Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alma 32:1-5"

Revision as of 03:46, 23 October 2007

Cleaning up the discussion page

So as to make the discussion page a bit more handleable again, especially given the heavy attention this page is receiving, I want to draw from the comments on this page whatever can be transferred to the commentary page and then delete the content here. I will leave the discussion about editing policies, etc., up for a few more days in case anyone else needs to peruse it, and then I will delete that as well so that the discussion page can be returned to its proper purpose: discussion of the commentary on these verses. Any objections? --Joe Spencer 17:19, 22 October 2007 (CEST)

I don't mind. --Sterling 18:53, 22 October 2007 (CEST)

Poor in Heart

Matthew, I like the exegesis you've added on "poor in heart." How do you think this phrase connects up with the question of compelled humility vs. voluntary (?) humility? Any thoughts? --Joe Spencer 17:14, 12 February 2007 (CET)

I too find this interesting, esp. b/c the phrases "poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3 and 3 Ne 12:3) and "lowly in heart" both seem to have strictly positive connotations. And my sense is that "poor in heart" is basically what Alma is referring to in subsequent verses when he talks about those who are compelled to be humble.... --RobertC 03:35, 13 February 2007 (CET)

Here are some thoughts on contrasting poor in spirit, poor in heart and lowly in heart:

I agree that poor in heart is the description of the people compelled to be humble. In other words I see them as the same except that one is describing the process (compelled to be humble) and the other is describing the result (poor in heart).

One interesting thing about poor in heart is that in both uses we find it along side "poverty as to the things of this world." Here's how I read verse 3:

Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God,

being esteemed as filthiness;

therefore they were poor;

(Verse 2 says they were poor meaning poor materially. Now Mormon tells us that because they weren't permitted to go into the synagogue and because they were seen as filthy in their community they really were poor. (I read the phrase "therefore they were poor" with an emphasis on "were." Mormon hasn't yet explained what he means by poor but it is clear that he is no longer simply referring to the lack of material wealth. Now Mormon launches into a bit more explanation of what he means which is really a restatement of what he has already told us--as if to emphasize that the answer was there! )

yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

(So now Mormon names this "poorness" to distinguish it from material poverty as "poor in heart.")

Here's why I think poorness of heart is to esteem oneself as less than others around you: because it is always used together with material poverty--a concept almost always used in comparison, rather than related to an absolute concept of wealth.

Under this interpretation, Alma is so careful to not overly praise their humility (see Alma 32:14) because it isn't really the right humility. It is humility related to the other people in society when it should be humility related to God.

So this is a long way of going about it (and I'm not there yet) but I'd like to be able to finally tie this back to the beatitudes and the related thread on our blog.

In the end I'd like to make a case that poor in spirit means pretty much the same thing as poor in heart. Under that interpretation Matt 5:3 is another example of the first being last and the last being first--those on the bottom rung of society now, those who own nothing in this world, are going to own all of heaven.

--Matthew Faulconer 06:17, 14 February 2007 (CET)

On Waters and Testing

Sean, I think there is a nice tradition to this point (and it is in the rules, I believe) that if you cut anything from the commentary page, it should be posted, at least in the meanwhile, to the discussion page to give other contributors the opportunity to discuss it, etc. Just cutting whole paragraphs is not a very... respectful?... practice. I'm less concerned about what was cut here—I'll confess that it was rather speculative, but I'll confess just as much that I was struck by the curious phrasing and still think it deserves more careful attention than the comment you've replaced it with admits—than I am about what was cut of Sterling's questions on the first verses of 1 Nephi 1. To cut a question without providing any answers seems, quite simply, to be counterproductive on a site we are trying to flesh out more and more. I really think the project is better served by production rather than reduction: writing up a few paragraphs of good commentary is far more important than cutting out a few questions that seem irrelevant or some such thing.

