Bible vs. Book of Mormon?

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, cdowis said:

And these very same critics generally accept the doctrine of the "one substance entity" or homoousia of the Nicene Creed, and their interpretation of such phrases as "one God" in the BOM is framed in the context of that heretical doctrine.  

That phrase actually refers to the meaning found in John 17:19-23.  When I point that out to them (among other scriptures) their response is simply silence.

I'm not saying you don't have a point.  You do.  THanks.

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 8/23/2016 at 0:19 PM, Tacenda said:

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible

it is also possible they were proof-texting and doing parallelomania. For example, some scholars argue that "Nazarene" has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. Some argue the "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is  mistranslated, and the author of Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah.  I am not saying Matthew was wrong, but that is what some scholars argue. 

Also, please tell your born-again friend there is NO evidence that early Christians before 90 AD believed that Jesus was a God. 

Edited August 25, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

I find that a dictionary is handy in discussions with the antiMormons.  May I suggest that you may find it handy {my mocking sarcasm}

I was discussing the issue whether the Book of Mormon has made changes to its text or not. I am of the opinion that switching the word "pure" for the word "white" constitutes a change of the text. While I'm all in favour of using a dictionary, may I suggest improving your reading comprehension (my mocking sarcasm)

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/23/2016 at 0:19 PM, Tacenda said:

I spoke with someone on the phone today who is a former LDS turned born-again Christian, my insurance guy. He told me a few things that were new to me about the Bible. He told of how the scribes were meticulous at getting everything perfect and writing down things on animal skins. Quote below from this link: http://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-was-the-bible-written-and-transmitted.aspx  

"The earliest biblical texts were written on scrolls made from papyrus (a plant-based paper) or parchment (animal skins that had been scraped, burnished, and stitched together). It is very likely that all biblical books were initially written on scrolls. Only in the second or third century C.E. did scribes begin to write on papyrus or parchment that was folded and stitched into a codex, which more closely resembles our modern print book. After the invention of the codex, Christians tended to copy their scriptures into codex form, whereas Jews traditionally continued to copy their scriptures in scroll form."

It bothers me that Joseph Smith threw the Bible under the bus, by saying we believe it as far as it is translated correctly. Who's to know which scripture that is? The Book of Mormon is full of corrected words or grammar. But these scribes would make sure each word is correct or do it all over again. 

or this:

"The biblical books had to be copied over again and again so that they could be preserved for other people to read them. The process of rewriting the books of the Bible was not always perfect—sometimes mistakes were introduced or words were added or dropped. We call this whole process, including the accurate copies and the mistakes, the transmission of the text. That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again."

I guess they do have translations that needed to be corrected like the Book of Mormon, so why not say both books "as far as translated correctly"?

Also, the evidences of prophecies that came true in the Bible, verse Joseph Smith's prophesies coming true. How can we not take the Bible more seriously than we do, and why would we place doubt in it? 

http://www.gospelway.com/god/evidences-prophecy.php

I get no message of doubt for the Bible within the LDS faith, but rather a sober realization that the text of the Bible has been transmitted for thousands of years and that our English translations are quite far from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts -- with all their faults.  Even at that, the LDS attitude toward the Bible is to study it seriously and take its lessons to heart.  Joseph certainly did not throw it under the bus (that is anti-Mormon propaganda you're hearing).

You question Joseph's prophecies, but accept those of the Bible?  Which prophecies are you talking about?  Joseph has had a remarkable record of fulfillment of significant prophecy, and non-Mormon scholars are very impressed by his achievements.  He correctly predicted the U.S. Civil War, including where it would begin.  He correctly predicted the gathering of the Jews back to their homeland, and even sent Apostle Orson Hyde to dedicate the Holy Land to their gathering and rebuilding their temple (the latter still not yet done) -- I saw firsthand the retaking of Old Jerusalem by the Jews for the first time in 2,000 years.  Joseph and Brigham did an extraordinary job of establishing the Restoration of the Gospel, and it has now been taken to the entire planet.  Why would any of us throw the LDS faith under the bus?

