Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

inquiringmind

Members
  • Posts

    2,076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by inquiringmind

  1. Inquiring, perhaps the vow was not to be with another woman... in other words... if he's covenanted not to be with another woman...

    The marriage vow contained in the 1835 LDS article on marriage reads as follows:

     

     

    You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.

    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

     

    The vows contained in the book of common prayer (and used by Episcopalians, and probably Methodists) are almost the same, as are the words used in the Catholic ceremony (and, I suspect, the civil ceremony), so (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) it would seem that every married American man in 1843 had taken a vow not to be with another woman.

     

    That's the problem I see in understanding D&C 132:43.

  2. It was so long ago, not finding it.  Probably anti stuff.  But I don't think I imagined this.  Maybe it has to do with sealing in the temple for eternity vs. marrying for time only in a civil ceremony.  But will keep looking and get back if I find it.       

     

    Thank you.

  3. You are apparently reading vs 43 in isolation.  It must be read in the context of vss 41-44, which is discussing the rules pertaining to plural marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant).

     

    Seems to me that you need a specialist in that period, preferably a legal scholar who understands the context.  Asking Todd Compton to revisit that issue now might be very helpful..

    is he here?

     

    Do you know him?

     

    Can you ask him?

  4. It seems Joseph and Emma were married by a Judge, in a civil ceremony, in South Bainbridge New York, in 1827.

    Is it possible to find out what words would have been used in such a ceremony, and whether Joseph would have been "under a vow" in 1843?

  5. Does anyone know the exact wording of the marriage vows taken in a civil ceremony in 19th century America?

    Or the wording of the vows taken by Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians of that era?

    I ask because, if all these ceremonies borrowed from the English book of Common Prayer, all the men who participated in them (when asked if they accepted the women standing beside them as their wives) vowed to cling to them, forsaking all others, as long as they both should live, and that gives me a real problem understanding D&C 132:43.

    And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

    Were there any married American men who weren't "under a vow" in 1843?

    What kind of ceremony did Joseph and Emma take part in, and would he have been under a vow?

    Does anyone here know?
  6. What does D&C 132:43 mean?

    And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

    Wouldn't every publicly married couple (before the wording of the marriage ceremony was changed) have been "under a vow" to keep themselves "wholly for each other, and from all others" during their mortal lives?

    ...Melissa Lott's examination is not well handled by Compton's book, which claims that "Melissa recalled the wedding vow: You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives'" ...In Sacred Loneliness fails to note that these words were put in Melissa's mouth on cross-examination and are taken from the 1835 article on marriage that continued to be published in the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants...Under aggressive interrogation, Melissa insisted a half-dozen times that she could not remember the ceremony, other than that it was "for time and all eternity." Then the RLDS lawyer sought to gain her admission that her Nauvoo ceremony was identical to that first published in the Kirtland Doctrine and Covenants. Her answer was, "To the best of my recollection, I don't think it was." Persisting, he then read the above words that were still in the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants and obtained her weary response, "That is as I understand it, as nearly as I can remember." But the witness obviously did not remember, as she had avowed repeatedly. When the RLDS attorney pressed the point that the 1835 language would restrict Joseph from marital relations with Emma, Melissa answered: "I don't think that he made any particular promise of that kind." In spite of courtroom manipulation, Melissa reiterated that she did not remember the Nauvoo ceremony beyond its promise of time and eternity.

    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

    And wouldn't that make the lawful practice of polygamy impossible, if D&C 132:43 means anything?

    Very confused now, please help.
  7. I've been thinking of D&C 84:2-4

     

    Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the arestoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his bprophets, and for the cgathering of his dsaints to stand upon eMount Zion, which shall be the city of fNew Jerusalem.

     

    Which city shall be abuilt, beginning at the btemple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and cdedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

     

    Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city aNew Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which btemple shall be creared in this dgeneration.

     

    in the context of verse 5

     

     

    For verily this generation shall not all apass away

     

    And the following question came to mind.

