Do Discrepancies Discredit A Story?

[Xander]

In 1842 Henry Caswall says Joseph Smith left abruptly after being asked to interpret the inscriptions on the papyri. He then goes on to say he saw the Prophet fleeing the scene on a wagon.

A year later he tells offers a shorter version of this incident, saying Joseph Smith left abruptly, with no mention of the wagon.

According to Pahoran, this causes serious problems for Caswall's credibility as it pertains to anything he had to say about what happened that day. Particularly his claim that Joseph Smith misidentified a Greek Psalter.

So let's employ this logic elsewhere.

In 1838 we get the official version of the First Vision which wasn't published until 1842 (twenty-two years after it happened). In this official version Joseph says "it had never entered into my heart that all (churches) were wrong."

However, this is a direction contradiction to what he said in 1832. He said he discovered from the Bible that, "(mankind) had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."

So, which version is true? And why?

Following this logic, if Caswall's discrepancies discredit his story about what happened that day, then it seems to me that Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision should mean the entire thing never happened.

Am I wrong? If so, then please explain why.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that discrepancies in various accounts discredit a story. This is Pahoran's argument. I am simply pointing out a double-standard that is frequently employed by those who turn a blind eye to things like the various First Vision accounts.

But here are some more interesting observations:

In 1832 we have the first attempt at an official account in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Therein we find that he was visited by Jesus Christ who offered him forgiveness of his sins. He was age 15 according to this account.

In the Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835 as found in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean C. Jessee, pp. 75-77, we find an account saying: "a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication." Although this was in Smith's diary, it was omitted from the History of the Church.

Nov 14, 1835 Joseph Smith again refers to "the first visitation of angels" when addressing Erastus Holmes. However, the Church altered this citation to say "first vision" when incorporating it in the History of the Church.

In 1838 we get the official version which wasn't published until 1842. In the official version Joseph says he was visited by Jesus and the Father.

In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote a chapter on Mormonism published in the book "An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States,." In it, he claimed to have been visited by two unidentified personages, six years after the official version explicitly identifies them as Jesus and the Father.

It seems that Joseph Smith couldn't get his story straight over the course of a decade. He was either visited by an angel, many angels, Jesus Christ, two unidentified personages, or Jesus and God the Father. The official version is contradicted by several earlier versions. But what I find most interesting is that acceptance of the First Vision is required by Mormons today, despite the fact that few Mormons even knew about this in the 1830's, and those who did know of "a" first vision story, didn't think it was important.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

Do Discrepancies Discredit A Story?

When applied by Anti-Mormons to anything Mormon (esp. the 1st Vision) they do.

And you just supplied a perfect example of the Phenominon.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

What do you make of the conversion story of Saul to Paul?

The first thing a policeman does is see if a story remains consistent, or if it is a exact replay. The key is in consistency, not that it is verbatum. Josephs' stories of the First Vision are consistent with each other.

[ldsfaqs]

First problem I can answer is that I and others directly showed how the 1832 statement and the 1838 statement wasn't at all contradictory, but simply different levels of the same theme.

As I explained there, the very fact that Joseph "asks" Christ which church was true, proves unequivocally that Joseph wasn't completely sold in his heart and mind that there was no true religion. After all, we all know he primarily only studied the religions he was familiar with in his area, so clearly there was a whole world out there, where there still could be a "true church". His statement in 1832 only refers to those he knew of and was familiar with, was an intellectual exercise.

Don't you ever develop an opinion on something and it seems solid to you in feeling and intellect, but "ultimately" in your heart and mind you aren't fully sold on it, because there might be other possibilities still?

That's what happened to Joseph. No contradiction at all there.

[ldsfaqs]

Xander:

What do you make of the conversion story of Saul to Paul?

The first thing a policeman does is see if a story remains consistent, or if it is a exact replay. The key is in consistency, not that it is verbatum. Josephs' stories of the First Vision are consistent with each other.

Exactly, witness to an event see different parts, and relay different things, often seeming inconsistent statements. However, when compared over all, the main elements are still in place.

Of course, we know that some of the versions of the First Vision it's Joseph, thus one person. However, we also know that when a person tells a story, he tells it according to the impressions of the spirit, what the spirit tells him to tell the people he's speaking to. We all know Joseph and many others knew there was a Father and Son in the story. The fact that he said only Angels or two personages at later times means nothing, other than that of "emphasis" to the people he's speaking to.

Jesus spoke in parables in order to hide things from the unprepared, and we also know he and others hid other things from the masses, and revealed some things to some, but not to others.

Joseph was clearly giving the people MILK before MEAT depending on the audience he was speaking with.

Remember, this was a NEW concept..... Christians had went some almost 2,000 years without God and Angels speaking to men, and also without knowing that the Father and Son are actually SEPARATE BEINGS.

Does anyone with common sense really think Joseph "wouldn't" have taught this subject this way in the beginning??? To me it seems a MUST. It was a completely NEW and "radical" concept. Anti's when they go back and judge the past because they are themselves used to the idea whether accepting it or not, they are judging through their OWN modern social conventions, not by what things were like back then.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Xander]

When applied by Anti-Mormons to anything Mormon (esp. the 1st Vision) they do.

Actually I have shown that the opposite is true. I never argued that the First Vision didn't happen, simply because there were various accounts that differed. That was never the argument.

However, apologists have argued along these lines for the sole purpose of trying to discredit arguments that don't favor their Prophet. This is a double-standard. The rule seems to be, it can be used sometimes, depending on what you're trying to prove. Clayton's journal entry about Kinderhook is a prime example, but more recently the desperate attempt to discredit Henry Caswall, who, strangely enough, is used by those same apologists to strengthen the missing scroll theory. He is not credible until they need him to be, and he is not discredited until they need him to be. That is the only consistency I see here.

I and others directly showed how the 1832 statement and the 1838 statement wasn't at all contradictory

They are very contradictory. One claims he never thought it was possible for X to be true and the other claims he discovered X to be true before the vision. Asserting this isn't a contradiction without evidence isn't a valid argument.

I believe the First Vision didn't happen for other reasons. I don't need to use this deficient line of reasoning.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xander

[ldsfaqs]

They are very contradictory. One claims he never thought it was possible for X to be true and the other claims he discovered X to be true before the vision. Asserting this isn't a contradiction without evidence isn't a valid argument.

I believe the First Vision didn't happen for other reasons. I don't need to use this deficient line of reasoning.

It's not "deficient"..... It's what happened. (by the way you mean "after" the vision for the second X)

Who says we haven't provided "evidence"? We've provided lot's of evidence of why the statements aren't actually contradictory.

Just because you ignore the arguments and look at things in a "legalistic" manner, looking at the words alone and nothing else, doesn't mean there aren't "reasons" for things.

BTW.... This issue is similar to how there is the doctrine of a Global Flood, and then considering the sciences AND the scriptures on the subject doesn't actually rule out the possibility of a Local Flood. Words of the scriptures on various subjects have been used to say "absolutes" and extremes, when the fact is it was simply indicating a local or limited event. In the same way, when you look at Joseph's words in 1832 as "absolute" the fact is is they simply were not absolute. Sure, if you look at them only and don't consider other factors, like anti-mormons and liberals do for lots of things, then yes, we aren't dumb, sure, the statements look contradictory. Anti's suffer from a lack of expanding "vision" in their judgments, lacking the ability to see "beyond the obvious".

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[thesometimesaint]

Zander:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54948-a-note-on-the-first-visions-of-paul-and-joseph-smith/page__p__1209026627__hl__%2Bfirst+%2Bvisions+%2Baccounts__fromsearch__1#entry1209026627

[stemelbow]

So let's employ this logic elsewhere.

In 1838 we get the official version of the First Vision which wasn't published until 1842 (twenty-two years after it happened). In this official version Joseph says "it had never entered into my heart that all (churches) were wrong."

However, this is a direction contradiction to what he said in 1832. He said he discovered from the Bible that, "(mankind) had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."

On that other thread on this topic it was said this really isn't a direct contradiction since in one instance he said "entered in my heart" and the other he explained that he learned from the Bible that "(mankind) had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." If Joseph in the '38 account intended to suggest that by entering in his heart meant far more, or different, than drawing a conclusion based on scripture then this does not result in the direct contradiction you suggest. And since we don't know Joseph's heart, we simply can't ocnclude as you have on this. no direct contradiction.

[Xander]

Zander:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209026627

Is there and argument here? I'm not interested in defending Pauline epistles.

[Xander]

If Joseph in the '38 account intended to suggest that by entering in his heart meant far more, or different, than drawing a conclusion based on scripture then this does not result in the direct contradiction you suggest. And since we don't know Joseph's heart, we simply can't ocnclude as you have on this. no direct contradiction.

Come on.

[Xander]

On that other thread on this topic it was said this really isn't a direct contradiction since in one instance he said "entered in my heart" and the other he explained that he learned from the Bible that "(mankind) had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." If Joseph in the '38 account intended to suggest that by entering in his heart meant far more, or different, than drawing a conclusion based on scripture then this does not result in the direct contradiction you suggest. And since we don't know Joseph's heart, we simply can't ocnclude as you have on this. no direct contradiction.

If what you say is true, then there would be no reason for him to ask which one was right,

" I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)÷and which I should join." - 1838

Compared to 1832:

"...thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ"... I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud (clothed) in the glory of my Father"

Which was before, not after the vision he received (contrary to ldsfqs assertion).

Notice that Jesus in this account speaks of his Father as though he wasn't there.

Why didn't Joseph Smith tell everyone he saw God and Jesus, when it allegedly happened? No one seemed to know anything about this until many, many years later.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xander

[Zakuska]

Lets further the case study Xander. Please notice the "discrepancies", "contradictions", and "growth" of this story:

Acts 9

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Now notice how his story changes...

Acts 22

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And now It morphes a little more and gets a little more exagerated...

Acts 26

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

1st story:

1) Only he fell to the ground and only he got up

2) the people with him STOOD. heard a voice. No mention if they saw the light or not.

3) Commanded to go directly to Damascus and receive instruction there

2nd Story:

1) Only Paul fell to the ground

2) The people with him saw the light, but didnt hear the voice (Contradiction #1: yes I know the Hear vs Understand apologetic for this one)

3) Commanded to go directly to Damascus and receive instruction

3rd Story: (Please notice how Paul exagerates his story a bit to impress the King)

1) Paul and every one with him falls to the ground (but of course everyone falls before a king)

2) the light shining on ALL of them not just Paul (Contradiction #2: Story 2 says those with him remained standing)

3) His commition to go on his Mission and what he is going to DO is given directly from Jesus. (ie he doesn't have to go to Damascus for "instructions", that wouldn't be very impressive to a King, he's claiming Authority from above)

4) As in the other 3 stories the first place he goes is to where the Lord told him to go, Damascus, then Jerusalem, then Judea.

When we throw Galatians into the mix, then the story get real convoluted.

The whole point of this exercise is to show that a TRUE prophet or Apostle can tell stories get minutia wrong. Glaringly contradict himself, even conceal truth, and still be a living and True Prophet and the story be true.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Xander]

Lets further the case study Xander. Please notice the "discrepancies", "contradictions", and "growth" of this story:

Acts 9

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Now notice how his story changes...

Acts 22

6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And now It morphes a little more and gets a little more exagerated...

Acts 26

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

1st story:

1) Only he fell to the ground and only he got up

2) the people with him STOOD. heard a voice. No mention if they saw the light or not.

3) Commanded to go directlky to Damascus and receive instruction there

2nd Story:

1) Only Paul fell to the ground

2) The people with him saw the light, but didnt hear the voice (Contradiction #1: yes I know the Hear vs Understand apologetic for this one)

3) Commanded to go directlky to Damascus and receive instruction

3rd Story: (Please notice how Paul exagerates his story a bit to impress the King)

1) Paul and every one with him falls to the ground the light shining on ALL of them not just Paul (Contradiction #2: Story 2 says those with him remained standing)

2) His commition to go on his Mission and what he is going to DO is given directly from Jesus. (ie he doesn't have to God to Damascus to "instructions")

3) As in the other 3 stories the first place he goes is to where the Lord told him to go, Damascus, then Jerusalem, then Judea.

When we throw Galatians into the mix, then the story get real convoluted.

The whole point of this exercise is to show that a TRUE prophet or Apostle can tell stories get minutia wrong. Glaringly contradict himself, even conceal truth, and still be a living and True Prophet and the story be true.

I don't care about what Paul supposedly said. Besides the source documents used to relay Joseph Smith's accounts are far, far more reliable than whatever you're using to say these were Paul's versions and not some version redacted by later scribes or theologically motivated redactors, etc.

And you guys can't seem to understand what the argument is. I've repeated it several times.

I am NOT, I repeat NOT, arguing that the various FV accounts discredit the FV.

I am simply pointing out that apologists want to have their cake and eat it too. Discrepancies only mean something when they can be used to discredit something an "anti-Mormon" has argued.

[Ariarates]

Josephs' stories of the First Vision are consistent with each other.

Do you honestly believe that? When I first read the first first vision story (I was well in my thirties) my impression was that it was a completely different story than the one I grew up with. But maybe that's just me.

[Senator]

The whole point of this exercise is to show that a TRUE prophet or Apostle can tell stories get minutia wrong. Glaringly contradict himself, even conceal truth, and still be a living and True Prophet and the story be true.

That's hard to swallow..

[Zakuska]

I am simply pointing out that apologists want to have their cake and eat it too. Discrepancies only mean something when they can be used to discredit something an "anti-Mormon" has argued.

But can't you see Xander you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Apologists of.

[Zakuska]

Do you honestly believe that? When I first read the first first vision story (I was well in my thirties) my impression was that it was a completely different story than the one I grew up with. But maybe that's just me.

That happened to me when I read the Moses story for the first time my self and found out the script Charelton Heston had was a Fairytale. The same Phenominon happens when reading books after watching Disney movies.

[KevinG]

I found this harmony to be informative. There are differences in the narratives but they don't result in difficulties for me given the different audiences and how understanding may have changed over time as Joseph learned more about his experiences.

http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

The broader issue of discrepancies discrediting a story should be handled on a case by case basis and depends on many variables. It is not as simple as applying one test to all situations. The whole of the evidence should be weighed. Guess what- adherants and critics of the LDS church will pu ttheir own weight on the evidence at hand and come to different conclusions.

[KevinG]

That happened to me when I read the Moses story for the first time my self and found out the script Charelton Heston had was a Fairytale.

HERETIC!!!

[Zakuska]

That's hard to swallow..

Yes it is. But such is the Nature of man. I mean think about it. We celebrate a man who was a self confest Murderer and fugitive from the law. (Moses) David, a caniving Adulturess Murderer. Peter a self confessed Liar. Paul, again confessed to Murder, asult, brawling before the king even. Yet for some reason Joseph Smith who killed no one, possibly lied and concealed truth to save his own skin and that of his friends (kind of like David, Abraham and others) We look at him and say... well he isn't Jesus Incarnate so heck no Im not following or beleiving in him.

[thesometimesaint]

Zander:

The point is that we have from ancient times, to the 1800's, through to present day examples of "discrepancies" that do not discredit the story or the teller. It is simple human nature to tell slightly different stories of the same event over time, and they are still consistent in themselves.

[Senator]

Yes it is. But such is the Nature of man. I mean think about it. We celebrate a man who was a self confest Murderer and fugitive from the law. (Moses) David, a caniving Adulturess Murderer. Peter a self confessed Liar. Paul, again confessed to Murder, asult, brawling before the king even. Yet for some reason Joseph Smith who killed no one, possibly lied and concealed truth to save his own skin and that of his friends (kind of like David, Abraham and others) We look at him and say... well he isn't Jesus Incarnate so heck no Im not following or beleiving in him.

Yet, interestingly, if any of our modern Prophets were to to be found engaged (self confessed or not) in any of the activities you listed, he would be immediately removed from his position and excommunicated from the church, along with the esteem, rememberance and following of the faithful.

That's why it's hard to swallow.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Senator

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Maybe it's a good thing that God still talks to us his far from perfect children. Usually to get us to try to be better.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is this a separate thread?

Seems a rehash of what's being discussed in the thread Pahoran started.