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/25/2016 at 0:06 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

it is also possible they were proof-texting and doing parallelomania. For example, some scholars argue that "Nazarene" has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. Some argue the "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is  mistranslated, and the author of Matthew misinterpreted Isaiah.  I am not saying Matthew was wrong, but that is what some scholars argue. 

Also, please tell your born-again friend there is NO evidence that early Christians before 90 AD believed that Jesus was a God. 

Have you read Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, which conveniently surveys early Christian belief regarding Jesus as God?  And incidentally,, her recent commentary on John has some very interesting things to say about Nazarene.  A preview is here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TemenosJesusintheGospelofJohn.pdf

Quote

This suggests that the Greek word did not mean ‘of Nazareth’ but came from the Hebrew nāṣa, which meant to guard, preserve or keep.  In the Talmud, Jesus was called the nôṣrî.

The Nazōreans would then be the preserved or guarded people, neṣûrîm, and with different vowels, they would be the guardians or preservers, nōṣrîm, which became the Hebrew name for the Christians.  

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Have you read Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, which conveniently surveys early Christian belief regarding Jesus as God? 

No, but I read Bart Ehrman. Please show me evidence that early Christians (before 90 AD) believed that Jesus was a God. 

13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

I am sorry, my mistake, I meant to say that some scholars argue that branch in Isa. 11:1 has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. 

[cdowis]

On 8/25/2016 at 0:38 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

I was discussing the issue whether the Book of Mormon has made changes to its text or not. I am of the opinion that switching the word "pure" for the word "white" constitutes a change of the text. While I'm all in favour of using a dictionary, may I suggest improving your reading comprehension (my mocking sarcasm)

So, if you edit the text to change a speciific word to a synonym for clarification is a "change of the text".  OK, whatever floats your boat, but I note that you "forgot" to mention that it was indeed a synonym, and that is where  the dictionary comes in.

Golly, this is a very typical tactic, to "forget" to mention context whem making an argument so we will have to scrutinize watch your posts carefully and spend time checking them out.  I really don't have time for such "reading comprehension", watching for clever tricks.

I think it may be better if we just block each other, but let's see.

Edited August 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No, but I read Bart Ehrman. Please show me evidence that early Christians (before 90 AD) believed that Jesus was a God. 

I am sorry, my mistake, I meant to say that some scholars argue that branch in Isa. 11:1 has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. 

I did show you evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus was a God.  I've read it myself several times, and found that it transformed my own readings,not only of the Bible, but also of the Book of Mormon, even though at that point, Barker had not yet read, or even thought about about it.

The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God by Margaret Barker.

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israels-Second/dp/0664253954/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472304637&sr=1-1&keywords=Margaret+Barker+The+Great+Angel

If you can read Ehrman, it should be possible for you to read Barker.  And it's a case best made at the well, drinking the full cup at the source, rather than twitterized into a few droplets here.

And of course, if you make it through The Great Angel, there is also The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, that takes things further.  But I would still start with The Great Angel.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Have you read Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, which conveniently surveys early Christian belief regarding Jesus as God?  And incidentally,, her recent commentary on John has some very interesting things to say about Nazarene.  A preview is here:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TemenosJesusintheGospelofJohn.pdf

Quote

This suggests that the Greek word did not mean ‘of Nazareth’ but came from the Hebrew nāṣa, which meant to guard, preserve or keep.  In the Talmud, Jesus was called the nôṣrî.

The Nazōreans would then be the preserved or guarded people, neṣûrîm, and with different vowels, they would be the guardians or preservers, nōṣrîm, which became the Hebrew name for the Christians.  

