No Death Before The Fall

[Jeff K.]

Ok, I'm typing very slowly to make this extra clear:

The Church has not said that it has "no position" on evolution. The "Church" has "said", by way of a statement from the First Presidency and reiterated in the correlated Ensign, that it does have a "doctrinal position" on the "creation of the Earth" and the "theory of evolution".

The guide for the magazine even offers this helpful suggestion:

We can disagree over the meaning of that doctrinal position, but it's not true to say the Church has "no position".

If I am wrong, and there is any current Church publication that states that the Church has "no position", then please show me where.

Also, can you explain which "official statement on doctrine" you are referring to?

A statement by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them."

In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian, who was "learned" we are told, "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," when making this important announcement, was not voicing a mere opinion. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and law-giver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but one source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious one with the other.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is "the express image" of his Father's person (Hebrews 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to him: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two distinct personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of fourteen years, he received his first vision.

The Father of Jesus Christ is our Father also. Jesus himself taught this truth, when he instructed his disciples how to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally sons and daughters of Deity.

Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of pre-existence pours wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Heber J. Grant,

Anthony W. Ivins,

Charles W. Nibley.

First Presidency.

Source: "Editors' Table: 'Mormon' View of Evolution," Improvement Era 28:11 (September 1925).

Pretty neutral if you ask me.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Evolution/First_Presidency_1925

or you can look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution#Later_endorsement_of_First_Presidency_statements

for the diversity of opinion

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/lds-quotes-on-evolution/

I am sure you have heard the statement that not everything a prophet states is doctrine and doctrinally applicable.

It seems to me you are valiently attempting to create a bridge that says opinion is the same as doctrine. And as a convert, even in the 1970's evolution was considered a neutral issue for scientists, not for the doctrine of salvation.

Really, you try so hard to creat some sort of massive conspiracy, or change in definition, or doctrine, just about anything to embarrass the church. But aren't you really simply trying very hard to project your opinion of other peoples opinion and then calling it doctrine? How big of a stretch do you want to make it?

[beckstcw]

This isn't about friendly and unfriendly. It should be neutral. Evolution has nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation. The underlined aspect merely reflects one of the many many opinions prophets and apostles and members have regarding evolution. You should see the differences of opinion held over many other basis also. What I can't understand is why someone can read an official statement by the church and still presume the church rejects evolution when in fact it has openly stated, and quite clearly taken no stand regarding evolution

I think there's a miscommunication here, and it's probably my fault. You seem to be defending the Church against the statement "The LDS faith explicitly rejects evolution", which is obviously not true. As you've pointed out, the Church has been carefully neutral on that specific subject for over a century.

But that's missing the main criticism expressed in this thread, which is, "LDS theology and doctrine, as explained by its prophets throughout its history, appear to conflict with fossil records and evolutionary theory".

That is to say, while the Church had never explicitly/doctrinally opposed evolution, certain parts of its teachings which ARE accepted doctrine, such as no death or procreation before the fall. And that's not counting the numerous citations of prophet's opinions which clearly reject evolution (though they're obviously not as enlightened as you )

Now, there's certainly plenty of room for additional theorizing about how to satisfiably fit LDS doctrine together with history, and we've seen a lot of that in this thread. But most of the compensatory theories I've seen expressed here seem to be just scientifically necessary speculation without nearly the amount of latter-day revelatory support that the other side has.

I hope that's cleared up my position somewhat.

[beckstcw]

I think there's a miscommunication here, and it's probably my fault. You seem to be defending the Church against the statement "The LDS faith explicitly rejects evolution", which is obviously not true. As you've pointed out, the Church has been carefully neutral on that specific subject for over a century.

But that's missing the main criticism expressed in this thread, which is, "LDS theology and doctrine, as explained by its prophets throughout its history, appear to conflict with fossil records and evolutionary theory".

That is to say, while the Church had never explicitly/doctrinally opposed evolution, certain parts of its teachings which ARE accepted doctrine, such as no death or procreation before the fall. And that's not counting the numerous citations of prophet's opinions which clearly reject evolution (though they're obviously not as enlightened as you )

Now, there's certainly plenty of room for additional theorizing about how to satisfiably fit LDS doctrine together with history, and we've seen a lot of that in this thread. But most of the compensatory theories I've seen expressed here seem to be just scientifically necessary speculation without nearly the amount of latter-day revelatory support that the other side has.