I'm trying to write this as kindly as I can, knowing that we've differed on opinions before. And I hope you know that my intentions are the best—I realize, of course, that your intentions are the best as well—but I am concerned that "cleaning up" the project is far less productive than adding great commentary or building things up. I don't know to what extent I speak for the entire community here, but it seems to me that the site will be far more helpful for visitors if there is something to be read, albeit occasionally poorly worded or confusingly written or speculatively exploratory, than if there is almost nothing to be read, even if what does appear is perfectly responsible, etc. It would be far more productive to move something less than perfect to a discussion page with a few comments about why it doesn't seem appropriate or with a few questions about its appropriateness than simply to cut it from the commentary section entirely as a kind of test. I think, to be honest, that it would not only be more productive, but more charitable and more engaging (I'd rather be told a hundred times why my thinking on something is wrong than to have one of my ideas simply dismissed without explanation... and I imagine many others feel the same way).

I hope you see where I'm coming from. You are right that not everything is fit for the commentary pages. But please move these kinds of things to the discussion pages so that we as a community can think about things rather than simply deleting material that might prove to be of greater interest to everyone than one individual might suspect. It is, I believe, a simple matter of patience and longsuffering. --Joe Spencer 05:54, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Joe, as for this page, I did not consider myself to be deleting the content, but to be correcting it, albeit, the final product was much shorter. I intentionally tried to leave some idea of "why" the content was changed. It was shorter, precisely because commentary is not supposed to consist of a simple retelling of what the verse already said. I felt my clarification partook somewhat of that, and as such, ought to be only long enough to serve as a clarification/exegesis. If you feel the alternative viewpoint had more merit than I suspected, the old material is very much available for you to frame a discussion around.

I'll have to take another look at the rules. I don't recall seeing what you suggest in there, while "Unsubstantiated commentary or speculation" and "Restatement or summary of text" (Help:Commentary pages) have been an unfortunate plague. There have also been some "Tendentious or leading questions", which would account for some of my question alterations. I did delete some questions, however. If you feel some of the questions I deleted had more merit than I gave them, I'd be curious to hear about it.

I don't think a blanket "never delete before going to committee" policy would be a good idea. It makes clean-up very hard, and contrary to common belief, bad content on a site can be almost as bad as no content. When editing wikis, I generally have a "when in doubt ask for advice policy" and usually I will also leave a comment explaining my edits. However, I have found that's not always a good idea, and in this case I wanted to gauge whether or not there would be a reaction rather than asking that my work be validated.

I got chewed out one time on wikipedia for changing "Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated in absentia" to "Sidney Rigdon did not attend his excommunication trial" and then posting my thoughts on why the change was important. I was told that my change was meaningless and that in the future I should just make changes and see if anybody undoes them before starting a discussion. I disagree, but I think it's certainly sometimes the thing to do. It is not always wrong to edit without discussion, though it is not always right to do so. It's all very political. Now, clearly I've upset you, and that's unfortunate, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this matter of editing policy. I personally think that although there are a number of pages that could use more content, that we should not have our hands tied when looking to edit the content of others. A wiki is not a soap box for the common editor. I can edit you, and you can edit me, (not that I'm aware that I've edited you here) and to some extent we have to learn to get along together despite that sometimes offensive reality.

In my mind, I have made a rather good edit. You are welcome to respectfully disagree, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the merits of the excised/altered content rather than on how editing content is disrespectful. --Seanmcox 11:11, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Sean, I guess there are two points to make. First, as regards the content removed from this page particularly, and second, as regards the general "philosophy" of the site.

You edited two comments on this page, and I'll agree that one of them was edited down quite nicely, that it simply restated what is already said in the text itself, etc. But the other comment hardly restated the meaning of the text but offered what I at least think was an interesting insight into a curiously placed "therefore." While the commentary that was there before raised a question about the oddity of the placement and reflected on possible meanings, the replacement states rather dogmatically that Alma simply means a certain thing (that is, it ignores the difficulty of the text). I assumed that this change was a deliberate deletion of the engagement of the problem, but perhaps you simply misread the commentary? If the latter, my apologies for sounding somewhat accusatory: I don't mean to accuse at all, but to promote a profounder sense of community.