KJV GN Nazareth = Roman period Hebrew Naṣeret, Arabic Naṣirat, NT Greek Nazaret.  The place is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, nor in Josephus, and first occurs in Hebrew in a 300 A.D. synagogue inscription in Caesarea.[1]  It is possible that Matthew recognized the prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 about the nēṣer “shoot” from the stem of Jesse, as being fulfilled in Jesus the son of David coming from Nazareth and being therefore called in Greek Nazōraios “Nazarene” – especially given the Syriac Naṣraya (Matthew 2:23; cf. Isaiah 60:21).  One ought also to consider the so-called Pierced Messiah text from Qumran cave 4 (4Q285 /4QMessianic Leader-Nasi/4QWar Scroll^g/4QMilama frag 5, Midrash Isaiah, Aramaic),[2] in which one finds that very same "shoot, root of Jesse" ǁ"branch of David" ("Prince of the Congrega­tion"), etc., specifically quoting "Isaiah the Prophet" as in 2 Nephi 21:1-2,10 (=Isaiah 11:1-2,10), Jacob 2:25, Mosiah 14:2-12 (=Isaiah 53:2-12, Suffering Servant, Son), 15:9; 2 Samuel 7, Isaiah 4:2, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Zechariah 3:8, 6:12 ("Branch" = "rising Sun" Luke 1:78 [Malachi 3:20/4:2]), 12:10, Psalm 69:26.  G. Vermes insists that, as in Isaiah 11:1-4, it is the Messiah who does the judging and slaying, not the other way around, and that it is the Davidic Messiah figure who is triumphant, as in 4Q161, 4Q521, and 1QSb.[3]  Thus, John Collins translates frag 5 line 4 as "the Prince of the Congrega­tion, the Branch of David, will kill him",[4] against Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise's primary reading of "they will put to death the Leader of the Communi­ty, the Bran[ch of David]," though they offer the alternative favored by Gaster and Martinez.[5]

 

It is also possible that the etymology here should be based on Northwest Semitic nṣr “guard” (Arabic naẓara, Syriac nṭar).[6]  Thus, when the Babylonian Talmud refers to Jesus as haNoṣrî (Berakot 17b, Soṭa 47a), which David Stern takes to mean simply Jesus of Nazareth,[7] Stephen Goranson understands it to mean “Observer (of Torah)” – based especially on Mandean Nāṣōrāyā “true religious ‘observers’.”[8]

---

[1] Wikipedia “Nazareth,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth , citing M. Avi-Yonah, "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962):137–139.

[2] BAR, 18/4 (July-Aug 1992):80-82.

[3] So Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 124, frag. 5, line 4; see the debate in BAR, 18/4 (Jul-Aug 1992):80-82; James Tabor in 18/6 (Nov-Dec 1992):58-59; Robert Holst in 19/1 (Jan-Feb 1993):66-67; Bible Review, 14/6 (Dec 1998):14.

[4] James Charlesworth & Walter Weaver, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Faith.

[5] Eisenman & Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 29, frag. 7, line 4.

[6] Patrick R. Bennett, Comparative Semitic Linguistics: A Manual (Eisenbrauns, 1998), 28.

[7] D. H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 5^th ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publ., 1996), 15.

[8] S. Goranson, “Nazarenes,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:1049.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I did show you evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus was a God.  I've read it myself several times, and found that it transformed my own readings,not only of the Bible, but also of the Book of Mormon, even though at that point, Barker had not yet read, or even thought about about it.

Do the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) say that Jesus was a God? Did Paul say Jesus was a God? anything that dates before 90 AD? 

Please 

Edited August 27, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kevin Christensen]

There the kinds of skeptics that when they heard the stories of the women seeing Jesus risen that dismissed them accounts as old wives' tales, and there was Peter, who ran and looked for himself.  The actions we take demonstrate as much as the ones we don't.

If you can read Ehrman, you can get through The Great Angel.  The point of her work, the point of her methods and sources, is to stand where they stood, so you can glimpse what they saw.  

"What finally prompted me to write was an article (I will not specify whilst browsing in the library. Like so many recent contributions to New Testament study, this one assumed that the idea of Jesus's divinity was brought relatively late into Christianity, invented by Greek converts who had not really left their paganism behind.  It was a painstaking study of one minute area with no attention to the broader context and showed the dangers inherent in over specialization which characterizes the contemporary scene." (Barker xiii).

She notes that statements of early Christian belief quoted by Paul in Philippians and Romans already includes the titles Son of God, Lord, and Messiah.

