A few years ago, Elder Robert Gay of the Seventy spoke at our stake conference and told about an invitation he received to accompany a BYU professor on a visit to the Vatican. While there they were allowed access to a room not open to the general public. It contains “special collections” of ancient documents. The highlight for him and his companion was when they were shown the oldest known copy of the New Testament. While looking at its pages, they asked their host, “What are all these handwritten markings?” The reply was very revealing: “Oh, that's where the scribes made their changes.”
Later they had lunch with the third-highest-ranking cardinal who asked them to tell him about our Church. Elder Gay said, “Can you imagine telling a Catholic cardinal about Joseph Smith’s First Vision and that the Church is led by prophets who receive revelations from God?” Well, that is what they did. And when they said, “We suppose your pope also receives guidance from God?” his response was surprising: “Oh, no! Not this pope! We are guided by tradition. That is what we follow.”
I thought of that incident today as I read an article in the New York Times that describes a recent meeting of American Catholic bishops and how they are struggling to understand the motives and intentions of their new pope. As I read the article it became crystal clear that their struggles are rooted in the fact that theirs is a church without any divine authority or revelation, where decisions are made by the most powerful factions, where tradition and power count more than asking, "What is the Lord's will in this matter?" The new pope, while apparently well-intentioned, is ruffling time-honored tradition as he seeks to bring about change, so the struggles of the American bishops are not surprising. What other reaction would you expect in an organization without a divine mandate, where policies and practices are the result of closed door elections, not revelation, and where powerful and persuasive men with no divine authority make “my will” decisions rather than seeking to know and humbly follow God’s will.
In the article I found these two quotes to be of particular interest:
1. “Among those applauding in the conference room was the man who will soon be installed in the powerful Chicago seat, Bishop Blase J. Cupich. Pope Francis has never met him, but plucked him from the obscure diocese of Spokane, Wash., passing over archbishops considered rising stars under the two previous popes. . . . [Bishop Cupich] said he had no idea how he was selected, saying, ‘Maybe someday over a nice glass of Chianti I’ll ask him.’” Imagine David A. Bednar saying THAT when asked why he was called to be an Apostle! In the Savior’s true Church everyone who has a calling knows the source of that call: “We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority” (Article of Faith 5).
2. “He says wonderful things,” Cardinal Francis George said about [Pope] Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?” Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, ‘Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?’” Can you imagine the following scenario: The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have just concluded their regular Thursday morning meeting in an upper room of the Salt Lake Temple. The Twelve walk away scratching their heads and whispering to one another, “Nice meeting, but what does the Prophet want us to do?”
What a blessing to be a member of not just a church, but THE true Church of Jesus Christ, re-established by Him personally and not the product of tradition, power grabs, or closed door meetings.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Friday, September 26, 2014
Leaving Neutral Ground . . . Forever
On occasion, as I research gospel topics, I come across websites set up by ex-Mormons as platforms to denigrate doctrines and practices held sacred by Latter-day Saints and to attack Church leaders they themselves once sustained as the Lord’s prophets.
At first we may wonder why these people feel so driven to go public with their incivility and anger. Why don’t they don’t just put it all behind them, go forward with their lives, and leave the Church alone?
I believe the answer is found in a conversation that took place between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Daniel Tyler and Isaac Behunin, as recorded in Daniel Tyler’s journal. The Prophet had just returned to Commerce, Illinois (before its name was changed to Nauvoo), after being persecuted and imprisoned in Missouri. Speaking about the suffering he’d endured, Joseph said that the cruelest treatment of all came at the hands of former members of the Church, now apostates, and not from non-members.
Daniel Tyler wrote:
“When the prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked, ‘If I should ever leave this Church I would not do as those men have done; I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’
“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do . . . Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left neutral ground, and you can never get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant . . . When men [do this] they leave neutral ground forever’”
(Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 315-16).
These teachings are confirmed in Alma 24 where we read about a battle between Nephites and Lamanites. Among the Nephites was a group of former Lamanites who now called themselves the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Having been converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, they'd joined with the Nephites and had not only laid down all weapons of war and buried them in the earth, they made a vow to never use them again.
So as the battle commenced and the Lamanites came upon the Nephites, these people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi lay down before the invading Lamanites, refusing to fight and, instead, putting their trust in God. The Lamanites, seeing such an easy prey, began to slaughter them.
The record goes on to describe a change of heart among the Lamanites, for “when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them . . . for they repented of the things which they had done . . . and it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war . . . [and] there were more than a thousand brought to the knowledge of the truth.”