     

    If John the revelator, and the three Nephites are still alive, how do we know that all of those who were alive in 1832 have passed away?

     

    Is it possible that one or more of the pioneer saints were translated (and if they were, would we still be living in their generation?)

  8. The Book of Mormon tends to mirror the phrasing used in the King James Version of the Bible, including, I would surmise, the use of terms that were archaic even in Joseph's day.

    Maybe it wasn't that archaic in the 19th century.

     

    From Wilford Woodruff's Journal.

     

    I have waded swamps and swum rivers, and have asked my bread from door to door; and have devoted nearly fifty years to this work.

    https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-9?lang=eng

     

    And

    WE concluded to go down Arkansas River and cross into Tennessee. We could not get passage on the boat, be- cause of the low water, so we went on the bank of the river and cut down a sound cottonwood tree, three feet through, cut off a twelve-foot length, and in two days we dug out a canoe. We made a pair of oars and a rudder, and on the 11th of March, 1835, launched our canoe, and commenced our voyage down the Arkansas river, without pro- visions. The first day we sailed twenty-five miles, and stopped at night with a poor family who lived on the bank of the river. These kind folks gave us supper and breakfast, and, in the morning, gave us a johnny-cake and piece of pork to take with us on our journey. We travelled about fifty miles that day, and at night stopped in a village called Cadron, at an old tavern, which was deserted. We made a fire in the tavern, roasted a piece of our pork, ate our supper, said our prayers, went into a chamber, lay down on the bare floor, and were soon asleep.

    http://archive.org/stream/millennialstar9915eng/millennialstar9915eng_djvu.txt

     

    So maybe you were right when you said bread

     

    ...could be used to convey the generic definition of bread as anything edible.

  9. Does this make sense?

    The interpolation of a footnote

    And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 18-19)

    There is so much confusion about the meaning of this sentence among latter-day saints. The problem lies in that when a person reads “forbiddeth to abstain from meats,” they can’t seem to process the phrase. Then, when they read the next phrase, “that man should not eat the same,” they erroneously think that this phrase is clarifying and defining the action of the person who is doing the forbidding, and not the action of the person who is doing the abstaining.

    An erroneous and misleading footnote

    There is also a footnote to the word “forbiddeth” found in verse 18 which is erroneous, which reads: “IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”

    This footnote would have us believe that the word “forbiddeth” was erroneously written and should be instead “biddeth,” which means the exact opposite. The only reasoning we are given of why we should substitute a word which means the exact opposite for the word that is actually in the revelation, is that verse 19, according to whoever put in this footnote, suggests that the Lord is stressing that meat “is ordained for the use of man for food” and therefore this is the reason why a person who “bids to abstain from meats” would be contrary to the will of the Lord and not a person who “forbids to abstain from meats.”

    The section and verse headings

    Additionally, the section heading gives this information: “Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that…the eating of pork was specifically forbidden, and many did not eat any meat;…The revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group.”

    Because of the comments found in the section heading, specifically, that this revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group and that one of these basic concepts was the abstaining from pork, we are immediately conditioned upon reading the revelation that the verses which deal with the eating of animal flesh will contain a refutation of abstaining from meats. But just to make sure that this idea is sunk deep into our minds, regardless of what the revelation says, we find that the verse heading summarizes verses 17-21 as being an approval of eating meat: “17-21, Eating of meat is approved;

    Faulty logic

    All of this reasoning is completely faulty, devoid of logic and of simple English grammar. Let’s take a look at this scripture and pick it apart, using the simple rules of English.

