Aaron32-ism: A Perspective of Mormonism

Aaron32

Well-known member
How do you say "I agree! But..."?

I received a witness that the book of Mormon is true, I received a witness that Jesus Christ is my Savior, I received a witness that there is power in the temple endowment, and the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for salvation. But...I have difficulty with the current narrative with how the restored gospel is explained in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think on a figurative level, it helps children understand the basic concepts and principles of the gospel, but postulated into a deeper theology, it runs into some very obvious contradictions with the message of the Standard Works.

Maybe this is my first step on my foot out the door as I'm "working my way of the Church", as BrotherofJared suggest I do. Or, maybe it's simply a starting point to root out falsehoods and cultural beliefs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as I will be taking my questions to my bishop directly.

This thread is a place where I share my alternative views and interpretations of the LDS Standard Works, so not to confuse those learning the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with my personal opinions. Likewise, my critics can stop with the appeals to authority and expect me to justify my beliefs with other Church Leaders' statements. Even though I don't agree with them, it's still Mormonism:

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …

“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” - (Joseph Smith, https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng)

If we have to accept every church leaders' doctrinal beliefs hook, line, and sinker, when in our minds we find obvious logical contradictions, how is that any better than Christianity because of their Creeds? It would be the same horse of a different color. Let's call a spade a spade. ;)

Stay Tuned
 

The Prophet

Active member
How do you say "I agree! But..."?

I received a witness that the book of Mormon is true, I received a witness that Jesus Christ is my Savior, I received a witness that there is power in the temple endowment, and the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for salvation. But...I have difficulty with the current narrative with how the restored gospel is explained in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think on a figurative level, it helps children understand the basic concepts and principles of the gospel, but postulated into a deeper theology, it runs into some very obvious contradictions with the message of the Standard Works.

Maybe this is my first step on my foot out the door as I'm "working my way of the Church", as BrotherofJared suggest I do. Or, maybe it's simply a starting point to root out falsehoods and cultural beliefs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as I will be taking my questions to my bishop directly.

This thread is a place where I share my alternative views and interpretations of the LDS Standard Works, so not to confuse those learning the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with my personal opinions. Likewise, my critics can stop with the appeals to authority and expect me to justify my beliefs with other Church Leaders' statements. Even though I don't agree with them, it's still Mormonism:

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …

“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.” - (Joseph Smith, https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng)

If we have to accept every church leaders' doctrinal beliefs hook, line, and sinker, when in our minds we find obvious logical contradictions, how is that any better than Christianity because of their Creeds? It would be the same horse of a different color. Let's call a spade a spade. ;)

Stay Tuned
There doesn't seem to be any restored gospel taught in the Book of Mormon and it completely contradicts Joseph Smith

in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:


General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.



 

Aaron32

Well-known member
There doesn't seem to be any restored gospel taught in the Book of Mormon and it completely contradicts Joseph Smith

in Answers to Gospel Questions Vol. 3 pp 98-99 under Counsel given by President Charles W. Penrose

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." well what is the fulnesspel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covanants, and you find there defined what the gospel is, There God the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity-the one God the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principals, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason:


General Conference Report, April 1922, pp 27-28.
Ah, yeah. You're definitely touching on what I'm leading to.

The new and everlasting covenant “is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations” given anciently and again restored to the earth in these latter days. This is explained in Doctrine and Covenants 66:2: “Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.” Because the covenant has been restored in the last dispensation of time, it is “new,” and because it spans all eternity, it is “everlasting.”

In the scriptures the Lord speaks of both “the” new and everlasting covenant and “a” new and everlasting covenant. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 22:1, He refers to baptism as “a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, He likewise refers to eternal marriage as “a new and an everlasting covenant.” When He speaks of “a” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of one of the many covenants encompassed by His gospel.

When the Lord speaks generally of “the” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which embraces all ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation and exaltation of mankind. Neither baptism nor eternal marriage is “the” new and everlasting covenant; rather, they are each parts of the whole. https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

With that in mind, let's look at Penrose's statement in full:
"Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get in a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read care- fully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity — the one God. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being united and being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear Him, you will learn all about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and the redemption of the dead."