Which leads nicely into the second point, one I think we've covered before: I feel that the wiki is more essentially a community than a production. As much merit as there may be in comparing Feast to, say, Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that we're simply nothing like them. Wikipedia has millions of hits a day, thousands upon thousands of edits a day, and speaks to a global audience. We have five or six regular contributors and very few hits a day. We speak only to a rather small potential community (online English-speaking Latter-day Saints), and very few of these are at all interested in the project. Presentation is certainly a concern, but I don't think it's our primary concern. The more there is a community and discussion among us, the more productive this project will be, but reductive edits and simple deletions promote frustration and weariness.

So I'll concede you the points you made for any other wiki, but I don't think they apply here. This is a fundamentally different project. It would be well for you to watch how conversations tend to happen among other contributors. Usually if someone makes a comment that is quite straightforwardly in contradiction of the rules—say, someone just relates a personal experience in the commentary page for a given text—it has been our practice traditionally to move the comment to the discussion page with an explanation of why it doesn't work on the commentary page and with an invitation not to be discouraged but to continue helping. If someone writes commentary that is somewhat speculative or flat-out wrong, usually we will make a comment on the discussion page asking for clarification or reasoning, suggesting that if no one else is bothered by it, it will be moved to the discussion page. But simply deleting the material is not something we do. Less effective? Less productive? Downright obnoxious? Perhaps. I'll agree with you. But I believe that is part of dealing with community, and I at least (but I think I speak for most everybody here) think that maintaining a contributing and thinking community here is far more important than having a bunch of commentary pages with only a sentence or two that can be vindicated because it is unquestionably "correct."

So, upset? No. Concerned, rather: I'm afraid that simple deletions like these will drive away contributors, will lead to so little activity that Matthew will finally give up and remove the project. Offended personally? Not at all. I'm actually quite happy to have someone disagree with me. But I think it is worth saying that deletion is not disagreement.

So let me conclude by responding quite directly to your last statement: "In my mind, I have made a rather good edit. You are welcome to respectfully disagree, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the merits of the excised/altered content rather than on how editing content is disrespectful." The writers of what you have deleted should very well be saying much the same thing to you: you are, Sean, quite welcome to disagree respectfully, but if so, you might do well to start a discussion on the unmerits of the content rather than simply deleting it. I personally chose to engage you personally ("to start a discussion . . . on how editing content is disrespectful," though I think this way of phrasing it misses my point almost entirely: it is not editing that is disrespectful, but deletion of thoughtful content without any discussion of it) because I would rather settle our theoretical differences so as to promote the betterment of the project than quibble over this or that particular edit. Again, my focus is on the community. Please, please, please edit content. But do so more productively: if you have nothing to put in its place but you feel it is not appropriate for the commentary page, move it to the discussion page so that it can be subject to review.

But I feel, and I really think I've got all the archons of the wiki behind me on this, that deletion without discussion is, except in cases such as spam, etc., counterproductive. If that makes this project too exasperating, I apologize, but such is every community I've ever been a part of. What is marvelous is that a community still, despite such frustrations, produces far better and far more abundant work than a single individual.

Again, I hope the spirit of my comments is not misunderstood: I'm doing all I can (1) to promote the community that is this project and (2) to invite you to play a part in that community. You have every right to disagree, and you have every right, int he end, simply to delete everything everyone else writes as commentary. But I hope you see how much more productive we can be if we engage in discussion rather than production. --Joe Spencer 15:22, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

"But the other comment hardly restated the meaning of the text but offered what I at least think was an interesting insight into a curiously placed 'therefore.'" The "therefore" was hardly curious, except in, perhaps, a rhetorical sense. It made perfect logical sense and since there seemed to be some unnecessary confusion surrounding it, I made clarification. I would think my reading would be vindicated by the analysis done here under "Poor in Heart". I would be very curious to see a vindication of the previous reading, for it seemed to be unfounded. I do not see myself as having deleted an engagement of a problem. I see myself as having wrapped up the problem with a nice conclusion. If I misread things, you'll have to show me how.

