Anniversary of the “The Policy”

[smac97]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, not arbitrarily.  Based on what the Brethren have said, I believe that members of the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency discussed it and reached a consensus to implement it.

Very interesting how you describe the process.  "Discussed it and reached a consensus to implement it."  You left something rather significant out:

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed ... with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

"Based on what the Brethren have said," the policy change arose from revelation.

"The Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency discussed it and reached a consensus to implement it" by sustaining what had been revealed to President Monson.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Three or four of you points arguing in favor of the policy state that it was implemented to clarify to and provide guidance for the members.  But if it was never meant to be published to the membership at large and was only done so because of the leak, than it discounts the idea that the policy was originally implemented to teach members.

Here are the explanations from Elder Christofferson paraphrased by me:

1. Welfare of children
2. Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
3. Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage 
4. Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law 
5. Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage 
6. Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel 
7. Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections 

The First Presidency issued a letter dated June 29, 2015 that all bishops in the U.S. and Canada were asked to read on July 5 or July 12 to all the adults, young men and young women.  That letter included the following statement:

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

And this one:

Quote

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages.

And this one:

Quote

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

This letter covered most of the same ground as the additions to the handbook did, including the need for "Church discipline."  

This letter also provided the guidance to the members described by Elder Christofferson.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

  The Brethren have multiple means of reaching church membership, Handbook 1 isn't really one of those (at least not for the majority of members).

A formal letter written by the First Presidency and promulgated through the bishops and branch presidents of the Church is certainly a way "of reaching church membership."

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, I'm fairly disappointed (with respect to this issue) already.  And I'm still very active in and committed to the church.  I can't say what the future will hold as the restoration continues to unfold.

Alas, that's my concern.  I am concerned that this issue is, for some, shaping up to be a doctrinal stumblingblock, such as we saw in John 6.  I've previously said this:

Quote

Since learning of the policy I have given the matter a lot of study, contemplation, discussion, and prayer, and have come to the conclusion that the Brethren are acting in accordance with the Lord's will.  So we have arrived at categorically divergent conclusions about the policy changes.  Funny, that.

And we also have one opinion which conforms to the popular and prevailing views of the World, and one which coincides with counsel given by the Lord's anointed.  Funny, that.

Following the Brethren is difficult, particularly when the World is fairly screaming at the Saints.  The Brethren could avoid so much flak if they just gave in.  But they haven't.  And I do not think they will.  The lot of the prophets is not to declare things that are popular, but to declare things that are right.

...

Consider this incident in John 6:

Quote

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
...
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may haveeverlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
...
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and thebread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for thelife of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
...
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

These results, in your reckoning, might be construed as "bad fruit."  But not to me.  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually😞 "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these yesterday, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when such counsel is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

I have a friend who is presently struggling with the Church's policy.  So far she has been able to navigate it well.  I hope she continues in this way.  I hope she doesn't turn it into a dealkiller.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

And boundary maintenance aligns with the reasons I gave for my belief about the policy implementation.  So we're in agreement on this one.

I didn't say that Elder Nelson went rogue, so you'd have to address that with someone making that claim.

You discount his explanation for the origins of the policy change.  "Yes, it was claimed by an apostle, not by the prophet of the time, to be revelation."

If we accept then-Elder Nelson's explanation for the policy change, then it's binding on us.

If we do not accept then-Elder Nelson's explanation, then we end up saying things like it's only a "claimed" revelation, and that "we don't know" if it fits the "prophetic process of revelation" (this despite Elder Nelson's description of revelation coming to the Presiding High Priest, which was then sustained by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve).

The "Elder Nelson went rogue" theory posits that Elder Nelson misrepresented the origins of the policy.  That there was not a revelation given to Pres. Monson, and/or that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve did not sustain it as such.

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I said that revelation has been described by our prophets and apostles recently as unity or consensus among them.  I accept that it may fit that definition of revelation.  But my understanding also is that the Prophet and President of the Church is the one responsible for declaring revelation for the Church.  In this case, I don't recall President Monson doing that.