Some people think that the Book of Mormon is a springboard to then ADD ON TO Temple teachings, as it was "next level". What's not understood is that all parts of those laws, principles, and ordinances are encapsulated to support the primary message of the Book of Mormon : "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God," (BOM title page) If we believe Jesus Christ is a stepping stone only to become gods ourselves, to give birth to our own firstborn to pay for their our children's sins, then we've gone astray from the message of the Book of Mormon. If Jesus Christ is the Eternal God, he is and always will be God (Creator, Redeemer, and Judge) from eternity to all eternity.

See also: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org...-the-gospel-lesson-25-sections-66-68?lang=eng
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
How do you say "I agree! But..."?

I received a witness that the book of Mormon is true, I received a witness that Jesus Christ is my Savior, I received a witness that there is power in the temple endowment, and the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for salvation.
Aaron, I believe this is the first time I have seen you include the bolded part the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for salvation. Has there been a change or have I (we) just missed something? Biblically, neither the priesthood (Mormon priesthood or ordinances) are required for salvation. It is by faith alone in Jesus that a person is saved. Biblically there is a priesthood of all believers-- men and women.

Yes, the end of Mark's Gospel says believes and be baptized, but it also says he who doesn't believe (baptism is missing) will be damned. That last section of Mark's Gospel is disputed as far as being in the original text. Matthew, John and Luke (in his gospel and Acts) do not link baptism with salvation.

Curious as where you are on this.
 

Markk

Active member
This thread is a place where I share my alternative views and interpretations of the LDS Standard Works, so not to confuse those learning the official teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with my personal opinions. Likewise, my critics can stop with the appeals to authority and expect me to justify my beliefs with other Church Leaders' statements. Even though I don't agree with them, it's still Mormonism:

What’s funny, ironic, or what ever term you want to use, there is a lot of truth in what you are saying here, at least in my humble opinion. It is certainly “Mormonism,” However, it just can’t be confused with LDS doctrine, simply because it is not LDS doctrine, but, you are certainly a Mormon.

It is your opinion, 100%, absolutely no argument. And not to sound like a broken record…it is an opinion out of necessity, fabricated and contrived , this insures ones testimony survives, and the God of ”Mormonism” survives, “the church.” It is a sunken cost fallacy of sorts IMO, when Mormons hang on, without accepting what the church actually is. Although he was disfellowshipped, this is what Grant Palmer did to a certain degree. Even the Tanners did this for a few years before they cut their loses.

I look forward to your opinions. Maybe I can start a thread that takes your opinion, and we can compare you opinions with what the church teaches. People that might not be familiar with LDS theology might want to see how your opinion compare

Take care.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Aaron, I believe this is the first time I have seen you include the bolded part the priesthood and ordinances are necessary for salvation. Has there been a change or have I (we) just missed something? Biblically, neither the priesthood (Mormon priesthood or ordinances) are required for salvation. It is by faith alone in Jesus that a person is saved. Biblically there is a priesthood of all believers-- men and women.

Yes, the end of Mark's Gospel says believes and be baptized, but it also says he who doesn't believe (baptism is missing) will be damned. That last section of Mark's Gospel is disputed as far as being in the original text. Matthew, John and Luke (in his gospel and Acts) do not link baptism with salvation.

Curious as where you are on this.
Really? That's surprises me. I thought we discussed this.
Biblically, here are scriptures I see that support baptism: Matt. 3:15, Matt. 28:19, Mark 1:9, Mark 16:16, Luke 7:30, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 22:16, Eph. 4:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21.

Yet, I don't view baptism as a work that saves us, but rather evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ and fulfilling the commandment he gave to us.

"And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sin" (Moroni 8:25)

"And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?" (2 Ne 31:10)

Moreover, for God to be just, he must provide a way to accomplish the thing which he has commanded. When we get baptized we covenant to take His name upon us, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. In return, he promises His Spirit. Thus, entering into a covenant under His authority, God is essentially bound to assist us if we extend our best effort. Thus, enabling us to be transformed beyond our own means which helps us obtain godliness. Thus, "in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest." (D&C 84:20)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
it is an opinion out of necessity, fabricated and contrived , this insures ones testimony survives, and the God of ”Mormonism” survives, “the church.” It is a sunken cost fallacy of sorts IMO, when Mormons hang on,
This may be your observation, but the best you can do is project and guess what my motives are.
without accepting what the church actually is.
Understanding what the church is, is vital to a clear understanding. It almost deserves a thread of its own. I'm sure I'll be posting on the subject and we can discuss.
I look forward to your opinions. Maybe I can start a thread that takes your opinion, and we can compare you opinions with what the church teaches. People that might not be familiar with LDS theology might want to see how your opinion compare
Sounds good.
 