Unfortunately, the slaughter didn't completely come to an end. Why? Who continued doing the killing? Just as apostates had inlicted the worst suffering upon Joseph Smith, it was a group of apostate Nephites — Amalekites and Amulonites who had formerly embraced the gospel but then rebelled and joined the Lamanites. These apostates were now slaughtering the believers.
The final verse of chapter 24 confirms the truth of what Joseph Smith said to Isaac Behunin: “And thus we can plainly discern that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.”
That verse, and Joseph's words to Isaac Behunin, explain why the apostates in our day cannot leave the Church alone: "Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant . . . When men [do this] they leave neutral ground forever.”
At first we may wonder why these people feel so driven to go public with their incivility and anger. Why don’t they don’t just put it all behind them, go forward with their lives, and leave the Church alone?
I believe the answer is found in a conversation that took place between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Daniel Tyler and Isaac Behunin, as recorded in Daniel Tyler’s journal. The Prophet had just returned to Commerce, Illinois (before its name was changed to Nauvoo), after being persecuted and imprisoned in Missouri. Speaking about the suffering he’d endured, Joseph said that the cruelest treatment of all came at the hands of former members of the Church, now apostates, and not from non-members.
Daniel Tyler wrote:
“When the prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked, ‘If I should ever leave this Church I would not do as those men have done; I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.’
“The great Seer immediately replied: ‘Brother Behunin, you don’t know what you would do . . . Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left neutral ground, and you can never get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant . . . When men [do this] they leave neutral ground forever’”
(Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 315-16).
These teachings are confirmed in Alma 24 where we read about a battle between Nephites and Lamanites. Among the Nephites was a group of former Lamanites who now called themselves the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. Having been converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ, they'd joined with the Nephites and had not only laid down all weapons of war and buried them in the earth, they made a vow to never use them again.
So as the battle commenced and the Lamanites came upon the Nephites, these people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi lay down before the invading Lamanites, refusing to fight and, instead, putting their trust in God. The Lamanites, seeing such an easy prey, began to slaughter them.
The record goes on to describe a change of heart among the Lamanites, for “when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them . . . for they repented of the things which they had done . . . and it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war . . . [and] there were more than a thousand brought to the knowledge of the truth.”
Unfortunately, the slaughter didn't completely come to an end. Why? Who continued doing the killing? Just as apostates had inlicted the worst suffering upon Joseph Smith, it was a group of apostate Nephites — Amalekites and Amulonites who had formerly embraced the gospel but then rebelled and joined the Lamanites. These apostates were now slaughtering the believers.
The final verse of chapter 24 confirms the truth of what Joseph Smith said to Isaac Behunin: “And thus we can plainly discern that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.”
That verse, and Joseph's words to Isaac Behunin, explain why the apostates in our day cannot leave the Church alone: "Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant . . . When men [do this] they leave neutral ground forever.”
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Response to "End of the Mormon Moment"
In today’s New York Times is an op-ed piece by Cadence Woodland, an LDS writer and an admitted Church dissenter whose LDS faith “has crumbled,” and who, in December, “stopped attending [LDS Church] services” with “no plans to return.”
Her piece is titled, “The End of the ‘Mormon Moment.” The “moment” to which she refers is the recent wave of positive public interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—spawned, at least in part, by public relations campaigns like “I’m a Mormon,” the public’s awareness of the rising number of Mormons in politics, the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and even “the prevalence of Mormon ‘mommy bloggers’ and negative publicity created by the Broadway musical, “The Book of Mormon.”
These and many other public events and issues have cast an unprecedented and worldwide spotlight on the Church, its doctrines, and the Latter-day Saint lifestyle. But instead of taking advantage of this great publicity, Woodland asserts that the Brethren have blown their golden opportunity to help the Church “stay relevant in the 21st century.” Her definition of “relevant” means that Church leaders should have acted on the demands of Kate Kelly, recently excommunicated for her public demands that the Church change its stance on ordaining women to the priesthood, Woodland says that because the Brethren did not cave to the demands of Kelly and her adherents, the Church “killed its own moment.”
Sounds like the Church faces a pretty dark future—but consider two things:
1. The Church is not just another man-made and man-run organization. The Brethren are not in charge—the Lord is, and in a very “hands-on” way. He directs its affairs. Church policy is determined by the Lord Himself. This means, because the Church operates on the unchanging principle of revelation, that anytime we refer to a decision or position taken by “the Church,” we really mean a decision or position taken by the Lord Himself through His authorized servants.
