 

What’s the evidence to support the thesis with respect to how Joseph spoke/dictated the BoM text in comparison to a him being able to speak a foreign language?  Is it just speculation and inference without actual supporting evidence?  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Gray said:

Well, it's true that sacred texts mean different things to different people. What I was talking about was what Daniel meant to its author(s) and their audience. There is of course ample evidence in the scriptures for the common practice of eisegesis. Matthew is full of it. Reading new meanings into an existing text isn't theologically "wrong" per se.

What I meant to suggest was that the strong New Testament Christological tendencies throughout the BofM are not new in the NT, but were already fully accepted by the Essenes.  The Christians are latecomers to that broadly-based notion, as Jewish scholars now admit:

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Michael Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not claiming expertise on linguistics and I’m not attempting to be wreckless with my commentary.  I would like to know what evidence you have to support the claim that the words of the BoM dictation would constitute a “foreign language” to Joseph Smith specifically, not just other written texts by different authors.  That’s a pretty strong claim that some might consider unsupported by actual evidence and perhaps even wreckless.  

Do you need full citations to all of the relevant Carmack and Skousen articles?  Perhaps in the meantime you could name one scholar who differs with them on the nature of EModE and its use in the BofM.  I haven't seen any substantive discussion which calls their work into question.

I know of no evidence which would support your position on this matter, and you would be doing everyone a great favor if you could provide such.  This is a secular scholarly endeavor, and all the data you can provide would be very helpful.

Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 12:28 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, I had a full answer here and the system dropped the whole thing.  Doesn't the system save a draft?

I hate it when that happens! Let me know if you get an answer about the draft thing? At least three or four times I have lost things I worked an hour on. Now I write my replies in Word and cut and paste! 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Or not.  There comes a point at which intertextuality takes over in rich and compelling ways well beyond any human capacity. For example, what does one do when the facile notion of plagiarism meets with sophisticated and strategic deletions of spurious words or verses?  Wouldn't that require a degree from Harvard?  After all, Joseph did live nearby with his uncle in Salem, Mass, for awhile.  How could Joseph know that the rivers of Eden should not appear in the Book of Abraham because they are a late gloss in Genesis?  Likewise, how could he know that the Greek  eikē "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22  was a spurious addition, and thus left it out of 3 Ne 12:22?

 

I don’t know. Why did he include the 17th century errors when copying from Isaiah?

Edited by 10THAmendment
Link to comment
On 3/15/2019 at 2:37 PM, hope_for_things said:

My comment about it being a fridge theory is independent of the veracity of the actual work you've done. 

Fridge theories leave me cold!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, your personal fall back that God is the author.  

Actually there is a place for this in a discussion of where faith and religion are intermingled in the discussion. It is and always has been the position of most of the LDS posters here that God was directly involved in the production of the Book of Mormon. The post on which you made your remarks was pointed towards those people, if you will recall, where the subject of an intermediary translator had been raised, which is something that Stanford Carmack has not proposed. My point to those who accept the divine providence of the Book of Mormon is that with God, there is no intermediary translation or translator needed. (After all, this is a Mormon Discussion and Dialogue board. One should expect some naive soul to every now and then speak up and say something like if God did it, it would explain this or that thing.)

The EmodE that appears in the Book of Mormon is just one of the elements that up to this point defy a naturalistic explanation. You dismiss the EmodE as a fringe theory, but it is not a theory at all. Unless Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen are totally incompetent idiots, it is there but not apparent in Joseph's new England environment or in his personal writings.

Glenn

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I meant to suggest was that the strong New Testament Christological tendencies throughout the BofM are not new in the NT, but were already fully accepted by the Essenes.  The Christians are latecomers to that broadly-based notion, as Jewish scholars now admit:

While there are some similarities with Essene belief and Christology, many elements are still disputed. Further I think there are elements in the Book of Mormon not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course Nephi presents many teachings as newly revealed as do others. While I think Christology would be more prominent before the Priestly and Deuteronomist reforms and redactions, it's hard to establish that. But certainly some elements remained both in the Enochian tradition as well as the idea of the angel of presence, especially in Aramaic peshers. But what Christology was among the Jews in Jerusalem? It's hard to know. Nephi doesn't present Lehi as having much and Lehi's version of the vision seems less explicitly Christian than Nephi's. It's also worth noting that the Lehites appear to be refugees from the northern Kingdoms which likely had different prophetic traditions and texts. So little is know of pre-exilic Judaism that it seems odd for critics to attack the Book of Mormon on this point.

49 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I don’t know. Why did he include the 17th century errors when copying from Isaiah?