"It has been the practice to treat the titles separately, as if each designated a different aspect of belief, and the separate strands were only brought together by the creative theologizing of the first Christians. I should like to explore a different possibility, namely that these three titles, and several others, belonged together in the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine, and the first Christians fitted Jesus into an existing pattern of belief." (Barker, 2)

And she sets off on a wide ranging survey of the Old Testament, the Exile, Jewish writers, Wisdom traditions, Targums, traditions about Angels, about the Name, Philo and other Jewish writers, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostics, the First Christians, and finally, in the concluding chapter, goes through the evidence of the New Testament.  It's a wide ranging survey in which the journey prepares the mind to be able to see the meaning of patterns and uses in the New Testament, and which without that journey and contextualization, will not have anywhere near the same effect.  As with so much scholarship, it's not just seeing facts, but seeing the meaning of facts in light of larger, interconnecting patterns.  As the Parable of the Sower explains to those with ears to hear, soil, context and nurture can make for a vastly different harvest from exactly the same seeds (words).

"There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God, and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord." (Barker 3).

Another 250 pages follow.   Very much worth reading very carefully, in my experience.  And quite apart from New Testament considerations, amazingly relevant to the Book of Mormon.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 31, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

On 8/23/2016 at 6:06 PM, CountryBoy said:

You are not alone.  Many concentrate on the Book of Genesis and then the New Testament.

btw....you and your really good friends can stop bashing me and others on the other board...you are mostly wrong, anyway

Very uncalled for Country Boy, hopefully you have apologized to my good friend Jeanne, and I've yet to see it.

[Tacenda]

On 8/25/2016 at 11:24 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I get no message of doubt for the Bible within the LDS faith, but rather a sober realization that the text of the Bible has been transmitted for thousands of years and that our English translations are quite far from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts -- with all their faults.  Even at that, the LDS attitude toward the Bible is to study it seriously and take its lessons to heart.  Joseph certainly did not throw it under the bus (that is anti-Mormon propaganda you're hearing).

You question Joseph's prophecies, but accept those of the Bible?  Which prophecies are you talking about?  Joseph has had a remarkable record of fulfillment of significant prophecy, and non-Mormon scholars are very impressed by his achievements.  He correctly predicted the U.S. Civil War, including where it would begin.  He correctly predicted the gathering of the Jews back to their homeland, and even sent Apostle Orson Hyde to dedicate the Holy Land to their gathering and rebuilding their temple (the latter still not yet done) -- I saw firsthand the retaking of Old Jerusalem by the Jews for the first time in 2,000 years.  Joseph and Brigham did an extraordinary job of establishing the Restoration of the Gospel, and it has now been taken to the entire planet.  Why would any of us throw the LDS faith under the bus?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies

Here's the FairMormon take on it, I'm sure you're aware of them.

I think after talking to my friend, I feel there's more faith in his little finger about the word of God than many of you on here. 

I wonder why some of our latter day prophets and apostles haven't expressed loudly that they have seen Jesus Christ, if they have. I understand if they have not. But why only allude to the fact that they have. If they have they should shout it out to the roof tops. If they have the Priesthood Keys, that is taught in the church. 

With secularism on the rise, you would think someone would proclaim it, if they'd seen Him. That's what apostles are for. 

[cdowis]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why some of our latter day prophets and apostles haven't expressed loudly that they have seen Jesus Christ, if they have. I understand if they have not. But why only allude to the fact that they have. If they have they should shout it out to the roof tops. If they have the Priesthood Keys, that is taught in the church. 

Can we assume that you have not read the scriptures, specifically the Bible.

Matt 7 [6] Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

We appreciate that you are telling the apostles what they "should" do, and the function and duties of their office.  Thank you so very much for your suggestions.

Edited August 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Can we assume that you have not read the scriptures, specifically the Bible.

Matt 7 [6] Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

We appreciate that you are telling the apostles what they "should" do, and the function and duties of their office.  Thank you so very much for your suggestions.

I'm aware of this scripture, does this have anything to do with what I am asking cdowis? The members of the church are swine, those that are in good standing and might could gain from such an assurance? 

Or do they follow under this criteria?

http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-an-apostle.html

 In a sense, all followers of Jesus Christ are called to be apostles. We are all to be His ambassadors (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20). We are all to be “ones who are sent out” (Acts 1:8). We are all to be preachers of the good news (Romans 10:15).

