Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

"worthy"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oceancoast View Post
    Multiply wives.. what does that mean exactly? if one has two is that multiplying? If a man takes to wife his brothers widow, while he is already married.. is that multiplying? If so then God commanded multiplying of wives. If one's wife dies and he marry's another.. is that multiplying? if one divorces and marries another is that multiplying? The point here is you toss out the term 'multiplying' without context. THe Bible attests that when David was made King he was a man after God's own heart, because he would do Gods will. He was a well established polygamist and God gave him more.. Sorry if that little bit of Bible narrative doesn't square well with the animus toward polygamy.



    So you say, but it seems to me yours is more like the AntiMormon misinterpretation and misuse of it.
    Just answer my question and show me where God COMMANDED David or anyone else to accumulate multiple wives for themselves. Your post here is just a diversionary tactic to keep from giving me a direct answer.
    "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
    "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
    "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
    "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
    "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post



      Go to your church's official website and look up "Plural Marriage in Nauvoo and Kirtland" (or vice-versa). And it says that JS married for time and eternity and that it could have included sexual relations.
      could have? No it does not say that at all.. It say's there is a "Possibility". And there is a possibility that those bones in that ossuary with the name "Jesus son of Joseph" are in fact the bones of the Jesus in the NT... it's a 'Possibility'. The point though is that just because he was married for "Time" does not demand sexual relations..



      As Magdalena and others have shown, we have affidavits from at least 2 wives that claimed to have been wives in very deed with JS.
      False.. Only ONE woman made the "in very deed" claim, which is still subject to interpretation. And several women have made claims that they were sexually intimate with Joseph Smith.. NONE of the claims have been corroborated they just remain unverified claims.

      And you all seem to be tossing the word 'affidavits' as if it's significant here.. It isn't. In fact the affidavits don't make those claims at all.. and affidavit is only an attestation to WHO the claimant is.. not the truth of the claim. One such affidavit claim was from a Josephine Sessions, who testified her mother told her on her death bed she was the daughter of Joseph Smith.. DNA test has since proven that claim is false.

      So to date.. there is no corroborated evidence that Joseph had sexual intimacy with anyone but Emma..

      And to the larger point about breaking the Law as your pal Mag here had claimed, unless there is corroborated PROOF of sexual intimacy or a marriage license, then no Bigamy or adultery laws were broken, edit/divisive


      I could not find anything where God says that David was after His own heart AFTER David was made king. However Acts 13 says: "And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, ‘I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will.’"
      Acts 13 is it.. when he had removed him (Saul), he raised up David to be their king.... David was a polygamist already before he was King.

      Where did God actually COMMAND David to take lots of wives?
      It doesn't explicitly .. so? but God GIVING him wives, not just allowing him wives, is pretty much the same as commanding IMO. It's a command by default.

      edit You obviously believe the Trinity dogma, but such is not explicitly stated in the Bible. You also repeat that you believe the Bible to be God's word.. his only Word, and yet that too is not expressed in the Bible...

      It is because of David's faith and obedience that God chose David--when he was little more than a teenager and had not yet married.
      Yes, David when he was young demonstrated faith.. are you saying he was no longer a man after God's own heart when he was made King?.. that Acts 13 is wrong?

      But as I wrote earlier, nowhere did God command David or anyone else to take plural wives.
      Which we have shown over and over your assertion here is FALSE.. first you don't know EVERYWHERE God commands, unless you are exalting yourself to be God.. and second we have shown in Duet where God explicitly commands the taking a brother's widow to wife, which results in polygamy.
      edit