I hope that's cleared up my position somewhat.

Is there a way to edit posts? I didn't mean the last line of my second paragraph to seem as snarky as It does.

[LeSellers]

Is there a way to edit posts?

There is, but not for you*. After you have posted (aIr) >25 messages, including in the Social Hall, the "Edit" feature will appear.

* Yet

Lehi

Edited July 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[Sevenbak]

You might enjoy sticking your head in the sand and ignoring things like the church's official statement on doctrine, and you might project your own prejudices claiming that the church is incapable of dealing with the idea of evolution (when plainly it has dealt with it, and has stated clearly that it has no position. I don't quite see it in your stark black and white terms. But I do think you are the otherside of the same coin you seem to be pawning off on the rest of us.

You might want to rethink.

Please provide references that the church has no official position. There are in fact several correlated statements from manuals, both weekly sunday courses to Institute and seminary, that state otherwise. Many of those have already been provided in this thread.

[Jeff K.]

I think there's a miscommunication here, and it's probably my fault. You seem to be defending the Church against the statement "The LDS faith explicitly rejects evolution", which is obviously not true. As you've pointed out, the Church has been carefully neutral on that specific subject for over a century.

But that's missing the main criticism expressed in this thread, which is, "LDS theology and doctrine, as explained by its prophets throughout its history, appear to conflict with fossil records and evolutionary theory".

That is to say, while the Church had never explicitly/doctrinally opposed evolution, certain parts of its teachings which ARE accepted doctrine, such as no death or procreation before the fall. And that's not counting the numerous citations of prophet's opinions which clearly reject evolution (though they're obviously not as enlightened as you )

Now, there's certainly plenty of room for additional theorizing about how to satisfiably fit LDS doctrine together with history, and we've seen a lot of that in this thread. But most of the compensatory theories I've seen expressed here seem to be just scientifically necessary speculation without nearly the amount of latter-day revelatory support that the other side has.

I hope that's cleared up my position somewhat.

Of course they aren't as enlightened as I am. Now that we have that out of the way....

If you look at the context of earlier prophets and apostles, they felt that evolution was an attempt to move away from Adam being the first man, and so reacted in a way that imposed their opinions (and I emphasize the word "opinions") tended to have a shotgun effect on the entire evolutionary basis. I believe what you see is an opinion blowback against the generalized opinion that evolution does away with biblical teachings as a method of understanding our place upon the earth (and yes, many evolutionists will insist it does, while others will insist it doesn't). So I take those early diverse opinions and attempt to produce a contextual coherence as to what was going on at the time and why.

[Jeff K.]

Please provide references that the church has no official position. There are in fact several correlated statements from manuals, both weekly sunday courses to Institute and seminary, that state otherwise. Many of those have already been provided in this thread.

I already have, you need to read the links provided.

[Rivers]

This is what the first counselor to the Presiding Bishopric Richard C. Edgley said in conference last October:

There is much that I do not know. I do not know the details of the organization of matter into the beautiful world we live in. I do not know why my beliefs sometimes conflict with assumed scientific or secular knowledge. Perhaps these are matters our Father in Heaven described as the “mysteries … of heaven” (D&C 107:19) that will be revealed at a later date.

This is a pretty good example of how all general authorities these days handle the question of evolution. They just like to say "I don't know."

So as long we've been promised additional information in the future, I see nothing wrong with guessing and speculating beyond what what we have in the church's correlated publications.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Rivers

[cinepro]

I already have, you need to read the links provided.

I've been through the links, and I can't find anything in any Church publication that says "no official position".

[beckstcw]

If you look at the context of earlier prophets and apostles, they felt that evolution was an attempt to move away from Adam being the first man, and so reacted in a way that imposed their opinions (and I emphasize the word "opinions") tended to have a shotgun effect on the entire evolutionary basis. I believe what you see is an opinion blowback against the generalized opinion that evolution does away with biblical teachings as a method of understanding our place upon the earth (and yes, many evolutionists will insist it does, while others will insist it doesn't). So I take those early diverse opinions and attempt to produce a contextual coherence as to what was going on at the time and why.