This is a fair point. We can't really point to the portions of Isaiah that seem to have variants from the KJV that line up with the Hebrew texts without explains why the rest of the texts don't. Some consistency in explaining Isaiah quotations is in order - especially relative to anachronistic quotations of some passages usually seen as post-exilic. If we say there were proto-texts that became our current Isaiah in the exile, then we have to explain why the Book of Mormon follows the KJV for such passages. But typically those explanations undermine the significance of places where the text breaks with the KJV.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What’s the evidence to support the thesis with respect to how Joseph spoke/dictated the BoM text in comparison to a him being able to speak a foreign language?  Is it just speculation and inference without actual supporting evidence?  

I suspect he's referring to this FAIR presentation. I've not been able to find a transcript anywhere. (As people know I hate when people link to a YouTube video as it's rather difficult to deal with let alone watch) He did have a PDF handout tied to his talk. It has links to a few of his well known papers. And unfortunately a bunch of YouTube videos.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment

Isn't this all a moot point since I can't find anything in the Baptismal questionnaire or in the missionary's teaching manual about baptism that requires a belief in the historicity of the BOM to be baptized in the LDS church? Is it not also the case that many current important beliefs (even if I have called them non-essential?) in the LDS faith are not found in the BOM, but in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price?  Shouldn't we be questioning their historicity and validity? I understand the theory of Moroni's challenge in Moroni 10, but don't understand why it is so important to believe (in the 21st century) that the BOM is true when it contains so little of the doctrinal essence of current LDS theology? Of course most of these type of beliefs in pre-existent spirits, three levels of heaven, exaltation, that the LDS Church is the only true and living church, etc. are also not on the baptism questionnaire. Am I missing something, or is this BOM debate just an intellectually stimulating challenge for most of you? Except for one question about Joseph Smith's restoration of the church and the current Prophet, the baptism questionnaire and teaching could be taken from any church's requirement for baptism? Every group has its own word of wisdom, emphasis on tithing, etc.? Sometimes I think I am missing something? The BOM doesn't necessarily seem anachronistic to the time it was written as much as it is today in the real world of Mormon doctrine? Notice that is a question not a statement. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Isn't this all a moot point since I can't find anything in the Baptismal questionnaire or in the missionary's teaching manual about baptism that requires a belief in the historicity of the BOM to be baptized in the LDS church? Is it not also the case that many current important beliefs (even if I have called them non-essential?) in the LDS faith are not found in the BOM, but in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price?  Shouldn't we be questioning their historicity and validity? I understand the theory of Moroni's challenge in Moroni 10, but don't understand why it is so important to believe (in the 21st century) that the BOM is true when it contains so little of the doctrinal essence of current LDS theology? Of course most of these type of beliefs in pre-existent spirits, three levels of heaven, exaltation, that the LDS Church is the only true and living church, etc. are also not on the baptism questionnaire. Am I missing something, or is this BOM debate just an intellectually stimulating challenge for most of you? Except for one question about Joseph Smith's restoration of the church and the current Prophet, the baptism questionnaire and teaching could be taken from any church's requirement for baptism? Every group has its own word of wisdom, emphasis on tithing, etc.? Sometimes I think I am missing something? The BOM doesn't necessarily seem anachronistic to the time it was written as much as it is today in the real world of Mormon doctrine? Notice that is a question not a statement. 

You might want to take a closer look at both biblical and BofM theologies, Navidad.  In many ways, it is all already there.  See my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I don’t know. Why did he include the 17th century errors when copying from Isaiah?

I don't know about errors, but I did pick up on the variant readings in KJV editions in 1984 when I began publishing the first Book of Mormon Critical Text, 2nd ed., vol. III (FARMS, 1987), iv-v, saying:

Quote

     In  the course of  this basic research project, we have made a   number of text critical discoveries--several of which buttress what Roberts, Sperry, Vest, and Larson (and others) have   noted about  the strong likelihood that Joseph Smith (and Oliver Cowdery together?) utilized a King James Bible for comparison when translating clearly parallel sections of  text.   From our notes in III Nephi, for example, we can select words which are located in the midst of parallels to Matthew 5  & 6, Isaiah 52  & 54, Micah  5, and Malachi 3, which read in accordance with the 1828  H. &  E. Phinney edition of the King James Bible and against both the 1611 and current KJV. This not only demonstrates Joseph's strong bond with the KJV, but even tells us which possible edition, or editorial family, he (or Oliver) had in front of him  on those rare occasions when it became useful or efficient. Thus far, we have isolated a  whole series of Book of Mormon parallel readings which can be found in the Phinney Bible  (copies of which were available in the E. B. Grandin  Bookstore in Palmyra),  e.g., at certain points the text reads "my" rather than "mine," "thy"  rather  than "thine," etc.[1] This does not tell us whether other KJV Bibles  published during that period exhibit the  same variant readings; that is a question  requiring  further  research.  On the one hand, it may reflect the very practical  turn of mind of Joseph as a  translator in seeking the most efficient mode by which to render already available biblical passages. The economy of God would be well served thereby. On the other hand, did Oliver's purchase of a  Phinney  Bible on 8 October 1829, midway through the production of  his  Printer's  ("Emended") Manuscript  reflect an interest in achieving stylistic uniformity for the biblical parallels in the Book of Mormon? Even earlier than that, had the interaction of translator and scribe become over time synergistic and symbiotic?   Researchers ought  to  examine such questions inductively.