      In fact, the BoM says that David and Solomon multiplying wives to themselves was an abomination to your God (paraphrasing)--yet later on,, in the D and C 132, it says that God commended them for it (paraphrasing). So, which is it? Why the contradiction?
      No contradiction.. the contradiction rest solely in your imagined interpretation of what it meant by 'multiplying wives'.. I believe the 'multiplying' referred to greed.. the unnecessary adding for mere self gratification.. David did not add wives for that purpose except with Bathsheba. Solomon also was adding wives just to add wives. Duet 17.. commands the King against multiplying Horses, Gold, Silver and wives.. I think the message is not that he can't have multiple wives, gold etc. As God GAVE David his master wives and his possessions.. but he should add wives, Gold , silver or horses needlessly.. I'm sorry if you don't get that message.

      edit/alerts/divisive
      Last edited by CARM Admin; 05-16-18, 01:16 PM. Reason: edit/alerts/divisive
      “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

      We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oceancoast View Post
        could have? No it does not say that at all.. It say's there is a "Possibility". And there is a possibility that those bones in that ossuary with the name "Jesus son of Joseph" are in fact the bones of the Jesus in the NT... it's a 'Possibility'. The point though is that just because he was married for "Time" does not demand sexual relations..




        False.. Only ONE woman made the "in very deed" claim, which is still subject to interpretation. And several women have made claims that they were sexually intimate with Joseph Smith.. NONE of the claims have been corroborated they just remain unverified claims. And you all seem to be tossing the word 'affidavits' as if it significant here.. It isn't. In fact the affidavits don't make those claims at all.. and affidavit is only an attestation to WHO the claimant is.. not the truth of the claim. One such affidavit claim was from a Josephine Sessions, who testified her mother told her on her death bed she was the daughter of Joseph Smith.. DNA test has since proven that claim is false. So to date.. there is no corroborated evidence that Joseph had sexual intimacy with anyone but Emma.. when are you going to stop passinglng out hearsay and innuendo as fact?

        Acts 13 is it.. when he had removed him (Saul), he raised up David to be their king.... David was a polygamist already before he was King.

        It doesn't explicitly .. so? but God GIVING him wives, not just allowing him wives, is pretty much the same as commanding. It's a command by default. Furthermore , you need for it to be explicit in order for you to believe is yet another example of hypocritical double standard reasoning.. You obviously believe the Trinity dogma, but such is not explicitly stated in the Bible. You also repeat that you believe the Bible to be God's word.. his only Word, and yet that too is not expressed in the Bible...


        Yes, David when he was young demonstrated faith.. are you saying he was no longer a man after God's own heart when he was made King?.. that Acts 13 is wrong?


        Which we have shown over and over your assertion here is FALSE.. first you don't know EVERYWHERE God commands, unless you are exalting yourself to be God.. and second we have shown in Duet where God explicitly commands the taking a brother's widow to wife, which results in polygamy.


        No contradiction.. the contradiction rest solely in your imagined interpretation of what it meant by 'multiplying wives'..
        "Could have" does mean a possibility. And we still have affidavits from at least 2 of Smith's wives. Which have been documented on here so I will not repeat them.

        Acts 13 doesn't say that David was a man after God's own heart AFTER he was crowned. It said that about him when God chose him as a boy. But yes he still was when he was crowned king.--before he fell so precipitously into sin.

        Sorry, but GIVING someone wives is NOT the same thing as "commanding" someone to take more wives. You need to look up the definitions for "give" and "command." I think God tolerated "plural wifery" in David because of his faith in God and obedience to Him elsewhere.

        But there is no hypocrisy on my part, because I do indeed believe what the Bible has in it. But "give" does not mean "command" to take lots of wives. Again, show me FROM THE BIBLE where God actually COMMANDED people to practice polygamy. COMMANDED.

        And as for the Deuteronomy verses, the ONLY reason God would command a man to take another wife, was IF his brother had died without sons, so he was supposed to have married his dead brother's wife, so he could have sons by her that would be considered to be from her husband. This was NOT some general command given to ALL the men in Israel to multiply wives for themselves, as part of some supposed "new and everlasting covenant". Was it?