I understand your point here, but I'm not referring to instances where church leaders specifically addressed evolution and its place in the whole plan. I'm talking about other, distinct statements regarding LDS theology which don't, on their face, talk about evolution but which nevertheless present an apparent contradiction with evolutionary theory.

I'm also talking about the amount of unsubstantiated theorizing done by posters in this thread to try and fit doctrine and history together. I have no problem finding an explicit statement by a GA or in the Bible Dictionary that there was no death of any kind before the Fall, whereas there's a lot of "Well, maybe the Garden of Eden was in a bubble..."-type speculation without nearly the amount of support in scripture or latter day revelation.

If I'm making strawmen or putting words in someones mouth, correct me

[cinepro]

This is what the first counselor to the Presiding Bishopric Richard C. Edgley said in conference last October:

There is much that I do not know. I do not know the details of the organization of matter into the beautiful world we live in. I do not know why my beliefs sometimes conflict with assumed scientific or secular knowledge. Perhaps these are matters our Father in Heaven described as the “mysteries … of heaven” (D&C 107:19) that will be revealed at a later date.

This is a pretty good example of how all general authorities these days handle the question of evolution. They just like to say "I don't know."

If this quote is referring to evolution, than it isn't "I don't know whether or not evolution is true and God used it in the creation", it's "I know evolution isn't true, I just don't know how it isn't true..."

I do not know why my beliefs sometimes conflict with assumed scientific or secular knowledge.

[Rivers]

If this quote is referring to evolution, than it isn't "I don't know whether or not evolution is true and God used it in the creation", it's "I know evolution isn't true, I just don't know how it isn't true..."

And this is a talk about faith. IMO, it takes a whole lot of faith to believe something that not only lacks evidence but is contradicted by evidence. I apparently don't have the kind of faith he's suggesting that we have.

But this is a talk that really spoke to me as a person who is struggling reconcile faith and reason.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Rivers

[Sevenbak]

I already have, you need to read the links provided.

Sorry, just not seeing it. Can you be more specific?

[Jeff K.]

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them."

In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian, who was "learned" we are told, "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," when making this important announcement, was not voicing a mere opinion. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and law-giver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but one source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious one with the other.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is "the express image" of his Father's person (Hebrews 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to him: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two distinct personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of fourteen years, he received his first vision.

The Father of Jesus Christ is our Father also. Jesus himself taught this truth, when he instructed his disciples how to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God—the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally sons and daughters of Deity.

Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of pre-existence pours wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Heber J. Grant,

Anthony W. Ivins,

Charles W. Nibley.

This speaks specifically to the testimony of Adam, it in effect does not negate evolution.

Letters from McKay to members

LETTERS FROM McKAY TO CHURCH MEMBERS REGARDING McCONKIE’S “MORMON DOCTRINE” AND OTHER BOOKS PUBLISHED BY INDIVIDUAL GENERAL AUTHORITIES

[edit] to Dr. A. Kent Christensen

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 47 E. South Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah David O. McKay, President

February 3, 1959

Dr. A. Kent Christensen Department of Anatomy Cornell University Medical College 1300 York Avenue New York 21, New York

Dear Brother Christensen:

I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church’s position on the subject of evolution.

The Church has issued not official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church. . . .

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

David O. McKay (President)

I do not think McKay's letter was ever repudiated or put into question. If so I would like to see the text.

[Craig Paxton]

With respect to my OP...It appears that there are indeed those who somehow find a way to believe that there was no death prior to the time of Adam, (4,000 BCE)

I asked for understanding on how one is able to arrive at this belief in spite of the evidence to the contrary. From what I can gather there are a view ways to accomplish this.

01. Reject the scientific evidence

02. Massage the scientific evidence to make it conform to your worldview

03. Massage the scriptures/authoritative pronouncements to make them conform to your worldview

I personally see no other way to make no death prior to Adam (4,000 BCE) believable, particularly in light of the obvious (at least to me) evidence.

Sorry but I can not seem to massage this or bend my brain into pritzel form enough to make it believable...and for me this is a MAJOR stumbling block of any belief in Mormonism.