Markk

Active member
This may be your observation, but the best you can do is project and guess what my motives are.

Understanding what the church is, is vital to a clear understanding. It almost deserves a thread of its own. I'm sure I'll be posting on the subject and we can discuss.

Sounds good.
I think your motive is to fix the church. Which is based on our conversations. The doctrinal base line you believe the church should tow, would be your interpretations of scripture.…which would be inline with your personal testimony.

Is that close?

Thanks
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I think your motive is to fix the church. Which is based on our conversations. The doctrinal base line you believe the church should tow, would be your interpretations of scripture.…which would be inline with your personal testimony.

Is that close?

Thanks
That’s interesting. I’ve thought that seemed to be brotherofjared’s goal too, from what he posts, to convince other mormons what mormonism should be according to his own theories. Neither of them are close to what it really is.
 

Markk

Active member
That’s interesting. I’ve thought that seemed to be brotherofjared’s goal too, from what he posts, to convince other mormons what mormonism should be according to his own theories. Neither of them are close to what it really is.
They both obviously what present church doctrine for what it isn’t. I believe Aaron wants to correct it more culturally, and emotionally, than doctrinally…while BOJ is just snow blind, and once he gets off his preconceived talking points…he just implodes.
 

The Prophet

Active member
Ah, yeah. You're definitely touching on what I'm leading to.

The new and everlasting covenant “is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations” given anciently and again restored to the earth in these latter days. This is explained in Doctrine and Covenants 66:2: “Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.” Because the covenant has been restored in the last dispensation of time, it is “new,” and because it spans all eternity, it is “everlasting.”

In the scriptures the Lord speaks of both “the” new and everlasting covenant and “a” new and everlasting covenant. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 22:1, He refers to baptism as “a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, He likewise refers to eternal marriage as “a new and an everlasting covenant.” When He speaks of “a” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of one of the many covenants encompassed by His gospel.

When the Lord speaks generally of “the” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which embraces all ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation and exaltation of mankind. Neither baptism nor eternal marriage is “the” new and everlasting covenant; rather, they are each parts of the whole. https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

With that in mind, let's look at Penrose's statement in full:
"Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get in a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead, and there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read care- fully the revelation in regard to the three glories, section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, His Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three persons in the Trinity — the one God. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being united and being one God. When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear Him, you will learn all about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and the redemption of the dead."

Some people think that the Book of Mormon is a springboard to then ADD ON TO Temple teachings, as it was "next level". What's not understood is that all parts of those laws, principles, and ordinances are encapsulated to support the primary message of the Book of Mormon : "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God," (BOM title page) If we believe Jesus Christ is a stepping stone only to become gods ourselves, to give birth to our own firstborn to pay for their our children's sins, then we've gone astray from the message of the Book of Mormon. If Jesus Christ is the Eternal God, he is and always will be God (Creator, Redeemer, and Judge) from eternity to all eternity.

See also: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org...-the-gospel-lesson-25-sections-66-68?lang=eng


I thought Joseph Smith taught God was not God from Eternity :)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder

heavens. That is the great secret... …I am going to tell you how God came to be

God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will

refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the

first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and

to know...that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life - to

know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods

yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done

before you... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol.

6, 305-307,)"
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I think your motive is to fix the church. Which is based on our conversations. The doctrinal base line you believe the church should tow, would be your interpretations of scripture.…which would be inline with your personal testimony.

Is that close?
Yes. I've stated as such in the OP. That doesn't mean I do so because I NEED the church to be true out of a "sunken cost" fallacy.
 

Markk

Active member
Yes. I've stated as such in the OP. That doesn't mean I do so because I NEED the church to be true out of a "sunken cost" fallacy.
The sunken cost fallacy is basically the need to stay attached to something, that this clearly no working for you. It is also called the “concord fallacy“ named after the Concord Jet…France and and I believe England, kept the project going for years knowing it was not a good investment and jus was not going to work out, hung in there way too long.