        Tell me--did Joseph Smith need to do that? He had sons by Emma didn't he? But DO Show us FROM THE BIBLE where God was hunky-dorey with men marrying other men's wives, while still married to their first husbands. WHERE even from D and C 132 did God tell Smith he could marry other men's wives in polyandrous relationships? I mean, it says if he marries 10 VIRGINS, he has not sinned because they were given to him. But other men's wives would not be virgins, would they? So, where is the command in the D and C 132 for Joseph to marry other men's wives while they were still married to their first husbands?

        And the Trinity dogma has zero to do with this discussion and is just a diversionary tactic to keep from answering my simple question..
        Last edited by CARM Admin; 05-17-18, 12:35 AM. Reason: Alert/note to users take Trinity discussion to Trinity or APO forum
        "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
        "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
        "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
        "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
        "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

          Just answer my question and show me where God COMMANDED David or anyone else to accumulate multiple wives for themselves. Your post here is just a diversionary tactic to keep from giving me a direct answer.
          No, your post has been diversionary as your question has been answered over and over.. but the same ole antiMormon denials keep being served up.
          “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

          We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

            And the Trinity dogma has zero to do with this discussion and is just a diversionary tactic to keep from answering my simple question.
            NO it was not diversion..it was applicable to the point I was making.. You just don't like the point because it EXPOSES that hypocrisy embedded in your arguments.

            and the rest of your post really was just the typical denials of points that have been made over and over and over.. edit
            Last edited by CARM Admin; 05-16-18, 03:33 PM. Reason: edit per alert/posters should answer one another minus name calling
            “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

            We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oceancoast View Post
              NO it was not diversion..it was applicable to the point I was making.. You just don't like the point because it EXPOSES that hypocrisy embedded in your arguments.

              and the rest of your post really was just the typical denials of points that have been made over and over and over.. edit.
              No, it was a diversionary tactic, because the Trinity has nothing to do with a supposed "command" from God to practice polygamy. I understand what you are saying, but allowing David to practice polygamy is not the same thing as COMMANDING IT.

              And the rest of my post was NOT denials or double standards or "antimormonism." I asked pertinent questions, which, instead of answering, you tap danced around and tried to make me look bad. But my questions WERE pertinent to this discussion:

              1. WHY did the Mormon God in the BoM condemn David and Solomon multiplying wives for themselves--but then, in the D and C 132, justify them for it?

              Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines.
              So, here the Mormon God JUSTIFIES his servants David and Solomon, pertaining to their having many wives and concubines. Yet, here in the BoM it says:

              Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father-that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. (Jacob 3:5)
              Here the Lamanites were more "righteous" than the others because they ONLY had one wife apiece and NO concubines!

              But look what else the BoM says, in Jacob 1:15:

              And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge somewhat in the wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also, Solomon his son.
              Even DESIRING many wives and concubines was condemned as "wicked" in David and Solomon, in the BoM!

              And of course, Jacob 2:24:

              Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
              SO--first it was abominable to the Mormon God, for David and Solomon to have many wives and concubines, but then, suddenly, in the D and C 132:1, God "justified" them for doing so???

              This is a 180 degree change in doctrine. Which one is correct?

              The LDS church is double-minded and contradictory in its teachings. And is therefore, a false church. Better to follow the Jesus of the Bible, and not the contradictory teachings in a false church.

              2. WHERE does God in the Bible OR the Mormon God in D and C 132 say that marrying other men's wives while they were still married to their first husbands was okay? D and C 132 says that if Smith marries 10 virgins, that is fine and dandy with the Mormon God because they were given to him. But other men's wives would NOT be virgins. SO--where does the Mormon God command polyandry? WHERE?
              Last edited by CARM Admin; 05-16-18, 03:34 PM.
              "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
              "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
              "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
              "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
              "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

                Its like defense attorneys who try to get serial killers off on a technicality. If the law says you must pay taxes and you look for ways to not pay it, how honest is that.

                Christ told us to live a higher law, which means being so honest that you wouldnt even think of breaking the law.