You are implying that Elder Nelson went rogue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

And boundary maintenance aligns with the reasons I gave for my belief about the policy implementation.  So we're in agreement on this one.

I keep seeing this sociological term used to observe and explain the Church from a purely sociological perspective, usually when discussing social issues. But I think the Church is more than a societal entity and the doctrine of marriage more than a social mōs within it.

My understanding of boundary maintenance is to maintain a distinction between "us" and "them". I don't see the marriage doctrines or subject policy serving that purpose. When we speak of being in the world (where ssm is accepted) but not of it (where we have defined our “godly walk and conversation”), there more overlap with the broader society than isolation from it on purely moral grounds.

Borrowing the term boundary maintenance in these discussions implies that the Church values her marriage doctrines so greatly that she, on a social level, distinguishes between those who hold to her values and mores and those who do not. But there is no social segregation in this regard. There are no social classes in the Church, and she does not maintain them for the sake of holding to her values. All are welcome to participate socially as brothers and sisters, whether member or non-member; in these instances, the broader social norms for good public behavior prevail.

Boundary maintenance keeps the society and by extension its classes in tact because the classes serve a societal purpose. A Zion society, by the descriptions we have, is classless. The aim of its members, who have taken upon them the name of Christ, is to become unified as one, and in a way that they can be one with God (John 17). I don't see the Church's aim to keep members as members and non-members as non-members, or to keep ssm partners and their children in their place, but rather to bring them along to receive as much of the Gospel as they desire.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are implying that Elder Nelson went rogue.

Once the narrative can be steered into secular explanations for the Church's interface with societal issues, this becomes a consideration. But this is not how the Church works.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, tragically this is the outcome when people try to form a family in direct contradiction to the divine mandates of the Lord. The prophets have done everything in their power to prevent this situation occurring in the first place, but a handful of governments haven't listened. Now, via the policy, they are trying to be careful and respectful in how they respond to the complexity of this situation ... and as is often the case with prophets, they get to perform this difficult task whilst critics, both inside and outside the Chirch, are busy accusing them of false and even nefarious motives.

I don't have a wife, but the honest answer is yes, if we are humble and open to following the Lord. No, if we aren't.

As a 21-year-old missionary, I actually found myself in the position of having to tell a woman many years older than I was (and one who possessed a postgraduate degree in French literature, as an aside) that if she wanted to truly repent and fully participate in the Church, she would need to leave her de facto partner of 12 years. Tough stuff. She didn't understand it at first, and then she agonised over it for a long time. I don't blame her. I'd have agonised too! But in the end, she and her seven-year-old son made the choice to follow Christ.

I spoke to her a short time ago. Her son is now an adult. She is serving as the Young Women president in her ward. Contrary to her expectations at the time, she is sealed to a member husband, and the son has been sealed to both of them. (She was absolutely willing, though, to spend the rest of mortality alone, and I expected that would be the case too.) She spoke with deep gratitude that she made the difficult decision that she did years ago.

Yes, there are gay couples who have split in order to join/re-join the church.  You give one example.  Tom Christofferson is another well known example.  This will certainly be the right decision for some.

And, I stand by my belief that telling a couple they must divorce to repent does not make us welcoming to that couple.

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If what we have is true, there is literally no other answer.

We believe we have truth.  We also believe that we don't have it all.  Yet.  The latter part should lead us to some degree of caution.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, I'm saying specifically what Elder Christofferson said: we would have completely different expectations. It's almost like you don't trust him to know what he is talking about. This is about protecting the child from the expectations of members and leaders. Without the policy, we would baptise the child and then impose on her/him all the usual expectations. That's not fair.

Yes, baptism creates expectations. I agree.

Elder Christofferson spoke of the conflicts that our teachings could create in homes where the parents are a gay couple.  If the child attends and is taught, those conflicts could arise whether the child is baptized or not.  So I am confused as to how we are welcoming them to attend but also saying we want to avoid the conflicts.  Which is it?  How do they attend and avoid the conflicts?