[BCSpace]

Sorry but I can not seem to massage this or bend my brain into pritzel form enough to make it believable...and for me this is a MAJOR stumbling block of any belief in Mormonism.

Just because "there are those who somehow find a way to believe that there was no death prior to the time of Adam"? Must we all accept death prior to Adam even though the LDS Church itself has no doctrine on the details of the physical creation?

[cinepro]

Letters from McKay to members

The Church has issued not official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

I do not think McKay's letter was ever repudiated or put into question. If so I would like to see the text.

Apparently it was never proofread either.

Edited July 26, 2011 by cinepro

[Craig Paxton]

Just because "there are those who somehow find a way to believe that there was no death prior to the time of Adam"? Must we all accept death prior to Adam even though the LDS Church itself has no doctrine on the details of the physical creation?

Speaking for myself alone...As taught by the church, death both physical and spiritual, where first introduced into the world through the Fall of Adam. Both forms of death seem central to the claim that there was a need for a Savior, if there has always been death (which I personally believe there always has been, at least since life first formed on this earth) what is the need for a savior?

Massaging ones belief so that it conforms with scientific reality by acknowledging that there has always been death...undermines both the claims of the church and the need for a savior (in my singular humble opinion)

Edited July 27, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

We've gone the whole 12 rounds on this several times in the past

Add a thirteenth...

[Jeff K.]

Apparently it was never proofread either.

true dat

[blackstrap]

I wonder how long it would take for BYU and other church institutions to loose accreditation or at least the respect of academia if it were to come out and declare the theory of evolution to be nonsense and worse yet,evil. My cynicism runneth over.I do hereby prophesy,er..predict,that evidence showing the inadequacy of evolution to explain the observable world will,within 20 years,cause many in the scientific community to abandon the leviathan of consensus thinking .

Note: I define evolution as the idea that all life arose through the action of natural selection on random mutations.I do not call the changing of color patterns on peppered moths or the variation of beak type on finches evolution.Enviromentally forced changes allowed by the expression of existing genetic information is not the same as the addition of entirely new genetic information needed to modify scales into feathers.Unless one is willing to abandon the laws of probability in which case we are back to rooms of monkeys and typewriters and Shakespeare.

[Jeff K.]

Speaking for myself alone...As taught by the church, death both physical and spiritual, where first introduced into the world through the Fall of Adam. Both forms of death seem central to the claim that there was a need for a Savior, if there has always been death (which I personally believe there always has been, at least since life first formed on this earth) what is the need for a savior?

Massaging ones belief so that it conforms with scientific reality by acknowledging that there has always been death...undermines both the claims of the church and the need for a savior (in my singular humble opinion)

Science is all about massaging. Science constantly changes and massages itself for the perceived reality of its adherents, other scientists. Science is not, nor ever has been a bedrock of principles that never changed, in fact they constantly change. And yet, people will tell us that science is the way, but science isn't the way, anymore than those crazy cloverleaf on and off ramps here in California are "the way". So if science is so confused, why do we hold it up as the ancient touchstone to verify the gold of other things? I ask this because I recall placing another question in regard to plate tectonics. Tecttonics was not the original harbringer of a belief that the continents were all one mass, many people thought so or rather knew so for hundreds of years before the theory of plate tectonics, that the continents were one. The how and the why are what plate tectonics rest upon. But until that very sound scientific theory became accepted, it was not a sound scientific theory. Science changes, constantly, it shifts, it is "massaged". Should it be the standard by which we judge all things? I see it as too chancy.

People are wont to classify and place their classification and understanding of they think they know and what they perceive to be truth. So sometimes we end up fighting an idea before it is fully understood. We end up dismissing it, and rationalizing what we think we know in order to downplay the idea we "think" is threatening. Some will refuse to see a middle ground. It must be one or the other. Any attempt to tie the two, even tentatively will be considered an admission of failure for one side or the other, a "massaging" of the numbers or the facts. But what is it that when we know science always "massages" and changes itself, and the gospel, oft misunderstood as we rationalize the infinite, is itself often attached to finite minds in rationalization.