    And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

    Definitions of the words involved

    Everyone knows what the word “forbiddeth” means, but in case there are some who still haven’t learned its definition, I will write it here, taken from the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

    Definition of Forbid

    1
    : to proscribe from or as if from the position of one in authority : command against <the law
    forbids
    stores to sell liquor to minors> <her mother
    forbids
    her to go>

    2
    : to hinder or prevent as if by an effectual command <space
    forbids
    further treatment here>

    Most people know what the words “command against”, “hinder” and “prevent” mean, but some may not know what the word “proscribe” means, so I again write its definition here, taken from the above mentioned dictionary:

    Definition of Proscribe

    1
    : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state

    2
    : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful :
    PROHIBIT

    Finally, in case a person is unsure of the meaning of the word “abstain,” I include its definition here:

    Definition of Abstain

    : to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

    From the above definitions, it is apparent that both definitions of the word “forbid” can apply to this revelation. In the case of definition #1 of “forbid,” a person can forbid to abstain from meats by condemning, either publicly or privately, the practice of abstention from meats, calling those who practice abstention sinners and/or unhealthy; or he may forbid the practice of abstention from meats, using it as a sign of unworthiness for any number of callings or even for a temple recommend. Those who forbid in this manner would be persons garbed in the authority of the priesthood or persons who acted as if they possessed authority to speak against the practice of abstention from meats. Such people may actually command a congregation or group of church members against practicing abstention from meats and preach that such a practice is of the devil.

    In the case of definition #2 of “forbid,” a person who abstains from meats may be hindered or prevented from abstaining by the circumstances they find themselves in, such as being invited to eat at a member’s house or church function and discover that everything offered is meat or meat-based, not due to necessity or famine, but due to the willful disobedience or ignorance of the Lord’s law of meat consumption. Such an individual or family, finding themselves in such a circumstance, would have to leave and find nourishment elsewhere, or go hungry or participate in eating meat in a time which wasn’t winter or famine or cold, thus being forced to break the law also....

    The comma and phrase that follows the word “meats” is but a clarifying phrase, clarifying the meaning of abstention from meats. In other words, the Lord doesn’t mean people who avoid touching meats or being around meats, but He specifically is talking about people who don’t eat meats. The people who don’t eat meats are The Abstainers, and these people are the ones being wronged by The Forbidder. Thus, it is The Abstainer who is justified and is not called to repentance, whereas it is The Forbidder who is the one who is devoid of the Spirit of God, who “is not ordained of God.”

    ...

    The interpolation of the footnote

    Our footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) claims to have received revelation that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” which would make the sentence mean the exact opposite of what it does, and it seems to take its authority from an interpretation of verse 19, which reads:

    For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 19)

    It is important to note that verses 18 and 19 are both part of the same sentence, so in order to understand both verses, we must take all parts of the sentence together when interpreting it in any way. Accordingly, here is that sentence:

    And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 18-19)

    It becomes apparent, once a person understands that The Forbidder is the one being condemned, that the Lord is attempting to teach His law concerning the eating of meat, which is currently found in D&C 89: 12-13 and 15, in which it is indicated that the Lord is pleased when meat is not consumed, but that He allows it only during times of cold or famine or winter.

    Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine…And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. (D&C 89: 12-13, 15)

    The key to the revelation found in D&C 49: 19 are the words of the Lord revealing just what these animals and fowls and everything else that comes of the earth are ordained for. They are

    ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 19)

    These creatures are ordained for food and for raiment, but additionally they are ordained that man might have in abundance. You cannot have an abundance of animals and of fowls and of that which comes from the earth if you are killing these things and eating them. Abundance comes from allowing things to live and multiply.

    The Lord was attempting to teach these Shakers and all others who would get the chance at reading this revelation, that He neither commands nor forbids to abstain from meats, and that He neither commands nor forbids to eat meats, that each person has their free agency and could do what they wanted to do with the things of the earth, including killing and eating them, for He ordained that man can kill and eat animals in certain, specific circumstances, namely, in times of famine and excess hunger, in winter, in cold, or in other words, to save their lives, but that there were stiff penalties assigned to those who killed and ate flesh without having a genuine need to do so.

    And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands. (JST Gen. 9: 11)

    The evidence that the Lord is decidedly against the killing and eating of animals where there is no need is found in D&C 49: 21:

    And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need. (D&C 49: 21)...