                It means not looking for a technicality to get around bigamy or polygamy laws.
                When the law provides for tax deferred savings and tax free annuities, You think utilizing these things is dishonest and immoral?

                If I am responsible for the financial welfare of my family I would see it as a failure in my responsibilities if I were to NOT take advantage of those legal avenues of avoiding taxes, not my responsibility as a citizen but my responsibility to my family. And the government agrees with me.

                The post above has some pretty words and phrases but is completely devoid of any real understanding of what honesty entails and what Christ's higher law demands of us,

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
                  Show us where it was God's will that David multiply wives for himself. Where God actually COMMANDED David to practice polygamy. I believe God's word, all right--just not the Mormon misinterpretation and misuse of it.
                  God actually did. God is the one who gave David multiple hundreds of wives. If that isn't polygamy then it's pimping. Which do you think the Almighty was commanding?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                    No, it was a diversionary tactic, because the Trinity has nothing to do with a supposed "command" from God to practice polygamy. I understand what you are saying, but allowing David to practice polygamy is not the same thing as COMMANDING IT.
                    Here's where you change what the Bible say's .. It doesn't say God ALLOWED David to practice polygamy, it say quite explicitly that God "Gave" David his wives.. that's not passively allowing.. that is pro-active involvement. So when God proactively is involved in his polygamy, it doesn't need to be explicitly commanded. What was David suppose to do when he became King and God GAVE him the wives.. say .. sorry God, give those women to someone else. No he's going to take them in to his family as his and treat them accordingly..

                    Yes, the point about the Trinity very much DID have something to do with the issue.. If you understand what I am saying you wouldn't be making a big deal about it as you are. The POINT to be EXPLICIT about it.. not everything God gives us is Explicitly recorded in the Bible, and such does not make it any less true.


                    And the rest of my post was NOT denials or double standards or "antimormonism." I asked pertinent questions, which, instead of answering, you tap danced around and tried to make me look bad. But my questions WERE pertinent to this discussion:
                    they were indeed denials etc.. as I answered the questions in earlier posts and you pretend as if they weren't and this post seems no different.
                    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

                    We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oceancoast View Post
                      Here's where you change what the Bible say's .. It doesn't say God ALLOWED David to practice polygamy, it say quite explicitly that God "Gave" David his wives.. that's not passively allowing.. that is pro-active involvement. So when God proactively is involved in his polygamy, it doesn't need to be explicitly commanded. What was David suppose to do when he became King and God GAVE him the wives.. say .. sorry God, give those women to someone else. No he's going to take them in to his family as his and treat them accordingly..

                      Yes, the point about the Trinity very much DID have something to do with the issue.. If you understand what I am saying you wouldn't be making a big deal about it as you are.


                      they were indeed denials etc.. as I answered the questions in earlier posts and you pretend as if they weren't and this post seems no different.
                      God giving David wives was allowing David to have them. Not commanding that he practice polygamy. Show me FROM THE BIBLE where God COMMANDED all men go practice polygamy.

                      And I saw no real answers to my questions at all. Just attempts to justify the Mormon position, and what JS did. And what you THOUGHT was an answer in the Levirite marriages in Deuteronomy was NOT. That was NOT a general command for ALL Israelite men to practiv0ce polygamy. But for men to provide for their dead brother's widow and raise up sons through her for his dead brother, if he didn't have any.

                      So, no you did not answer me. You tried, but failed.

                      Now kindly answer my points about the180 degree difference between what the BoM says and what the D and C 132:1 says.

                      And please show me where your God said polyandry was okay.
                      "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
                      "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
                      "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
                      "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
                      "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                        God giving David wives was allowing David to have them. Not commanding that he practice polygamy. Show me FROM THE BIBLE where God COMMANDED all men go practice polygamy.