"As much merit as there may be in comparing Feast to, say, Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that we're simply nothing like them." Nothing like them? You're both wikis. Even Wikipedia has this "profound sense of community". Wikis were invented with this "profound sense of community" in mind. Scale is largely irrelevant. Content type is largely irrelevant. Being fastidious about asking permission or getting buy-in in order to make changes to others' contributions has not proven to be fundamental to the community, but rather a sometimes good practice, and sometimes unnecessary, and even ill-advised.

To promote the "profound sense of community" over some basic content quality, in effect, is to promote unity around a false principle. If we are to be a community, I suggest we best be a community that is unified around something nearer to quality and learning, rather than simply endless debate and speculation. I personally have, in the past, liked to promote this site, but as it becomes more and more cluttered with speculation and, at times, nonsense, I find myself having to qualify my endorsements with statements such as "Great resource. Go and add any insights you might have, but be careful because some of the people are a little off the deep end and there's a lot of junk to wade through." I suppose perhaps that might be considered amusing to some, but to me it is tragic that a community that has so much potential as this one has, should be rendered of questionable value by this clutter of people trying to work out their dubious ideas in what is really public space. To me, it is precisely this reluctance to delete which has led to this problem. If we have any kind of standards for the content here, then we ought to make them clear. Instead we make them soft and pliable, so that all standards become words only with no effect. (Excepting that unwritten rule that we be tolerant of all contributions.) Contrary to popular belief, if you set standards and enforce them clearly, you will not only lose contributor, but will gain. If your standards are good and reasonable (and the standards here are well written, even if to no affect) you will gain greatly.--Seanmcox 18:50, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Sean, here's the thing. Joe and I and some others are trying to start a group project on Alma 32. But of our group, only Joe has experience at all with writing for wiki's. It is, in fact, discouraging when you undo our work. This page may not look pretty while we're still working on it, but honestly, who cares? No one knows about this website yet. So won't you just let us do our work in the corner? --Mjberkey 19:23, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I can understand that. Having done a lot of wiki editing myself, however, I'm not sure how what I did is properly an undoing rather than a contribution. I'm perfectly willing to let you guys work things out though if you feel the need to do so without my involvement. How long do you anticipate this exclusivity to last? --Seanmcox 19:38, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I personally would appreciate it if you did refrain from cleaning this chapter until we are done. I think we plan to work on this project for a couple of months. But after that, I think there's been some talk of publishing what we finish to gather more attention for this wiki. At that point, it will be more important that everything be conformed to the standards.--Mjberkey 21:02, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Let me first say that I'm going to differ here with Mike to some degree: I'd rather you tamper all you can with the page while we're working on this project. I don't want it to become a group project limited to a few selected people, but the idea of taking the work at least in part to the wiki was to encourage others to contribute, others who were not part of the group. So I very much would appreciate your contributions. But I think Mike is right in saying that it is incredibly discouraging when one of the first comments you make in hopes of helping or contributing is simply deleted without so much as an explanation. So: please join us! But please contribute, edit, discuss, and build, rather than tear down or delete.

Now, to your direct responses. First, the comment was picking up on an oddity of phrasing. I'm not sure how the verse does not sound awkward in English to you, but it plainly does to me. Such oddity calls for comment, for thought. The thought that was articulated was that this awkwardness, if it is taken literally, suggests that there is something more to the meaning of the word "poor" as it is employed in the verse. That is of some interest. If someone disagrees, it is easy enough to write an addition to the commentary such as, "Or it might simply be that the later part of the phrase clarifies this quite straightforwardly, etc." Or, it could simply be removed to the discussion page with the briefest of comments: "Doesn't this seem a bit speculative?" Or even one can just make a brief comment on the discussion page without doing any editing at least to see whether everyone else thinks this bit of commentary is remarkably naive or silly: "That bit of commentary seems to me far too subtle and obscure. Is it worth making this point?" Etc. So, have you misread things? To be honest, I'm not sure, precisely because you have deleted without engagement. I can't tell whether you've misunderstood something, simply thought it to be unnecessary, taken it as speculative, or what? This is precisely why I'm calling for engagement over spring-cleaning. A move from the commentary page to the discussion page accomplishes the same level of presentation, if that is something that is ultimately so essential (I'm still not convinced it is), but without simply shutting down the community.