Your posts paint a similar picture…the doctrine is incorrect, and the culture is sick, and you and BoJ, are constantly implying that the teachings of the leadership are not what you believe and that they were basically just speaking wayward opinions.

If you were an honest investigator, reading your posts and the negativity you and BoJ post about the church and its doctrines…what would you think?

So to my point you are obviously, as an institution, trying to fix something that is just not working for you.

What am I missing here?

Thanks
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Maybe this is my first step on my foot out the door as I'm "working my way of the Church", as BrotherofJared suggest I do.
That suggestion only exists if you insist that the church is wrong. I understand that a leader's statement might be wrong or that you might disagree a leader's statement, but the church isn't wrong.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
The sunken cost fallacy is basically the need to stay attached to something, that this clearly no working for you. It is also called the “concord fallacy“ named after the Concord Jet…France and and I believe England, kept the project going for years knowing it was not a good investment and jus was not going to work out, hung in there way too long.
How do I know when something is "working for me" according to you?
Your posts paint a similar picture…the doctrine is incorrect, and the culture is sick, and you and BoJ, are constantly implying that the teachings of the leadership are not what you believe and that they were basically just speaking wayward opinions.
I didn't say the doctrine was incorrect, nor that the leadership is not teaching what I believe. The principles are all there. I'm saying the narrative is wrong, that it has some cultural factors baked in which are misleading, which contributes to the culture to be sick.

If we're standing outside Home Depot and I ask you to go inside, and go into the paint section and pick a card that's "blue". And then I go in and do the same without knowing what card you picked. When we compare cards, what are the chances you and I will have the same card? Both cards are "blue", but it's likely our cards don't match.

If you were an honest investigator, reading your posts and the negativity you and BoJ post about the church and its doctrines…what would you think?
But I'm not posting to investigators, I'm posting to church critics that share Christian beliefs like I do. So I don't care what they think. This is a safe place to express cynicism, while also challenging and examining our beliefs. I feel sorry for any investigator that comes here to understand Mormonism. If they really wanted to know, they'd turn toward the church. The reason they come here is to find evidence to not join.
So to my point you are obviously, as an institution, trying to fix something that is just not working for you.
Yes, the institution itself, not the necessarily the doctrinal principles.
What am I missing here?
The ability to validate those that understand God without the necessity of a Creed.
You're basically saying "If it's not working for you, you should just leave." I'm thinking, where would I go? I would need an "institution" that aligns more closely to my beliefs than my current one. I haven't found it yet.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
That suggestion only exists if you insist that the church is wrong. I understand that a leader's statement might be wrong or that you might disagree a leader's statement, but the church isn't wrong.
I agree the Church isn't wrong. Yet, there are a lot of statements made that lead people to the wrong conclusions.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I agree the Church isn't wrong. Yet, there are a lot of statements made that lead people to the wrong conclusions.
Correct. They tend to lead our critics to wrong conclusions that they insist that we believe. But Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy and it is necessary so long as there is eternal marriage. So, Joseph Smith didn't make any misleading statements on the subject, nor was he wrong.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Correct. They tend to lead our critics to wrong conclusions that they insist that we believe. But Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy and it is necessary so long as there is eternal marriage. So, Joseph Smith didn't make any misleading statements on the subject, nor was he wrong.
I'm still waiting on statements given by Joseph Smith, delivering statements to the public, on polygamy, while he was alive. Then we can discuss them. Ok?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I thought Joseph Smith taught God was not God from Eternity :)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder

heavens. That is the great secret... …I am going to tell you how God came to be

God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will

refute that idea,
and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the

first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and

to know...that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life - to

know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods

yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done

before you... (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol.

6, 305-307,)"
That's speaking of God positionally.
Was "God the Father" eternity from all eternity? If the "Adam God theory" be true, then then answer would be "No."
Even in D&C 93, it explains how Jesus descended and returned to "Godhood" while always being a "god". (See also John 20:17)
Either way, the path is the same, which is the point Joseph Smith is trying to make. And that the TRUE God, which we are adopted to (leaving our Father and our Mother) is Jesus Christ, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, who allows us to do that.
 
Top