LoF: God is NOT a personage of spirit.

[brlenox]

Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

Another question? Joseph Smith is recorded in the Words of Joseph Smith as making this statement:

Seperate persons. but the all agree in one or the Self Same thing But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies

The question is that since we understand that the Holy Ghost retains a state of being a spirit personage to facilitate his functions in the God Head and that these functions require that he remain a spirit personage, if he should take on a physical body as Joseph says in the above quote that he will, how will that alter his role and function in the God Head?

[Serragon]

I have some confusion in what Arenera's position is.

It appears that sometimes the position is that the LOF are good and of the same calibur as our Teachings of the prophets manuals, but not at the level of scripture.

Sometimes you say they were good for 1800's but not now.

Sometimes you say they are not simple enough and require too many words to explain their meaning.

Sometimes the position is that they are simply not needed at all because they have some perceived inconsistencies, might be confusing to non-members, or do not contain the fullness of the gospel.

Sometimes the fact that they were removed by apostles is proof.

Sometimes the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the author invalidates them.



Are they of value or not? Arenera has argued both in this very thread.

[Finrock]

There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

For others interested in this topic, the statement given above is patently false. There is much evidence that JS was involved in the writing of the LoF and that JS approved the LoF for publication in the D&C. The biased and fallacious paper written by Noel Reynolds does not prove the above statement as true even though it postulates it.

-Finrock

[drtanner]

Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

[Finrock]

Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock

We don't know, there isn't any evidence. Joseph Smith and the Apostles were out of town when the vote was taken. Answer that one!

We do know the apostles, which would include the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, removed the LoF from the 1921 edition.

I know all of you support our leaders, so why do you say the LoF should not have been removed?

Your answer doesn't make any sense to me. I asked, "why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive?" Then I asked, "Why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about [the LoF] after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

Your response is, "I don't know [why JS didn't have the LoF removed]" "There isn't any evidence" What do you mean "There isn't any evidence?" Evidence for what?

We aren't done dealing with this question so I'm not worrying about your counter questions at the moment. Not to mention your counter questions have already been answered and the assumed truth claims in your question has been refuted multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads.

You have no good answer for those questions and these historical facts call in to question your position and it should cause you to pause. My questions avoid the whole authorship argument that you are making because authorship at this point is irrelevant. Even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon was the sole author (which I don't because historical evidence produced by multiple scholars, in multiple scholarly works show that Joseph Smith and others were involved in producing the LoF) and even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon and the rest of the Church (sans Apostles) was involved in some conspiracy and rogue operation to get the LoF added to the scriptures without Joseph Smith's knowledge, blessing, or approval (just think about what you are saying and how ridiculous this conspiracy of yours is) the fact still remains that after they were added, not a single word, not a single effort, not a single thing was done by Joseph Smith to correct this rogue operation, this conspiracy to add unapproved scripture in to the official canon, and for the rest of his life Joseph Smith allowed thousands of early Saints to believe that the LoF were scripture and were part of the approved canon.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

Another question? Joseph Smith is recorded in the Words of Joseph Smith as making this statement:

Seperate persons. but the all agree in one or the Self Same thing But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies

The question is that since we understand that the Holy Ghost retains a state of being a spirit personage to facilitate his functions in the God Head and that these functions require that he remain a spirit personage, if he should take on a physical body as Joseph says in the above quote that he will, how will that alter his role and function in the God Head?

I don't know, tell us.

[Arenera]

Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

[Arenera]

Arenera,

This has been asked of you several times, by multiple people, and as of yet I haven't seen you respond to this question. There is no point in continuing to "discuss" this with you if you refuse to answer this question:

Why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive? If are a mistake, why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about them after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

I'm not interested in hearing or interacting with anything else at this point except for your best answer to these questions. If you aren't going to answer these questions, please don't bother responding to my post because it will be pointless.

-Finrock

We don't know, there isn't any evidence. Joseph Smith and the Apostles were out of town when the vote was taken. Answer that one!

We do know the apostles, which would include the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, removed the LoF from the 1921 edition.

I know all of you support our leaders, so why do you say the LoF should not have been removed?

Your answer doesn't make any sense to me. I asked, "why didn't Joseph Smith have the LoF removed from the scriptures while he was alive?" Then I asked, "Why didn't Joseph Smith, The Prophet, do anything about [the LoF] after the fact and why did he continue to allow ALL Mormons during his lifetime to believe and treat the LoF as scripture and as official doctrine?

Your response is, "I don't know [why JS didn't have the LoF removed]" "There isn't any evidence" What do you mean "There isn't any evidence?" Evidence for what?