[1] See the Matthean parallels in III Nephi 12:23b, 25a, 40a, 13:17a  (two items), 30a   (two items); Isaiah 52:14  &  54:2,5  in III Nephi 20:44a, 22:2a,5a; Micah 5:12-13 in III Nephi 21:16a,17b; Malachi 3:10 in III Nephi 24:10a; cf. II Ne 16:13, III Ne 9:2, 12:9, 18:33b, 20:16c, 21:14a, 28:34a, and 29:5a.

 

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hate it when that happens! Let me know if you get an answer about the draft thing? At least three or four times I have lost things I worked an hour on. Now I write my replies in Word and cut and paste! 

Some people claim that the edit button helps recover drafts, but I now do what you do just to be safe.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Except that 19th century republications of the "more part" is rare and usually not the type of thing a frontier farmer like Joseph Smith would be perusing through. The fact that the phrase shows up in legal minutia across the ocean doesn't significantly add to the plausibility of Joseph stumbling upon it and noticing it, much less the entire suite of EModE features in the text.    

Maybe more accurate to say that 21st century examples of 19th century republications of "the more part" are rare, which of course doesn't speak to the availability of such primary sources in the 19th century.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I meant to suggest was that the strong New Testament Christological tendencies throughout the BofM are not new in the NT, but were already fully accepted by the Essenes.  The Christians are latecomers to that broadly-based notion, as Jewish scholars now admit:

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Michael Wise, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Sure, but the Essenes themselves were wanton presentists in how they interpreted scripture.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, champatsch said:

That's lazy work. What's the true date of this language?

Yes.

 

13 hours ago, champatsch said:

Anyway, that kind of evidence is almost entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. There are several important aspects of the Book of Mormon's more part usage, which I've laid out twice before in two different papers.

In your opinion was the Book of Mormon composed in the 15th century or thereabouts?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, champatsch said:

That's a distraction, since the same thing can be stated otherwise, for those that have other priorities. For example, it can be said, quite accurately, that the data fully support the notion that Joseph Smith was not the author or the English-language translator of the text.

Certainly your interpretation of the data you've found supports that.

 

13 hours ago, champatsch said:

Those with other priorities might actually agree with this if they study the linguistic data carefully, and then merely assume that there were other human authors, something that has actually been put forward before.

I imagine you know this, but are just trying to be difficult. 

Not trying to be difficult. If you're doing scholarship then I have to question why you would claim that your data can possibly prove something about what God did.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Does being an historical analysis somehow automatically make them right? And I beg to differ. Like their's, mine is an interpretation, but I posit that it is true to the text of Daniel, while their's is not. I also posit that mine is an historical analysis.  Which verse would you like me to clarify from the standpoint of an historical analysis? (I will posit for this purpose that chapter 12 is not historical, but still virtually all to come, so I am speaking of 10 & 11)

By definition yours is not a historical analysis because it is grounded in your theological presuppositions and presentism. Historical analyses follow historical methods of interpretation and checks for reliability.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, champatsch said:

That's a distraction, since the same thing can be stated otherwise, for those that have other priorities. For example, it can be said, quite accurately, that the data fully support the notion that Joseph Smith was not the author or the English-language translator of the text.

Those with other priorities might actually agree with this if they study the linguistic data carefully, and then merely assume that there were other human authors, something that has actually been put forward before.

I imagine you know this, but are just trying to be difficult.

I wanted to comment here since I too, like Gray, asked you about your conclusion that the data supports the notion that God did it.  I'm very pleased to see this revised as "the data fully support the notion that Joseph Smith was not the author or the English-language translator of the text".  I can swallow that with what you've said and with what I've read from you.  I've not become an expert, nor have I tried much to be anything near a student of the matters with what you have clearly worked hard on.  So I say, great, you have concluded according to linguistic data, that Joseph was not the author.  I admit I'd like to see a response from a linguist who has spent some time looking into your findings, and looking at the data, but until then I'm not sure there's much more to say. 

Outside of the linguistic data it does appear there remains possibility that Joseph was an author, if not the author.  that remains, in my mind, the most reasonable conclusion.  But I"m very apt to say any inspired writing should be attributed to the author who penned it, or in this case dictated it, rather than falling back to the conclusion God did it.  And actually from my position, it seems silly to say God did it just because there are elements of EModE spliced throughout the text.  