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is another attempt to evoke a mediaeval construct that not a single Church leader has even alluded to. This is not about denying anything as a punishment for the parents' sins; rather, it's an acknowledgement of an almost total inability to meet the conflicting needs of a child because of a situation created by the parents' sins. Two very, very different scenarios.

I didn't say it was a punishment.  The baptism is being denied based on the parents actions.

You are welcome to couch it in softer terms but we are describing the same thing.

I am curious about your statement of our inability to meet the conflicting needs of a child.  What "conflicting needs" are we not able to meet?

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

How many times have there been seemingly devastating claims made that turned out to be false, misleading, or incomplete?

That's a good question.  I'd love to know the answer.  Also the corollary is a worthwhile question:

How many times have there been seemingly devastating claims made that turned out to be true?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I keep seeing this sociological term used to observe and explain the Church from a purely sociological perspective, usually when discussing social issues. But I think the Church is more than a societal entity and the doctrine of marriage more than a social mōs within it.

 

My understanding of boundary maintenance is to maintain a distinction between "us" and "them". I don't see the marriage doctrines or subject policy serving that purpose. When we speak of being in the world (where ssm is accepted) but not of it (where we have defined our “godly walk and conversation”), there more overlap with the broader society than isolation from it on purely moral grounds.

 

Borrowing the term boundary maintenance in these discussions implies that the Church values her marriage doctrines so greatly that she, on a social level, distinguishes between those who hold to her values and mores and those who do not. But there is no social segregation in this regard. There are no social classes in the Church, and she does not maintain them for the sake of holding to her values. All are welcome to participate socially as brothers and sisters, whether member or non-member; in these instances, the broader social norms for good public behavior prevail.

 

Boundary maintenance keeps the society and by extension its classes in tact because the classes serve a societal purpose. A Zion society, by the descriptions we have, is classless. The aim of its members, who have taken upon them the name of Christ, is to become unified as one, and in a way that they can be one with God (John 17). I don't see the Church's aim to keep members as members and non-members as non-members, or to keep ssm partners and their children in their place, but rather to bring them along to receive as much of the Gospel as they desire.

 

I disagree.

A gay married couple can attend but they cannot fully participate (excommunicated individuals have many restrictions).  Their children can attend but they cannot fully participate (they cannot be blessed, baptized, nor ordained).

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree.

A gay married couple can attend but they cannot fully participate (excommunicated individuals have many restrictions).  Their children can attend but they cannot fully participate (they cannot be blessed, baptized, nor ordained).

There is no getting around this, yet many TBM's grasp at every straw to make it fair, but if it looks like a duck....

Edited November 13, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, there are gay couples who have split in order to join/re-join the church.  You give one example.  Tom Christofferson is another well known example.  This will certainly be the right decision for some.

Perhaps.  But it's still the destruction of a family, a necessary one.  I think the Church is not in the business of putting members (or prospective members) into such dilemmas.  Divorce as a pre-condition for entry into the Church would be a hard thing.  

Members of the Church have known for a long time that they cannot be in a polygamous relationship and retain membership in the Church.  While divorce is an option, I don't think the Church encourages people in such relationships to get a divorce in order to join the Church.  Does anyone know more about this?

Quote

And, I stand by my belief that telling a couple they must divorce to repent does not make us welcoming to that couple.

I agree.  But we can't ignore apostasy, either.  So with the legalization of same-sex marriage, the Church found itself between a rock (divorce) and a hard place (excommunication).

The Church opted for the solution that allowed the couple to avoid divorce.

Quote

We believe we have truth.  We also believe that we don't have it all.  Yet.  The latter part should lead us to some degree of caution.

I agree.  But we that caution has to include adhering to the mandates we have received.  We can't ignore them by, for example, suggesting/implying that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve lied to the body of the Church when he spoke of the revelatory process from which the 2015 policy arose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 13, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry... what do the children of gay parents need to repent of?

Their sins when they make the decision to be baptized. 