ETA: Hope you'll forgive me for these questions, I think I'm just seeking.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm aware of this scripture, does this have anything to do with what I am asking cdowis? The members of the church are swine, those that are in good standing and might could gain from such an assurance? 

YOu might find this helpful

 

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Do the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) say that Jesus was a God? Did Paul say Jesus was a God? anything that dates before 90 AD? 

Please 

How about when Jesus said this:

"33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
John 10:33-36

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

How about when Jesus said this:

"33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
John 10:33-36

Please re-read the question. Do the Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and Mark) say that Jesus was a God? Did Paul say Jesus was a God? anything that dates before 90 AD? Please

Why only Matthew, Mark,  and Luke? because they probably date before 90 AD. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies

Here's the FairMormon take on it, I'm sure you're aware of them.

I think after talking to my friend, I feel there's more faith in his little finger about the word of God than many of you on here. 

I wonder why some of our latter day prophets and apostles haven't expressed loudly that they have seen Jesus Christ, if they have. I understand if they have not. But why only allude to the fact that they have. If they have they should shout it out to the roof tops. If they have the Priesthood Keys, that is taught in the church. 

With secularism on the rise, you would think someone would proclaim it, if they'd seen Him. That's what apostles are for. 

Wow...you are asking all the right questions IMO.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Wow...you are asking all the right questions IMO.

As I read my post, I feel bad that I compared my insurance guy's faith to those on this board. I was just meaning that this guy totally believes it all. Where a few on here, do not. 

But thanks!

[UtahTexan]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Very uncalled for Country Boy, hopefully you have apologized to my good friend Jeanne, and I've yet to see it.

Nope.  I haven't.  Her and her friends on the other board spend a lot of time bashing me...lying about me, bashing Calm, bashing Scott, bashing Nemesis, bashing Smac.....some kind of friend.

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

Nope.  I haven't.  Her and her friends on the other board spend a lot of time bashing me...lying about me, bashing Calm, bashing Scott, bashing Nemesis, bashing Smac.....some kind of friend.

 

Her? Doubt that. But if she said something not to your liking, maybe she had a reason. Sometimes you come off a little harsh. I'd think you would come from a place of understanding, since you were in a lot of their shoes at one time. 

I think now is the time to show that coming back to the church made you rise above that, and you should know that LDS teach love and that includes your enemies. 

But enough preaching on my part, we all have our various perspectives or viewpoints.  

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Her? Doubt that. But if she said something not to your liking, maybe she had a reason. Sometimes you come off a little harsh. I'd think you would come from a place of understanding, since you were in a lot of their shoes at one time. 

I think now is the time to show that coming back to the church made you rise above that, and you should know that LDS teach love and that includes your enemies. 

But enough preaching on my part, we all have our various perspectives or viewpoints.  

Doubt it all you want.  I have been there.  We all allegedly have reasons for what we do.  You are willing to believe she has a reason for her bad conduct but do not believe I have a reason for mine?

Enemies?  I do not consider anyone an enemy.  You asked me if I would apologize, I said no and why.  That does not mean I consider anyone an enemy.  I pray for all of them.

I am sorry you had to drudge this back up....you could have done so in a PM.  Let's get this thread back on track

Edited August 28, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Doubt it all you want.  I have been there.  We all allegedly have reasons for what we do.  You are willing to believe she has a reason for her bad conduct but do not believe I have a reason for mine?

Enemies?  I do not consider anyone an enemy.  You asked me if I would apologize, I said no and why.  That does not mean I consider anyone an enemy.  I pray for all of them.

I've only seen Jeanne reach out in kindness I guess. And believe she isn't two faced. And I did read over on the other board and didn't see anything. But I'll stay out of it now, except to show support for her. Hopefully everyone can mend ways and move on.

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've only seen Jeanne reach out in kindness I guess. And believe she isn't two faced. And I did read over on the other board and didn't see anything. But I'll stay out of it now, except to show support for her. Hopefully everyone can mend ways and move on.

fine...selective reading   You are free to believe what you want.

Now...please stop derailing.