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually there is a place for this in a discussion of where faith and religion are intermingled in the discussion. It is and always has been the position of most of the LDS posters here that God was directly involved in the production of the Book of Mormon. The post on which you made your remarks was pointed towards those people, if you will recall, where the subject of an intermediary translator had been raised, which is something that Stanford Carmack has not proposed. My point to those who accept the divine providence of the Book of Mormon is that with God, there is no intermediary translation or translator needed. (After all, this is a Mormon Discussion and Dialogue board. One should expect some naive soul to every now and then speak up and say something like if God did it, it would explain this or that thing.)

The EmodE that appears in the Book of Mormon is just one of the elements that up to this point defy a naturalistic explanation. You dismiss the EmodE as a fringe theory, but it is not a theory at all. Unless Stanford Carmack and Royal Skousen are totally incompetent idiots, it is there but not apparent in Joseph's new England environment or in his personal writings.

Glenn

Its interesting that you're arguing that the position of faith in God is relevant on this topic, at the same time I've had some back and forth with Clark on this same thread about how some members consider their faith in God to be evidence that is of the same or even greater veracity than scholarly evidence.  I told him this is a category error in my opinion, but he said that he doesn't see Mormons doing this.  

Link to comment
10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect he's referring to this FAIR presentation. I've not been able to find a transcript anywhere. (As people know I hate when people link to a YouTube video as it's rather difficult to deal with let alone watch) He did have a PDF handout tied to his talk. It has links to a few of his well known papers. And unfortunately a bunch of YouTube videos.

Thanks, I will watch the presentation.  

Link to comment
15 hours ago, champatsch said:

 

Champatasch (or anyone else that wants to answer--because I'm sure there are different theories on this), can you please answer this. I'm not challenging you on this, I'm just trying to understand the position, so I can speak intelligently when I evaluate this and talk about it. I believe your research and all the EmodE stuff is important to include when talking about BOM origination theories and historicity, which I do a lot.

My understanding is that you believe the BOM was "loosely" translated into EModE from the original, ancient record. When I say loosely, I mean that because I have heard you and especially Royal talk about the various anachronisms in a way that suggests you believe the text of the BOM represents a significant expansion. By anachronisms, I don't mean the horse/steel variety, but the KJV inclusion, and some of the doctrinal exposition, and even some of the stories, ie Abinadi burned at the stake, representing a 17th century placement. Is that correct?  I mainly want to confirm that.

And then, secondarily, I want to hear the theory as to who/what/where/why regarding that loose translation. I'm not trying to mock you re: "ghost translation committee", I am just interested in some possible ideas, not so much they who/where but the why, which might suggest who. A question might be "if God is involving himself by making it so the text appears in the seerstone for Joseph, why not just translate it himself in real time with no need to expand." But my questions might not even make sense because I am misunderstanding the nature of the translation you are suggesting.

Main question is that there seems to be, according to this theory, a non-God, non-Joseph being translating the gold plates in the 17th century. Is this accurate description of the theory, and if so, what is the logical basis?

 

Edited by churchistrue
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its interesting that you're arguing that the position of faith in God is relevant on this topic, at the same time I've had some back and forth with Clark on this same thread about how some members consider their faith in God to be evidence that is of the same or even greater veracity than scholarly evidence.  I told him this is a category error in my opinion, but he said that he doesn't see Mormons doing this.  

To be clear I don't think faith is evidence, rather I think personal revelation is evidence. One sense of faith is acting as if one had solid evidence. In that case faith functions in a similar fashion, but can't be the knowledge that I think evidence produces. Yet acting on faith often leads us to knowledge.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I will watch the presentation.  

I should note I have not watched the presentation. So I'm hoping that's right. From other things I've read Skousen's argument is more from witness accounts we're all familiar with rather than textual clues. But I may be wrong.

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Isn't this all a moot point since I can't find anything in the Baptismal questionnaire or in the missionary's teaching manual about baptism that requires a belief in the historicity of the BOM to be baptized in the LDS church? Is it not also the case that many current important beliefs (even if I have called them non-essential?) in the LDS faith are not found in the BOM, but in the D&C or Pearl of Great Price?  Shouldn't we be questioning their historicity and validity?

Some things are considered theologically essential but not essential for worthiness. So I think that theologically the historicity of the Book of Mormon is essential. However I don't think it essential for baptism or even attending the temple based upon the guidelines the brethren have given us. Honestly individuals are allowed a lot of leeway in belief. As sociologists put it, Latter-day Saints are more focused on orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy.

I think the assumption is that so long as you aren't teaching false doctrine or trying to collect a movement that you'll learn what's true over time so long as your heart is in the right place. We may focus on theology here a fair bit, but honestly in the typical ward it's not brought up much. 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...