    The false footnote revisited

    Another problem with this pesky footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) is that we find the same use of the word “forbiddeth” in another part of the revelation, in verse 15, which reads:

    And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15)

    Here, in this sentence, if we use the same rules followed by our uninspired footnote, that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” what we get is something entirely at odds, again, with our revealed religion. Putting the word “biddeth” into this sentence renders it:

    And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso [biddeth] to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

    The sentence becomes entirely contradictory...

     

    More on the subject of meats

    In 1 Timothy 4: 1-3 we find another interesting reference to meat-eating:

    Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Tim. 4: 1-3)

    In this scripture, we get a view of another false doctrine, that of commanding to abstain from meats. Just as he who forbids to abstain from meats is not ordained of God, because each person has the free agency to not eat meat, should they desire not to eat, so is he who commands to abstain from meats not ordained of God, since everyone has the free agency to eat meat, should they desire to eat, knowing that it is allowable under certain, justifiable circumstances.

    It should be noted that if we use the word “biddeth” in D&C 49: 18, we essentially get the counsel recorded in 1 Timothy 4: 3, that “commanding to abstain from meats” is not of God. “Biddeth to abstain” is the same as “commandeth to abstain.” The Lord, knowing that he had already covered the sin of commanding to abstain in 1 Timothy 4: 3, apparently decided he was going to cover the other sin of forbidding to abstain, which was equally sinful...

    The Shakers

    It is interesting to note that verses 18-21 of section 49 actually are telling the Shakers that although their doctrine of abstaining from pork was not inspired of God and was not the true doctrine of God, they would not be forced to abandon the practice should they decide to continue to abstain from eating pork or any other meat...

    http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/the-interpolation-of-a-footnote/

  10. Is this funny?

     

    In May of 1898 the First Presidency and the Twelve were discussing the Word of Wisdom. One member read from the 12th volume of the Journal of Discourses where Brigham Young seems to support the idea that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment. “Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of Twelve agreed, saying that he believed the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and that it should be carried out to the letter. In doing so, he said, members should be taught to refrain from eating meat except in dire necessity, because Joseph Smith had taught that animals have spirits.” Wilford Woodruff agreed the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, but thinks no action should be taken except that “members should be taught to refrain from meat.” (p. 78)

    http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/eating-meat/

  11. What is "Dialogue," and how do I find it?

     

    (Is it available online?)

     

    And if this is true, why is meat served at so many LDS Church functions today?

  12. I have checked two different sources and it appears that it did indeed say "did not mock him..."

    Thank you.

     

    Now is this true?

     

    February 21, 2006 by K. Petty
    This is Kathleen from Dialogue writing. I was trolling through some Dialogue magazines looking for information about the Word of Wisdom and found this in the opening paragraph of an article by Thomas G. Alexander. (“The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, ” 14, No. 3 [Fall 1981] 78 – 87). In May of 1898 the First Presidency and the Twelve were discussing the Word of Wisdom. One member read from the 12th volume of the Journal of Discourses where Brigham Young seems to support the idea that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment. “Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of Twelve agreed, saying that he believed the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and that it should be carried out to the letter. In doing so, he said, members should be taught to refrain from eating meat except in dire necessity, because Joseph Smith had taught that animals have spirits.” Wilford Woodruff agreed the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, but thinks no action should be taken except that “members should be taught to refrain from meat.” (p. 78)

    http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/eating-meat/

     

    Were Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff semi vegetarians (who avoided eating meat except in dire necessity), and is that what they taught the Church?

  13. Is it true that 1 Nephi 1:19 originally read as follows (in the 1830 edition)?

     

    And it came to pass that the Jews did not mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the Book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

  14. The closest thing I could find was this.

     

    The original of the next passage (current-day verse 5 again) was “& Remember also the Promises which were made to you if you transgressed them”. The modified reading makes for a different reconstruction of an unknown commandment “& Remember also the Promises which were made to you if you did not transgress them”.

    http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/09/23/revelation-book-1-digging-in/

     

    But I'm not sure that's really the same kind of mistake.

     

    It looks like he (at first) just left out the word "not," and that might be a little different from what you and palerider are suggesting in D&C 49.