                        And I saw no real answers to my questions at all. Just attempts to justify the Mormon position, and what JS did. And what you THOUGHT was an answer in the Levirite marriages in Deuteronomy was NOT. That was NOT a general command for ALL Israelite men to practiv0ce polygamy. But for men to provide for their dead brother's widow and raise up sons through her for his dead brother, if he didn't have any.

                        So, no you did not answer me. You tried, but failed.

                        Now kindly answer my points about the180 degree difference between what the BoM says and what the D and C 132:1 says.

                        And please show me where your God said polyandry was okay.
                        There is another thread where Mormons are being accused of Lawyering, of relying on technicalities.

                        If you or I gave wives to David that would not be a command.

                        God giving hundreds of wives to David is a command to practice polygamy. You are welcome to debate that.

                        What you cannot debate is that God giving hundreds of wives to David is participation in polygamy.... God's participation. That's not acceptance or tolerance. That's participation.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JustaLurker View Post

                          There is another thread where Mormons are being accused of Lawyering, of relying on technicalities.

                          If you or I gave wives to David that would not be a command.

                          God giving hundreds of wives to David is a command to practice polygamy. You are welcome to debate that.

                          What you cannot debate is that God giving hundreds of wives to David is participation in polygamy.... God's participation. That's not acceptance or tolerance. That's participation.
                          David lived under the Old Covenant. Christians live under the New Covenant, and abide by what we see in the New Testament. Please show us where the New Testament allows any Christian to be a plygy? Do you desire to be one? Do you think God will allow you to be a plygy in heaven? What is the law under the New Covenant, which you will find in the New Tst. portion of the Bible? You've brought this point about David up several times now - why? Are you yearning to practice plural marriage? If so, there are some Allred United Apostolic Brethren out your way.
                          Last edited by Catherine Aurelia; 05-16-18, 04:52 PM.
                          Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                            God giving David wives was allowing David to have them.
                            Good grief.. . you go on believing that.. we don't need another grammar discussion here..

                            Allowing someone to come into an orchard and pick some apples is very different that taking the efforts to pick the apples and give them to someone. One is passive.. one is pro-active. If you can't understand the difference I can't help you.
                            “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -- George Carlin

                            We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideals of Christianity, our movement is Christian. - Adolf Hitler

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                              God giving David wives was allowing David to have them. Not commanding that he practice polygamy. Show me FROM THE BIBLE where God COMMANDED all men go practice polygamy.

                              And I saw no real answers to my questions at all. Just attempts to justify the Mormon position, and what JS did. And what you THOUGHT was an answer in the Levirite marriages in Deuteronomy was NOT. That was NOT a general command for ALL Israelite men to practiv0ce polygamy. But for men to provide for their dead brother's widow and raise up sons through her for his dead brother, if he didn't have any.

                              So, no you did not answer me. You tried, but failed.

                              Now kindly answer my points about the180 degree difference between what the BoM says and what the D and C 132:1 says.

                              And please show me where your God said polyandry was okay.
                              The Bible says God gave them into David's care. Otherwise, what would have happened to those hundreds of women? He didnt command David to sleep with them.
                              ~ There is life after mormonism, and it's good! Just stay close to Christ.
                              ~ You can't follow Christ and false prophets at the same time.
                              ~ "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JustaLurker View Post

                                When the law provides for tax deferred savings and tax free annuities, You think utilizing these things is dishonest and immoral?

                                If I am responsible for the financial welfare of my family I would see it as a failure in my responsibilities if I were to NOT take advantage of those legal avenues of avoiding taxes, not my responsibility as a citizen but my responsibility to my family. And the government agrees with me.

                                The post above has some pretty words and phrases but is completely devoid of any real understanding of what honesty entails and what Christ's higher law demands of us,
                                Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and polyandry. He was guilty of that. Trying to find loopholes to get him out of it is dishonest. Its as dishonest as the things he did were.
                                ~ There is life after mormonism, and it's good! Just stay close to Christ.
                                ~ You can't follow Christ and false prophets at the same time.
                                ~ "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X