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree.

A gay married couple can attend but they cannot fully participate (excommunicated individuals have many restrictions).  Their children can attend but they cannot fully participate (they cannot be blessed, baptized, nor ordained). 

Yes, you do disagree, and thus we still have this perfect example of misusing the term “boundary maintenance,” which in turn mischaracterizes the role of doctrine and policy. Participation and attendance are likewise not socially determined, nor do they define anyone’s social status within the ward. It does both social science and the Church a disservice to use such a narrative.

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

How can you use this as an example of how Christ dealt with sinners and not see a stark difference in how the church treats gay sinners.  Christ told all of us to sin no more.  Didn't hear any name calling directed at her of calling her an apostate and preventing her underaged children from being baptized.  

Go and sin no more. You are forgiven. Stop doing what you are doing.

What if she had continued after being commanded by Jesus to stop? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm sorry... what do the children of gay parents need to repent of?

Their sins.

Is this a trick question?

What does the child of a parent who withholds consent for baptism need to repent of?

What does the child of polygamous parents need to repent of?

What does a person living in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen (countries where leaving Islam is an offense punishable by death) need to repent of?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

18 years... short delay.  Doesn’t strike me as honest and accurate. 

And what are the odds that children kept out of the church are going to want to join when they turn 18 (upon disavowing their parents’ marriage — whatever that means)?

Actually 10 years, if we want to be honest and accurate.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps.  But it's still the destruction of a family, a necessary one.  I think the Church is not in the business of putting members (or prospective members) into such dilemmas.  Divorce as a pre-condition for entry into the Church would be a hard thing.  

Members of the Church have known for a long time that they cannot be in a polygamous relationship and retain membership in the Church.  While divorce is an option, I don't think the Church encourages people in such relationships to get a divorce in order to join the Church.  Does anyone know more about this?

I agree.  But we can't ignore apostasy, either.  So with the legalization of same-sex marriage, the Church found itself between a rock (divorce) and a hard place (excommunication).

The Church opted for the solution that allowed the couple to avoid divorce.

I agree.  But we that caution has to include adhering to the mandates we have received.  We can't ignore them by, for example, suggesting/implying that the President of the Quorum of the Twelve lied to the body of the Church when he spoke of the revelatory process from which the 2015 policy arose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good comments.  I agree.  Thank you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And, I stand by my belief that telling a couple they must divorce to repent does not make us welcoming to that couple.

Yes, your personal rejection of the Lord's teachings on homosexual behaviour and same-sex 'marriage' mean that there is absolutely nothing the Saints can do, short of ceasing to teach repentance to one category of people, to make ourselves 'welcoming' to gays in your eyes. Thankfully, people who feel drawn to the gospel message of repentance for all are free to reach a different conclusion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I am curious about your statement of our inability to meet the conflicting needs of a child.  What "conflicting needs" are we not able to meet?

After all that has been said on this point, I don't know if you can't see or won't see, but the outcome is the same in either case. 

[rockpond]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

After all that has been said on this point, I don't know if you can't see or won't see, but the outcome is the same in either case. 

I don't understand how that answers the question.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, your personal rejection of the Lord's teachings on homosexual behaviour and same-sex 'marriage' mean that there is absolutely nothing the Saints can do, short of ceasing to teach repentance to one category of people, to make ourselves 'welcoming' to gays in your eyes. Thankfully, people who feel drawn to the gospel message of repentance for all are free to reach a different conclusion.

"the Lord's teachings on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage"... CFR that I have rejected this.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, rockpond said:

I don't understand how that answers the question.

No doubt.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt.

It appears that you don't want to answer it.  I think I understand why.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"the Lord's teachings on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage"... CFR that I have rejected this.

 

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm confident someday the policy along with our teachings regarding homosexuality will be walked back and disavowed all under the explanation of new revelation, as has been done before.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It appears that you don't want to answer it.  I think I understand why.

I'm sure you do. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

 

You claimed that I rejected the Lord's teachings.  CFR.