  15. But not all of his writings were edited and published.

     

    The Joseph Smith Papers project has made all kinds of unpublished material available online, and I haven't seen one example of Joseph making this kind of mistake.

     

    Can anyone point to one?

  16. It isn't that he didn't know the proper usage of "forbiddeth". That's not the problem.

     

    It's that he forgot he was combining it with the word "abstain". It's a natural slip-up.

     

    If he had said, " he that forbiddeth the consumption of meats" it would have read as he intended.

     

    Purely grammatical error here. Honest.

    If it's such "a natural slip up," and a "purely grammatical error," then why aren't there any other examples of this kind of slip up in any of Joseph's other writings?

     

    Can you (or anyone else) point to any?

    This makes sense to me. This is a fairly common sort of error, actually.

    Again, if it's so common, why aren't there any other examples of this kind of slip up in any of Joseph's other writings?

     

    Why can't you (or anyone else) point to any?

  17.  

    Are you certain you are not misinterpreting the meaning in the occurrence of the word in verse 22?

    No.

     

    It could be used to convey the generic definition of bread as anything edible

    Was it commonly used in that sense in Joseph's day?

     

    One would hope that if they are present at all in his published writings, they would be extremely rare. I perceive that to be the case.

    You suggested one was present in D&C 49:18.

     

    Is anything like what you suggested we have there present in any of Joseph's published or unpublished writings (journal entries, letters, anything)?

  18. Interesting observation.

     

    I wish the Church would change the word to "biddeth" in the body of the section. It is confusing as it now stands.

     

    I did a search to see whether there might be an original or archaic meaning of forbid as bid, but I was unable to find anything like that.

     

    This might be a simple case of a usage error made in the original manuscript.

    But how could Joseph have made a "usage error" like that in verse 18, when he just used the word properly in verse 15?

     

    And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso aforbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for bmarriage is ordained of God unto man.

    Are there any examples of similar usage errors in any of Joseph's other writings?

     

    And if the semi vegetarian interpretation of D&C 49 is true, might it explain Alma 8:18-22?

     

    Now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah. And he entered the city by another way, yea, by the way which is on the south of the city of Ammonihah.

     19 And as ahe entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a man: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?

     20 And the man said unto him: I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an aangel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my bfood; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.

     21 And it came to pass that the man received him into his house; and the man was called Amulek; and he brought forth bread and meat and set before Alma.

     22 And it came to pass that Alma ate bread and was filled; and he ablessed Amulek and his house, and he gave thanks unto God.

    Though Amulek put meat and bread on the table, it seems Alma only ate bread.

     

    Could that be because it wasn't winter, and Alma knew it wouldn't pleasing to God for him to eat meat at that time of year?

  19. If you go to the following link at the Joseph Smith Papers website, you will find the revelation, with accompanying footnotes. 

     

    http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=2&s=undefined&sm=none

     

    Note 12., found at what would be the 18th verse, states in part: 

     

    "This revelation’s statement that it was “not ordained of God” to teach that believers should “abstain from meats that man should not eat the same” is evidence of the principle of vegetarianism being a belief held among the North Union Shakers in 1831."

     

    Bold type by me.

    That note seems to be written by a modern scholar or scholars, but there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that Joseph himself understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God?

  20. I'd still like to know what this means?

    The notes to the JSP suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God, but bases it on a second hand reminiscence of someone else.

    What notes suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God?

  21.  

    Now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah. And he entered the city by another way, yea, by the way which is on the south of the city of Ammonihah.

     19 And as ahe entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a man: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?

     20 And the man said unto him: I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an aangel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my bfood; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.

     21 And it came to pass that the man received him into his house; and the man was called Amulek; and he brought forth bread and meat and set before Alma.

     22 And it came to pass that Alma ate bread and was filled; and he ablessed Amulek and his house, and he gave thanks unto God.

    http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/8.21?lang=eng#20

     

    If Amulek set bread and meat before Alma, why did Alma only eat bread?

     

    Was he a vegetarian?

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...