That definition and clarification helps us understand that what Woodland is really saying (because of her “smarter than God” attitude) is it’s the Lord who has blown a perfectly golden opportunity to make His Church “relevant in the 21st century”—and all because He won’t cave to Kate Kelly’s demands.
The Lord and His servants do not stick their fingers up to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing before announcing Church policies or doctrines. Popularity wasn’t Christ’s aim when He walked among men, nor is it His aim now. His ways are not our ways. He has greater purposes in mind.
And …..
2. I am reminded of the following statement made by President Gordon B. Hinckley during his annual address to Church educators on September 14, 1984:
I noted from last Sunday’s papers that a new book is off the press, put together as a “history” of this work by two men who have spent much time gathering data. I have not read the book, but the conclusion, reported one reviewer, is that the future of the Church is dim.
Without wishing to seem impertinent, I should like to know what they know about that future. They know nothing of the prophetic mission of this Church.
Nor do writers of op-ed pieces who believe the Lord and His Church have missed a pivotal “moment” in history by not caving in to demands for tolerance and inclusion.
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/the-end-of-the-mormon-moment.html?emc=edit_th_20140715&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60893940&_r=1
sk
Her piece is titled, “The End of the ‘Mormon Moment.” The “moment” to which she refers is the recent wave of positive public interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—spawned, at least in part, by public relations campaigns like “I’m a Mormon,” the public’s awareness of the rising number of Mormons in politics, the candidacy of Mitt Romney, and even “the prevalence of Mormon ‘mommy bloggers’ and negative publicity created by the Broadway musical, “The Book of Mormon.”
These and many other public events and issues have cast an unprecedented and worldwide spotlight on the Church, its doctrines, and the Latter-day Saint lifestyle. But instead of taking advantage of this great publicity, Woodland asserts that the Brethren have blown their golden opportunity to help the Church “stay relevant in the 21st century.” Her definition of “relevant” means that Church leaders should have acted on the demands of Kate Kelly, recently excommunicated for her public demands that the Church change its stance on ordaining women to the priesthood, Woodland says that because the Brethren did not cave to the demands of Kelly and her adherents, the Church “killed its own moment.”
Sounds like the Church faces a pretty dark future—but consider two things:
1. The Church is not just another man-made and man-run organization. The Brethren are not in charge—the Lord is, and in a very “hands-on” way. He directs its affairs. Church policy is determined by the Lord Himself. This means, because the Church operates on the unchanging principle of revelation, that anytime we refer to a decision or position taken by “the Church,” we really mean a decision or position taken by the Lord Himself through His authorized servants.
That definition and clarification helps us understand that what Woodland is really saying (because of her “smarter than God” attitude) is it’s the Lord who has blown a perfectly golden opportunity to make His Church “relevant in the 21st century”—and all because He won’t cave to Kate Kelly’s demands.
The Lord and His servants do not stick their fingers up to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing before announcing Church policies or doctrines. Popularity wasn’t Christ’s aim when He walked among men, nor is it His aim now. His ways are not our ways. He has greater purposes in mind.
And …..
2. I am reminded of the following statement made by President Gordon B. Hinckley during his annual address to Church educators on September 14, 1984:
I noted from last Sunday’s papers that a new book is off the press, put together as a “history” of this work by two men who have spent much time gathering data. I have not read the book, but the conclusion, reported one reviewer, is that the future of the Church is dim.
Without wishing to seem impertinent, I should like to know what they know about that future. They know nothing of the prophetic mission of this Church.
Nor do writers of op-ed pieces who believe the Lord and His Church have missed a pivotal “moment” in history by not caving in to demands for tolerance and inclusion.
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/the-end-of-the-mormon-moment.html?emc=edit_th_20140715&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60893940&_r=1
sk
Thursday, July 3, 2014
The Unicorn in the Garden
by James Thurber
reprinted from
Fables For Our Time
Once upon a sunny morning a man who sat in a breakfast nook
looked up from his scrambled eggs to see a white unicorn with a golden horn
quietly cropping the roses in the garden. The man went up to the bedroom where
his wife was still asleep and woke her. "There's a unicorn in the garden," he
said. "Eating roses." She opened one unfriendly eye and looked at him. "The unicorn is a mythical beast," she said, and turned her back on him. The
man walked slowly downstairs and out into the garden. The unicorn was still
there; now he was browsing among the tulips. "Here, unicorn," said the man, and
he pulled up a lily and gave it to him. The unicorn ate it gravely. With a high
heart, because there was a unicorn in his garden, the man went upstairs and
roused his wife again. "The unicorn," he said,"ate a lily." His wife sat up in
bed and looked at him coldly. "You are a booby," she said, "and I am going to
have you put in the booby-hatch."
The man, who had never liked the words "booby" and "booby-hatch," and who
liked them even less on a shining morning when there was a unicorn in the
garden, thought for a moment. "We'll see about that," he said. He walked over to
the door. "He has a golden horn in the middle of his forehead," he told her.
Then he went back to the garden to watch the unicorn; but the unicorn had gone
away. The man sat down among the roses and went to sleep.
As soon as the husband had gone out of the house, the wife got up and dressed
as fast as she could. She was very excited and there was a gloat in her eye. She
telephoned the police and she telephoned a psychiatrist; she told them to hurry
to her house and bring a strait-jacket. When the police and the psychiatrist
arrived they sat down in chairs and looked at her, with great interest.
"My husband," she said, "saw a unicorn this morning." The police looked at
the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist looked at the police. "He told me it ate a
lilly," she said. The psychiatrist looked at the police and the police looked at
the psychiatrist. "He told me it had a golden horn in the middle of its
forehead," she said. At a solemn signal from the psychiatrist, the police leaped
from their chairs and seized the wife. They had a hard time subduing her, for
she put up a terrific struggle, but they finally subdued her. Just as they got
her into the strait-jacket, the husband came back into the house.
"Did you tell your wife you saw a unicorn?" asked the police. "Of course
not," said the husband. "The unicorn is a mythical beast." "That's all I wanted
to know," said the psychiatrist. "Take her away. I'm sorry, sir, but your wife
is as crazy as a jaybird."
So they took her away, cursing and screaming, and shut her up in an
institution. The husband lived happily ever after.
Moral: Don't count your boobies until they are hatched.
GLOSSARY:
- booby: in this context, a crazy person (probably from the name of a stupid
extinct bird).
- booby-hatch: a mental institution, a place where the insane are kept.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Insights From 2 Nephi
This week I've been studying the first few chapters of 2 Nephi. This is where we are given a front-row seat as Lehi, about to die, gathers his children and gives them a final blessing.
Here I discovered two treasured insights.
Nephi wrote this, and he gives us a detailed account of the blessings given to his five brothers. He also recorded the blessings Lehi gave to his grandchildren -- the children of Laman and Lemuel; and then the blessings to the sons of Ishmael and their families as well as Zoram, the former servant of Laban.
But where's Nephi's blessing? You can search high and low, but you won't find it. Didn't he receive one? There's no mention of it. Some may say, "Maybe Lehi didn't give him one. Maybe the group was so large that Nephi simply got overlooked."
Impossible. Nephi was the one who was most deserving of all. The key to the answer is in remembering that he was the one who wrote this. I am convinced that by not including any reference to his own blessing Nephi confirmed what I've always regarded as one of his most admirable traits: humility. Truly humble people do not seek attention! While others may love attention and have no problem chattering endlessly about themselves, humble people shun the spotlight. They're uncomfortable when placed on center-stage. In this case, I think Nephi purposely avoided saying anything about his blessing in order to avoid the accusation that he was boasting. After all, he probably received the most positive and hopeful blessing of all. For me, he serves as the model for this wise saying: "Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth" (Proverbs 27:2).
I found the second insight in the first verse of chapter 3. This is where Lehi blesses his youngest son, Joseph, and he chooses some interesting words as he begins: "Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions," obviously referring to the family's difficult journey after leaving their comfortable home in Jerusalem.
As I pondered Lehi's words, I realized that we all have times in our lives when we could properly say we're going through a "wilderness of afflictions." Some are brief. Others last a day or two. But then there are those afflictions that make us wonder if they'll ever end.
And as we navigate through these personalized "wildernesses of affliction," we are often tempted to murmur and shake our fists at the heavens. And then, if we're not careful, we may even turn away from God altogether and let cynicism and anger and selfishness cloud our vision. What vision? Why, the vision of the bigger picture; the vision of why we're here on earth. Not much has been revealed about the details of our existence before we born, but it makes sense to me that we spent a lot of time in class, receiving instruction about the earth life that was to come.
Job taught that when the earth was created, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" because of the prospects offered by coming to earth (Job 38:7). But as Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely added, "I grant you there may be days here that we may wonder what all the shouting was about" ("If Thou Endure It Well," BYU fireside, Dec. 4, 1984).
As we go though our own "wilderness of affliction" let's remember how Lehi got through his: (1) he learned not to murmur; (2) he was true to his covenants, even though he didn't always receive immediate relief or answers to prayer; and (3) he learned to trust in God -- always -- regardless of present circumstances.
Elder Maxwell concluded the talk I referred to earlier with these words: "Tonight, as we sang that marvelous hymn together [I Know That My Redeemer Lives], I know that my Redeemer lives. Those words, every time we sing them, ought to have special meaning. Reassuring words like 'grant me rich supply . . . hear my soul's complaint . . . comfort me when faint . . . silence all my fears . . . calm my troubled heart . . . [and] I shall conquer death.' Those lyrics . . . permit us to know, even as our souls are being stretched, why they're being stretched . . . But we must, once again, endure well. Not fitfully, not slothfully, not resentfully, but in that serenity and spiritual submissiveness which you and I have seen in people who have passed through the most difficult extremities; who do so because they know that their Redeemer lives . . . and that He will comfort them when faint."
I add my deep conviction that He will, and He does.
Here I discovered two treasured insights.
Nephi wrote this, and he gives us a detailed account of the blessings given to his five brothers. He also recorded the blessings Lehi gave to his grandchildren -- the children of Laman and Lemuel; and then the blessings to the sons of Ishmael and their families as well as Zoram, the former servant of Laban.
But where's Nephi's blessing? You can search high and low, but you won't find it. Didn't he receive one? There's no mention of it. Some may say, "Maybe Lehi didn't give him one. Maybe the group was so large that Nephi simply got overlooked."
Impossible. Nephi was the one who was most deserving of all. The key to the answer is in remembering that he was the one who wrote this. I am convinced that by not including any reference to his own blessing Nephi confirmed what I've always regarded as one of his most admirable traits: humility. Truly humble people do not seek attention! While others may love attention and have no problem chattering endlessly about themselves, humble people shun the spotlight. They're uncomfortable when placed on center-stage. In this case, I think Nephi purposely avoided saying anything about his blessing in order to avoid the accusation that he was boasting. After all, he probably received the most positive and hopeful blessing of all. For me, he serves as the model for this wise saying: "Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth" (Proverbs 27:2).
I found the second insight in the first verse of chapter 3. This is where Lehi blesses his youngest son, Joseph, and he chooses some interesting words as he begins: "Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions," obviously referring to the family's difficult journey after leaving their comfortable home in Jerusalem.
As I pondered Lehi's words, I realized that we all have times in our lives when we could properly say we're going through a "wilderness of afflictions." Some are brief. Others last a day or two. But then there are those afflictions that make us wonder if they'll ever end.
And as we navigate through these personalized "wildernesses of affliction," we are often tempted to murmur and shake our fists at the heavens. And then, if we're not careful, we may even turn away from God altogether and let cynicism and anger and selfishness cloud our vision. What vision? Why, the vision of the bigger picture; the vision of why we're here on earth. Not much has been revealed about the details of our existence before we born, but it makes sense to me that we spent a lot of time in class, receiving instruction about the earth life that was to come.
Job taught that when the earth was created, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy" because of the prospects offered by coming to earth (Job 38:7). But as Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely added, "I grant you there may be days here that we may wonder what all the shouting was about" ("If Thou Endure It Well," BYU fireside, Dec. 4, 1984).
As we go though our own "wilderness of affliction" let's remember how Lehi got through his: (1) he learned not to murmur; (2) he was true to his covenants, even though he didn't always receive immediate relief or answers to prayer; and (3) he learned to trust in God -- always -- regardless of present circumstances.
Elder Maxwell concluded the talk I referred to earlier with these words: "Tonight, as we sang that marvelous hymn together [I Know That My Redeemer Lives], I know that my Redeemer lives. Those words, every time we sing them, ought to have special meaning. Reassuring words like 'grant me rich supply . . . hear my soul's complaint . . . comfort me when faint . . . silence all my fears . . . calm my troubled heart . . . [and] I shall conquer death.' Those lyrics . . . permit us to know, even as our souls are being stretched, why they're being stretched . . . But we must, once again, endure well. Not fitfully, not slothfully, not resentfully, but in that serenity and spiritual submissiveness which you and I have seen in people who have passed through the most difficult extremities; who do so because they know that their Redeemer lives . . . and that He will comfort them when faint."
I add my deep conviction that He will, and He does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)