I see no need for reconciliation since reconciliation, like plate tectonics exists even if we do not know it yet. We can, as scientists do, classify and rationalize what little we understand in the gospel and sometimes get it right, and sometimes get it wrong. As prophets, apostles, scientists and individuals.

[BCSpace]

Just because "there are those who somehow find a way to believe that there was no death prior to the time of Adam"? Must we all accept death prior to Adam even though the LDS Church itself has no doctrine on the details of the physical creation?

Speaking for myself alone...As taught by the church, death both physical and spiritual, where first introduced into the world through the Fall of Adam.

Yes, but the context is an already created world. LDS doctrine puts the physical creation outside temporal time which is merely the seven seals after the Fall.

Both forms of death seem central to the claim that there was a need for a Savior, if there has always been death (which I personally believe there always has been, at least since life first formed on this earth) what is the need for a savior?

Because of the Gospel definition of man which is a literal spirit child of God within a homo sapiens body. Thus Adam was the first man (in the Gospel sense) but not necessarily the first homo sapiens.

Massaging ones belief so that it conforms with scientific reality by acknowledging that there has always been death...undermines both the claims of the church and the need for a savior (in my singular humble opinion)

Sure. But such massaging need not be performed in order to see that evolution works well with LDS doctrine. One merely has to gather all the facts together; the foundational fact being that the Church recognizes a time prior to Adam and the garden in which there are no specific properites given such as no death. It is only after the creative period, the preparation for man's (Gospel definition) dwelling on the earth, in the garden state where we see a state of no death and thus it remains true that the Fall brought death in to the (already created) world.

Edited July 27, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I wonder how long it would take for BYU and other church institutions to loose accreditation or at least the respect of academia if it were to come out and declare the theory of evolution to be nonsense and worse yet,evil

Interesting you mention BYU.

Science professors don't view evolution as an 'either-or' proposition

Most biology faculty and students do not have a problem reconciling faith with their study of evolution, and many even find it spiritually inspiring.

"Too often we assume a false dichotomy," said biology professor Jerry Johnson. "Yet one can accept evolution and still be a faithful follower of Christ."

Students study evolution every semester, whether in the senior capstone class Biology 420, evolutionary biology, or in Biology 100. Charles Darwin's theories are not a controversial side-topic for the sciences but a core, connecting theme.

Johnson and biology department chair Keith Crandall referred to a quote by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky that "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution."

BYU biology professors Johnson, Crandall, Michael Whiting and Jack Sites said they have had positive experiences teaching evolution and few problems. They are careful to teach evolution so students' concerns are addressed, and they spend time in class discussing the issues. Professors resolve religious questions by referring students to the packet of LDS First Presidency statements on evolution. They said they pay close attention to feedback on student ratings and that many students say taking the class strengthened their testimonies.

"We spend time dispelling the myth that evolution and religion are incompatible," Johnson said. "We try to unburden students from the idea of either-or. That's baggage they don't have to carry."

"Faith-affirming" evolution

Johnson said his study of evolution has not diminished his faith, but has strengthened it by giving him a greater understanding of the creation.

"It gives me insight into the creator's mechanism," Johnson said. "I hope every student comes out of my class with a greater testimony of the creation God has made."

Whiting, who teaches a Book of Mormon class this semester as well as evolutionary biology, said he finds it much more impressive to view God creating species through the mechanism of evolution rather than individually.

[Kevin Christensen]

Speaking for myself alone...As taught by the church, death both physical and spiritual, where first introduced into the world through the Fall of Adam. Both forms of death seem central to the claim that there was a need for a Savior, if there has always been death (which I personally believe there always has been, at least since life first formed on this earth) what is the need for a savior?

Massaging ones belief so that it conforms with scientific reality by acknowledging that there has always been death...undermines both the claims of the church and the need for a savior (in my singular humble opinion)

Must a garden, tended by two people in a ritual temple drama, be not only global in extent, and unlimited in time but inter-galactic? "No death," need only be a "when an where" reference to be meaningful, not a absolute cosmic constant.

And as far was what gets taught by various people who show up in the buildings those who write the books at various times, the only reason to stumble is to obsess over the existence of something despite the known limitations and the people and determined refusal to consider viable options presented by other people who show up in the same buildings and who write other books at other times.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA