Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[california boy]

Here's a sincere question: If the Brethren presented a new revelation that down the line prohibited homosexual marriage and homosexual behavior, and if that revelation were presented to the body of the Church and accepted as a revelation and included in the canonized body of scriptures, would you heed it? It seems more likely that the same people who are presently evading and circumventing and rejecting and defying the Proclamation and other plain and clear teachings from prophets and apostles would do the same to "further revelation." Are the folks who are in the Church and advocating against its teachings about homosexual behavior genuinely interested in "further revelation?" Or do they want capitulation? I don't really see much effort to discerning the will of God in this matter (else there would be more attention paid and heed given to the counsel from the Brethren, including the Proclamation).

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

First, let me make my position about gay marriage in the church perfectly clear.  As I have stated over and over again in other threads, I am not expecting the church to embrace gay marriage in the temples.  I agree with you that the church has been pretty clear that will never happen.  While I firmly believe that gay couples have the constitutional right to equal protection under the laws of this country to marry, (one that every court in the country has agreed on), I also firmly believe that the church has every right to not allow gay marriage in the temples.  Like you, I don't think it will ever happen.

 

As you probably know, I am no longer a member of the church.  I left the church for that very reason.  I choose not to live a celibate life, but instead to live with my boyfriend who I love dearly and would not even consider leaving him and being alone for the rest of my life.  I make that choice for all of the reasons most people choose to share their lives with someone they love and cherish.  My life is filled with love, charity, companionship and knowing that someone is there for me no matter what.  

 

It is an easy choice for me because I really have no interest in being matched up with a woman in the next life for eternity.  So there is no reason or reward for me to make a different choice.  I will trust God, that He has a plan for me.  Evidently it is a different plan than He has for His straight children.

 

The only thing that would bring me back into the church would be if temple marriage was possible for me.  But as you and the church leaders have so clearly stated, that isn't going to happen.  So I will live my life outside the blessings of being a member of the church.  I hope that answers your question.  If not, please let me know.

Edited May 14, 2015 by california boy

[rockpond]

People who look for loopholes for justify a certain behavior know that the behavior is wrong. They are simply trying to find a way to make it possibly right so they can have a good conscience. It is a common thing people do for a variety of things that extend beyond just the law of chastity. People look for loopholes all the time. That does not mean they should as they may deceive themselves that they found a loophole where none really existed.

I completely agree and with that comment to JHLPROF, I was not suggesting that the loophole had any validity. Just that, in terms of "finding loopholes" the 1931 language doesn't really offer an improvement over today's LOC temple wording.

[Daniel2]

I read an article today that I found worthwhile and addresses some of the lines of thinking on this page. It was in Crisis magazine and was entitled "The Protohomosexual". The author builds a case that modern day social choices and decisions created the environment where the current situation could exist. I recommend that you read it, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/theprotohomosexual.

That link doesn't work for me. Is there a more accurate one?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Are you implying that the proclamation was written by attorneys?

 

It has been suggested that the Kirton McConkie lawfirm drafted the Proclamation during the period the church was fighting against the Hawaii SSM initiative. I've never seen this verified. It would be a good question for the church to answer. We know who signed the proclamation but we don't know who wrote it.

The suggestion of Kirton McConkie drafting the proclamation makes sense from a legal perspective but could also help explain why it hasn't been canonized.

[california boy]

First, I'm not sure you are accurately representing "Scott's assertion." I'll let Scott speak to that.

Second, "being gay" is too simplistically described solely as "a physical ailment." Genetic predisposition may play a role, but then so too can environmental influences, individual experiences and choices, and so on.

Third, to the extent Scott was presenting an analogy (as I think he was), that analogy - like any other - has limits to its application. While the cause(s) of homosexuality may have a genetic component (comparable to someone being born blind due to a genetic variance), there is no moral/spiritual analog between a blind person "acting" on his blindness (by, say, learning to read braille) and a person with SSA "acting" on that attraction (by engaging in homosexual behavior). The two conditions (blindness and SSA) have no comparative value in that regard.

I note the repeated pejorative use of the work "magically." It undermines your claim to be speaking "in all seriousness, and no sarcasm intended." Please stop it.

First, there are some serious defects with your presupposition ("If being gay is a physical ailment...").

Second, nobody - and I mean nobody, has claimed that a person with SSA has committed a sin. The Church's teaching is that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Third, if there is no behavior, there is no need for repentance. Repentance is not "automatic" for a person who has but resists SSA. Repentance is simply not necessary for such a person.

Fourth, if a person with SSA succumbs to temptation and engaged in homosexual behavior, then repentance is required. But there's nothing "automatic" about it.

I genuinely do not understand your argument here. The whole point is that homosexual desires are not sinful, but that homosexual behavior is. So the only time repentance comes into view is when someone succumbs to SSA and engages in homosexual behavior.

Adhering to the Law of Chastity in today's oh-so sexualized world is pretty tough. And yet you seem to be trying some sort of sleight-of-hand mumbo jumbo by characterizing it as a "cake walk." I don't get it.

That's a highly debatable point.

I seriously question that. This may be where Scott's comparison becomes apt. To the extent SSA is an inborn/genetic "trait" (akin to a physical ailment like blindness or some such thing), then what will happen in the hereafter? Resurrected bodies will be perfect (blindness will not exist, for example). But what about mental/emotional desires/predelictions? Will they remain in place after the resurrection? Will people who struggle with pornography or desires to commit adultery or fornication or any other sexual sin still struggle with such things? Or will they be "fixed" along with blindness and other types of ailments?

The way the Church deals with people with SSA in this life is to tell them to adhere to the Law of Chastity. That is the exact same standard to which heterosexual members are held.

I think this statement encapsulates whole swaths of unreasonable and incompatible-with-LDS-soteriology assumptions about "eternity" and about God's dealings with His children. The equation calculating the worth of the children of God is not reducible to sex. Eternal increase is about so, so much more than the physical act upon which some folks are apparently fixated, along with the fleeting physical pleasures associated therewith. Eternal increase is about creation. We experience some small portion of that while in this mortal probation when we utilize procreative powers to have children, but only within parameters set by God. And the parameters for using those procreative powers exclude homosexual behavior (for a variety of reasons, I suspect, not the least of which is that such behavior by definition has absolutely nothing to do with procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife). Other types of sexual behaviors which are incongruous with God's plans for His children, and which are also severed from the two foregoing objectives (procreation and strengthening the bond between husband and wife) are likewise prohibited (adultery, fornication, prostitution, etc.).

My sense is that what we think of as "procreation" (a mortal man having sex with a mortal woman to beget offspring) is a type and shadow of things to come, of what is often described as "eternal increase." I think this is why celestial marriage (between, obviously, a man and a woman) is so intertwined with increase in scriptures like D&C 131:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Gen. 1:28 and Ps. 127:3, and why sexual behaviors which have severed the connection between sex and procreation/parenting (fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexual behavior, and so on) are prohibited by God.

People with SSA will have every opportunity to achieve exaltation in the Kingdom of God. This is where Scott's comparison becomes apt again. There is no eschatalogical distinction between "gay" and "straight" children of God. All can be saved through faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. Part of that faith entails obedience to commandments of God and repentance of sins. This is where Latter-day Saints advocating for endorsing/celebrating homosexual behavior and SSM really go off the rails. Homosexual conduct is prohibited by God (as are many other forms of sexual sin). I recognize that our current society, including some members of the Church, really really want to exempt homosexual conduct from the Law of Chastity. There are all sorts of machinations which have been attempted, including radically re-defining the word "marriage," accusing the Brethren of hate-based bigotry for not toeing the currently trendy line of embracing and celebrating same-sex behaviors, and so on. But I just don't think these efforts will work. Kicking against the pricks never has.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Thanks for your response.  I don't think you understood my point completely given your answer, but you did understand part of it and told me your thoughts, which is what I was interested in.  In reading your answer as well as others, I can clearly see that you all approach this subject from only your own perspective, which of course is straight rather than gay.  It seems that it is difficult for my perspective to be understood.  Perhaps there is so much discord on this subject you and others automatically assume that I am against many of the things you believe to be true.  Because of that assumption, you and others often address issues that I have no issue with.  Maybe this will help.

 

1.  I completely understand and accept that the church believes that there is no sin in being homosexual.  The only sin is acting out on that attraction.  

 

2.  The church expects gay members to be celibate throughout this life and never marry someone of the same sex.

 

3.  If a gay member follows this path, then they will receive the same exaltation as all of God's children and be matched for eternity with a woman and procreate endless spirit children and have kingdoms of their own.  They will no longer be attracted to the same sex.  It will disappear as if that attraction never existed.

 

Would you say that my understanding is roughly the same as yours and other members?

 

Now here is where things get a bit murky for me.  What happens if you are gay in this life, find a companion of the same sex, marry and share that life with them outside the church?

 

1.  Will you still have that same attraction to men after you die?

 

Let's just leave it at this point.  I don't want to get things too confusing.  Love to hear if you think I am stating church doctrine and I would love to hear what church doctrine is on the second part.

[Gray]

I know a gay couple who are married.  They are related to my adopted son.  We get along very well and all that but it has not changed my opinion on gay marriage by even 1%.  I know people who have had premarital sex.  They are nice people but my opinion on shacking up before marriage has not changed.  My wife sister is one of these people.  I don't give her any flack but what she is doing is 100% wrong. 

 

There are exceptions to every rule. Some people need more experience than others to open their hearts on this issue.

 

It does not matter what our hearts say in the end.

 

Really? We certainly wouldn't be able to convert anyone if we told them to ignore their hearts. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

People who look for loopholes for justify a certain behavior know that the behavior is wrong.  They are simply trying to find a way to make it possibly right so they can have a good conscience.  It is a common thing people do for a variety of things that extend beyond just the law of chastity.  People look for loopholes all the time.  That does not mean they should as they may deceive themselves that they found a loophole where none really existed.

 

To be fair, loopholes are commonly sought when defending the practice of polygamy. Not to mention defending the idea of eternal marriage when compared to Jesus' teachings on marriage. Or for abandoning the Law of Moses. Finding loopholes is not an automatic indicator that someone is justifying wrongdoing.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Gray

[smac97]

Thanks for your response.  I don't think you understood my point completely given your answer, but you did understand part of it and told me your thoughts, which is what I was interested in.  In reading your answer as well as others, I can clearly see that you all approach this subject from only your own perspective, which of course is straight rather than gay.

My perspective on these issues is informed far more by my religious beliefs than by my sexual orientation.

 

It seems that it is difficult for my perspective to be understood.  Perhaps there is so much discord on this subject you and others automatically assume that I am against many of the things you believe to be true.  Because of that assumption, you and others often address issues that I have no issue with.  Maybe this will help.

 

1.  I completely understand and accept that the church believes that there is no sin in being homosexual.  The only sin is acting out on that attraction.  

 

2.  The church expects gay members to be celibate throughout this life and never marry someone of the same sex.

 

3.  If a gay member follows this path, then they will receive the same exaltation as all of God's children and be matched for eternity with a woman and procreate endless spirit children and have kingdoms of their own.  They will no longer be attracted to the same sex.  It will disappear as if that attraction never existed.

 

Would you say that my understanding is roughly the same as yours and other members?

The above sounds more like a caricature. I think the difference between our perspectives could be that I define people principally by our relationship to God, that we are His children. Everything else flows from that presupposition. That is my Starting Point. If we are children of God, then what are we supposed to do while we are here? What will we be doing after we leave this world? How do we prepare for what comes next? What is the purpose of discerning our relationship with God, discerning God's will, and attempting to live according to that will?

Questions like these come first for me. I then act based on the answers I've formulated. I read scriptures and ponder them and pray about them and discuss them with others and seek to apply the principles I learn from them in my daily life. I served in the military, and I served an LDS mission, and I went to college, and I got married, and I had children, and I am focused on being a good husband and father. I attend Church and pay tithing and fulfill a calling in the Church and attend the temple. I serve in my community. I am gainfully employed and pay taxes. I strive to be a law-abiding citizen. I abstain from consuming alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and habit-forming substances. I am faithful to my wife.

I am far from perfect in any of these endeavors. I am a sinner. I fail to obey God in ways small and otherwise every day. But I try to repent and have faith in God. And at the end of the day I am doing these things because they have seemed congruous with God's will and with spiritual promptings I received. I am doing these things because I believe we are all children of God, and that status governs and informs and predominates over all other considerations in my life.

Now, I can also be characterized as having the "status" of being male, as an American, as a person of Euoropean caucasian descent, as a lawyer, as a member of a particular political party, as a heterosexual, as a husband, as a father, and so on. But all of these categorizations are subordinate to the Big One: that I am a child of God. That is my Starting Point. So to the extent there is a behavior that stems from any of these subordinate positions, I want to make sure that the behavior ultimately falls within parameters set by God for His children.

I don't know you. It seems like some folks have a different Starting Point. For some, it's gender. For some, it's race. For some, is political ideology. For some, it's their line of work. For some, its nationality. And for some, it's sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Some people use sexual orientation and perspectives on sexual attraction, sexual activity, and so on as their "Starting Point." Please don't misunderstand me. It is clear that things like gender and race and nationality and so on, including sexual orientation, are very important. For me, though, I cannot or will not allow any of these to predominate over my chosen Starting Point.

 

Now here is where things get a bit murky for me.  What happens if you are gay in this life, find a companion of the same sex, marry and share that life with them outside the church?

I will say four things that I believe:

1. The Law of Chastity prohibits extramarital sex (based on the LDS definition of marriage), including homosexual behavior.  In their 14 November 1991 letter concerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

2. Marriages and marriage-like relationships which are not solemnized under the sealing ordinance have no force or effect after death. (See D&C 132:15).

 

3. Marriage-like same-sex relationships are not, nor do I believe ever will be, solemnized under the sealing ordinance.

4. God will judge individuals according to His infinite justice and mercy. It is therefore not my place to speculate about "what happens" to anyone except to the extent we can discern such things based on revealed truths (such as nos. 1 and 2 above).

 

1.  Will you still have that same attraction to men after you die?

I have my personal opinions, but I think they are too speculative to present here.

That said, and as I have said previously, I reject the notion that "being" gay is a purely immutable trait. I think it is a combination of genetic predisposition, environmental factors and individual choice (this is why an across-the-board comparison to "being blind" is problematic). And then there's Alma 34:34 to consider ("Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."). I have also previously posed these questions: "To the extent SSA is an inborn/genetic 'trait' (akin to a physical ailment like blindness or some such thing), then what will happen in the hereafter? Resurrected bodies will be perfect (blindness will not exist, for example). But what about mental/emotional desires/predilections? Will they remain in place after the resurrection? Will people who struggle with pornography or desires to commit adultery or fornication or any other sexual sin still struggle with such things? Or will they be 'fixed' along with blindness and other types of ailments?"

These were not rhetorical questions. I am not sure of the answers. Again, I have personal opinions about them, but I think it would be more appropriate to quote Doctrine & Covenants 9:6 - "But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is. Amen."

 

Let's just leave it at this point.  I don't want to get things too confusing.  Love to hear if you think I am stating church doctrine and I would love to hear what church doctrine is on the second part.

Sounds good. Thank you for your thoughts.

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

 

 

It has been suggested that the Kirton McConkie lawfirm drafted the Proclamation during the period the church was fighting against the Hawaii SSM initiative. I've never seen this verified. It would be a good question for the church to answer. We know who signed the proclamation but we don't know who wrote it.

The suggestion of Kirton McConkie drafting the proclamation makes sense from a legal perspective but could also help explain why it hasn't been canonized.

 

CFR, please.  Who did the "suggesting?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

I know a gay couple who are married. They are related to my adopted son. We get along very well and all that but it has not changed my opinion on gay marriage by even 1%. I know people who have had premarital sex. They are nice people but my opinion on shacking up before marriage has not changed. My wife sister is one of these people. I don't give her any flack but what she is doing is 100% wrong.

There are exceptions to every rule. Some people need more experience than others to open their hearts on this issue.

It does not matter what our hearts say in the end.

Really? We certainly wouldn't be able to convert anyone if we told them to ignore their hearts.

Note what Carbon Dioxide said: "It does not matter what our hearts say in the end."

I think that's right. "In the end" we discern truth through the Spirit. Emotional response, intellectual inquiry, etc. are all subordinate to the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2015 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

CFR, please.  Who did the "suggesting?"

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I've seen it in multiple places on the interwebz so I can't recall where I saw it first but here's a link I just found with a google search. Again, I'm not claiming the theory that Kirton McConkie drafting the proclamation is absolutely true but it seems plausible and worthy of a question to the church.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/15370/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

I've seen it in multiple places on the interwebz so I can't recall where I saw it first but here's a link I just found with a google search. Again, I'm not claiming the theory that Kirton McConkie drafting the proclamation is absolutely true but it seems plausible and worthy of a question to the church.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/15370/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

Wouldn’t it be even more plausible that those whom you sustain as “prophets, seers and revelators” were inspired by God to write the Proclamation? 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Wouldn’t it be even more plausible that those whom you sustain as “prophets, seers and revelators” were inspired by God to write the Proclamation?

 

I've never seen anywhere that they claim to have written it. I sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators, NOT as authors of the proclamation. If they say they did then I would accept that. But to my knowledge they've never said that. A simple question to the leadership would clear it up.

Simply ask "Who authored the Proclamation?" and "was it received by revelation?" Then maybe follow up with, "Was Kirton McConkie involved in the drafting of the proclamation?" Easy...if one has access to ask and respect from the brethren so they'll answer.

Until then it is reasonable to say we do not know who wrote the proclamation.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Have you read Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004)?  It addresses Loving v. Virginia (your references to the 1st and 14th Amendments is too vague to respond to), as follows:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes I have read it. I don't agree.

 

Firstly; I said the spirit of Loving v Virginia. As such that legal marriage in Virginia excluded bi-racial couples for being included in the definition of legal marriage. IMO that is a legal tautology of exclusion by definition. The same reasoning was used to enforce other Jim Crow, and Chattel Slavery laws particularly in the South.

 

Secondly; The First Amendment precludes the state from interfering in religious doctrine or beliefs, except in very limited circumstance of compelling safety/secular needs. IE; Churches can't use freedom of religion to violate building electrical codes.

 

Thirdly; The 14th Amendment gives all people living in the US proper, territories, possessions, and those area's under US control the Equal Protections of the law. Which was the central deciding point of Loving v Virginia.

 

Always good to talk with you.

Edited May 14, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[ksfisher]

 

 

I've never seen anywhere that they claim to have written it. I sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators, NOT as authors of the proclamation. If they say they did then I would accept that. But to my knowledge they've never said that. A simple question to the leadership would clear it up.

Simply ask "Who authored the Proclamation?" and "was it received by revelation?" Then maybe follow up with, "Was Kirton McConkie involved in the drafting of the proclamation?" Easy...if one has access to ask and respect from the brethren so they'll answer.

Until then it is reasonable to say we do not know who wrote the proclamation.

 

Why does it matter who put the words on paper?  The fact that the Proclamation begins "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the signatures at the bottom would seem to indicate that they consider the words to be theirs regardless of who wrote the first draft (and I imagine there would have been several). 

[Gray]

Note what Carbon Dioxide said: "It does not matter what our hearts say in the end."

I think that's right. "In the end" we discern truth through the Spirit. Emotional response, intellectual inquiry, etc. are all subordinate to the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And when the Spirit tells someone that gay marriage is the right course for gay people, your response is...

[rockpond]

Why does it matter who put the words on paper?  The fact that the Proclamation begins "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the signatures at the bottom would seem to indicate that they consider the words to be theirs regardless of who wrote the first draft (and I imagine there would have been several). 

 

I agree that it doesn't matter... unless one is claiming that the PotF is revelation -- then it matters where those words originated.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Why does it matter who put the words on paper?  The fact that the Proclamation begins "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the signatures at the bottom would seem to indicate that they consider the words to be theirs regardless of who wrote the first draft (and I imagine there would have been several).

 

It only matters if scripture/revelation is received by prophets instead of attorneys. I have no problem with prophets endorsing statements or proclamations written by attorneys. They can do that. But I wouldn't go so far as calling those things scripture or revelation. That's why it matters.

[JulieM]

It only matters if scripture/revelation is received by prophets instead of attorneys. I have no problem with prophets endorsing statements or proclamations written by attorneys. They can do that. But I wouldn't go so far as calling those things scripture or revelation. That's why it matters.

Exactly. If the proclamation was a revelation to the Prophet, he would have recorded it or dictated it to his secretary (as Joseph Smith did and others). When was the last time there is record of a revelation such as this from the president and Prophet?

Edited May 14, 2015 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

I completely agree and with that comment to JHLPROF, I was not suggesting that the loophole had any validity. Just that, in terms of "finding loopholes" the 1931 language doesn't really offer an improvement over today's LOC temple wording.

 

Perhaps.

I still think separately limiting men to wives given by the priesthood is more clear.

The fact that there is no prohibition on relations with the same sex may be a loophole, but there are many other things not prohibited in the law of chastity.  I guess nobody ever though any endowed person would want a relationship outside of what God established.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

I've never seen anywhere that they claim to have written it. I sustain them as prophets, seers and revelators, NOT as authors of the proclamation. If they say they did then I would accept that. But to my knowledge they've never said that. A simple question to the leadership would clear it up.

Simply ask "Who authored the Proclamation?" and "was it received by revelation?" Then maybe follow up with, "Was Kirton McConkie involved in the drafting of the proclamation?" Easy...if one has access to ask and respect from the brethren so they'll answer.

Until then it is reasonable to say we do not know who wrote the proclamation.

 

And even more reasonable to say that -- absent clear, convincing evidence to the contrary -- those whom I sustain as “prophets, seers are revelators” write their own official doctrinal proclamations, rather than subbing it out.

[thesometimesaint]

 

And even more reasonable to say that -- absent clear, convincing evidence to the contrary -- those whom I sustain as “prophets, seers are revelators” write their own official doctrinal proclamations, rather than subbing it out.

 

 

I don't find that reasonable at all. After all even Joseph Smith used a secretary.

[ksfisher]

 

And even more reasonable to say that -- absent clear, convincing evidence to the contrary -- those whom I sustain as “prophets, seers are revelators” write their own official doctrinal proclamations, rather than subbing it out.

 

 

So the Proclamation is devalued in your eyes because the President of the Church asked someone else to write it?  Does the President of the Church need to do everything himself?  Do you think that if there was anything in the Proclamation that the First Presidency didn't endorse that it wouldn't have been edited out?  Do you think that if they felt that anything was missing that they wouldn't have asked for it to be edited in?  What value does the signatures of 15 of the Savior's Apostles on the bottom of the Proclamation have?

Edited May 14, 2015 by ksfisher

[smac97]

I see little value in discussing the value of the Proclamation, or its lessened value, based on sheer speculation about it being ghost written.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Skylla]

This thread is done.

 

Skylla