We aren't done dealing with this question so I'm not worrying about your counter questions at the moment. Not to mention your counter questions have already been answered and the assumed truth claims in your question has been refuted multiple times, by multiple people, in multiple threads.

You have no good answer for those questions and these historical facts call in to question your position and it should cause you to pause. My questions avoid the whole authorship argument that you are making because authorship at this point is irrelevant. Even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon was the sole author (which I don't because historical evidence produced by multiple scholars, in multiple scholarly works show that Joseph Smith and others were involved in producing the LoF) and even if I were to concede that Sidney Rigdon and the rest of the Church (sans Apostles) was involved in some conspiracy and rogue operation to get the LoF added to the scriptures without Joseph Smith's knowledge, blessing, or approval (just think about what you are saying and how ridiculous this conspiracy of yours is) the fact still remains that after they were added, not a single word, not a single effort, not a single thing was done by Joseph Smith to correct this rogue operation, this conspiracy to add unapproved scripture in to the official canon, and for the rest of his life Joseph Smith allowed thousands of early Saints to believe that the LoF were scripture and were part of the approved canon.

-Finrock

Are you having a bad day? Sidney Rigdon wrote the LoF. You can choose to believe other wise. The LoF was removed from from the 1921 edition onward. That is a fact. I support the decision, which means I support the leaders at that time who removed it. You don't, you have stated such.

I have shown where there is inconsistency in the LoF. You say the Spirit told you otherwise. Others say they have studed the LoF for months and years.

The Spirit hasn't told me the LoF is consistent. To read it, L5 is certainly inconsistent to what we know as LDS Doctrine, to what we know that Joseph Smith did write in Section 130.

[drtanner]

Here is a question to ponder. Did Sidney Rigdon know God had a body? Why would he phrase it that way in the lectures? Why did Jospeh never say anything about it and approve it? Jospeh was pretty adamant about false doctrines especially the nature of the Godhead of which he had learned first hand about.

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

[Arenera]

I have some confusion in what Arenera's position is.

It appears that sometimes the position is that the LOF are good and of the same calibur as our Teachings of the prophets manuals, but not at the level of scripture. Correct

Sometimes you say they were good for 1800's but not now. Correct

Sometimes you say they are not simple enough and require too many words to explain their meaning. People with a strong background can explain the inconsistencies, after months or years of study. Spend that time studying the Book of Mormon!

Sometimes the position is that they are simply not needed at all because they have some perceived inconsistencies, might be confusing to non-members, or do not contain the fullness of the gospel. Correct

Sometimes the fact that they were removed by apostles is proof. They were removed by Elder Talmage and other apostles. Fact

Sometimes the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the author invalidates them. It means they were not received by Joseph Smith as revelation



Are they of value or not? Arenera has argued both in this very thread. For the general membership, I don't think they add value. How many of the general membership even know of them?

[Arenera]

Does Arenera and drtanner know God had a body? Yes, see D&C 130. There is no evidence that JS approved it for publication in the D&C.

How would a person, not a Mormon, understand L5? Certainly it was a point that anti-mormons brought out.

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

I don't know, let's assume he did.

[brlenox]

One of the problems is I do not think we are recognizing that the lectures where assigned to a committee to be organized:

It is instructive to review the evidence that links Joseph Smith and others to the writing of the Lectures. First, perhaps, it should be noted that a committee of four men—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick O. Williams (all presiding officers in the Church)—was appointed 24 September 1834 “to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made” (HC 2:165). That committee reported to the priesthood councils of the Church nearly one year later, 17 August 1835, recommending the publication of a book they had prepared (HC 2:243–51). That book consisted of two parts. The first contained the Lectures on Faith; the second consisted of selected revelations and inspired declarations received since the beginning of this dispensation. The two parts together made up what were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. The priesthood councils and other Church members assembled accepted the committee’s recommendation. The result was the publication of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which came off the press about the middle of September 1835. ( https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-f ... ures-faith )

[drtanner]

So you believe Sidney knew God had a body as outlined in D&C 130 at the time he wrote the lectures?

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

[Arenera]

The LoF were delivered in the winter of 1834-35 at the school of the Elders. Sec 76 was received in Feb 1832.

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

[Serragon]

I think I understand your position now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You believe that the LOF were good for learning at the time given, but have served their purpose. That the things written there cause more problems than they solve to our modern sensibilities. That the doctrine in the LOF is more clear and simple in the Book of Mormon and so the BOM should be our source of study.

Do you consider it to be a general principle to study the Standard Works, especially the BOM, which contain the fullness of the Gospel instead of trying to find the same truths in these more dated and/or confusing documents?

[diligently seeking]

So yes you believe Sidney knew God had a body at the time he wrote the lectures?

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

Arenera, you speak of the worry of confusion...
I tell you with a high degree of certainty that confusion levels about a great deal of many important truths are at an alarming rate among church members.

Example: at my part time job I am working with four prospective missionaries. All these 17 year olds are wide-eyed excited about being a "missionary" all of them are confused by what it means to be born of God / converted. The more I teach them (I tell you in humility) the more the spirit envelops them and their countenances shine with joy... These Seminary attending church attending kids on their own have asked me why these truths are not clearly taught...

Those are tough heart hurting questions. Questions that I don't fully answer for them. The answer to their questions and the queestions on why the removal / diminishment of the lectures on faith have similar root cause and affect explanations.

[Arenera]

I think I understand your position now. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


You believe that the LOF were good for learning at the time given, but have served their purpose. That the things written there cause more problems than they solve to our modern sensibilities. That the doctrine in the LOF is more clear and simple in the Book of Mormon and so the BOM should be our source of study.

Do you consider it to be a general principle to study the Standard Works, especially the BOM, which contain the fullness of the Gospel instead of trying to find the same truths in these more dated and/or confusing documents?

The scriptures are dated, so it’s not that. What is the gems or gem that the LoF give? I’ve explained 2 items of confusion, L5 godhead and L6 sacrifice.

[Arenera]

I don't know, let's assume he did.

Why would he or Joseph or anyone who helped with the lectures be it writing, compiling, or editing include something to allude that God was a spirit when they knew this was not true?

The challenge comes from new members being confused, or anti mormons using it for propaganda. I think the latter being the main reason for removal.

I think some, thinking JS wrote it, found adventure in figuring out the puzzle spending months and years.

I know some people have twisted off on L6 trying to find their great sacrifice.

I don’t see a gem to hang a hat on. I do see gems in the Book of Mormon.

Arenera, you speak of the worry of confusion...
I tell you with a high degree of certainty that confusion levels about a great deal of many important truths are at an alarming rate among church members.

Example: at my part time job I am working with four prospective missionaries. All these 17 year olds are wide-eyed excited about being a "missionary" all of them are confused by what it means to be born of God / converted. The more I teach them (I tell you in humility) the more the spirit envelops them and their countenances shine with joy... These Seminary attending church attending kids on their own have asked me why these truths are not clearly taught...

Those are tough heart hurting questions. Questions that I don't fully answer for them. The answer to their questions and the queestions on why the removal / diminishment of the lectures on faith have similar root cause and affect explanations.

What is in the LoF that helps vs the Book of Mormon?

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

[Arenera]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

[Arenera]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

[diligently seeking]

LoF gives illuminating clarity on how to more fully understand D&C 84 / lifting the condemnation for taking lightly the gem of all books the BofM!

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

[Arenera]

Which parts of LoF?

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

You guys are not helpful. Ill stick with the BOM.

[diligently seeking]

Alright sister Aranera---you are a sister? Just now getting off said part time job. Let's see how do I answer this ---I think to understand where in the lectures on faith you can be so " illuminated"--- we need to first understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon. It is to bring us to Christ. As you read the lectures on faith you're given a pretty clear understanding how to proceed forward in faith to receive and be received by Jesus Christ / second comforter.

To be born of God receive one's calling and election and be received by Jesus in the flesh this is the Book of Mormon message. I have the four fellas I'm working with on the "KB7 challenge." It is vitally important that we're healed and converted through Jesus Christ. This is the opportunity to transcend membership status become actual Saints through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I got the boys reading King Benjamin sermon seven consecutive days. The challenge I offered them is to move forward with real intent to understand and see and desire and pray for the conversion that is shown so beautifully in KB's sermon. How blessed we are to have the Book of Mormon that shows us so clearly what conversion looks like and how to move forward to receive a greater portion of God's word to part the veil and be received by Jesus Christ how very lucky and blessed we are to have the lectures on faith that drills down a little more succinctly on achieving this objective. Condemnation get the hence is our goal and aim...

I like your fulness point from the BOM. Where is this supported in the LoF.

The BOM is loaded with fulness, that is one of my points. I’m trying to understand where that is at in the LoF.

Give it a read a couple 2 or 3 times-- let your efforts and the holy spirit "show you the way"

You guys are not helpful. Ill stick with the BOM.

Excellent! BofM is more than a sufficient aid in accomplishing objective---- second estate, successfully.