As for the remainder of your response, I think I have to articulate my response somewhat theoretically, because it seems like it is a subtle point on which we won't agree. It almost seems to me that you approach the wiki from a kind of capitalistic standpoint while I approach from a kind of Marxist standpoint: you are entirely concerned with the face it presents, with its purchasability, while I am entirely concerned with its role as a place for engagement with others. Matthew has said before, and I agree, that both of these views are legitimate: I think the presentation of the site is important, in the long run. But I do not—nor will I ever—think that the presentation of the site is more important somehow than the engagement that is thinking together about the scriptures. I'd like to be shown otherwise, but it seems to me that you are entirely given to presentation, that you care nothing for the collective engagement. I really hope that's not the case, but I can't make sense of your way of handling things otherwise.

Which is what brings to me to what has been, among those on the Feast project, a kind of compromise between the two visions: the existence of the discussion page. So that the community is not abrogated, so that people feel quite free to contribute, so that they do not feel censured, so that they will come and fill up this wiki with their insights and ideas, we do all we can to accommodate their contributions. What I'm asking for is not a personal favor, nor do I want to set up any kind of exclusivity surrounding any particular text. What I'm asking for is a recognition that not everyone is here for the same reasons you are, that not everyone recommends this site to their friends for the same reasons you do, that not everyone thinks about scriptures and doctrines and speculation and so forth as you do, and so, for you to be a bit more patient and longsuffering with people who are trying honestly to think through the scriptures, though they may not do it in the same way you do.

Does this make sense? --Joe Spencer 22:37, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

"it is incredibly discouraging when one of the first comments you make in hopes of helping or contributing is simply deleted without so much as an explanation."

This is not what I did. The reworking was an explanation. It was, you might say, the answer to the question.

"if it is taken literally, suggests that there is something more to the meaning of the word "poor" as it is employed in the verse."

Correct, and I assessed something "more" to the meaning of the word "poor". If you mean something more than that something more, then you're more than welcome to suggest what more that more might be. The phrase is interesting rhetorically, and might well be considered odd. In a way, it might even seem awkward, from a certain point of view.

If you wish to "engage" with me about the text, please do. The text is not gone forever. It still exists. You can easily go and find it and paste it here for a discussion if you think it merits such a discussion. --Seanmcox 23:50, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

I'm going to have to stop engaging you on all points to make quite clear the only one that matters, and the one that you seem quite intent on not responding to: will you or will you not please move things to discussion pages rather than delete things? Robert has nicely caught that this is the thrust of the entire discussion: I really don't care, as I've said repeatedly, about a few deletions, but about the lack of charity evidenced by it and the potential effect on newcomers, which has already been confirmed. Whether or not you so understand it is immaterial: I'm asking whether or not we can agree on a policy.

So answer only this one question, please: will you agree to that practice? You will never have to have another silly conversation like this with me again, and I will never have to have another silly conversation like this with you again, and we can all get on with the far more important work of thinking these remarkable texts. Agreed? At all? --Joe Spencer 05:27, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

At all, yes. I clearly have been, even if you have not noted it. To your satisfaction, no. I don't, however, expect that you will have reason to complain about me in the future as I will make no further attempt at modification of what I see as obvious nonsense as charity here is apparently a one-way street for some. (Such is what I meant by "testing the waters". Thank you, Robert, for something of an even-handed response.) --Seanmcox 23:51, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

Toward a policy...

I think there's a lot underlying the differing views here, and I'm afraid I don't have the time to get very involved in the discussion. I will say, however, that I think it's a good policy to move things that are deleted to the discussion page, preferably giving at least a brief explanation as to why. Except for rare exceptions, this has been the convention we've followed around here, and I don't see a convincing reason to change it. I thought that there were several interesting questions posted by Sterling that were deleted, so I think I'll go back and at least resurrect them, at least to a discussion page.... --RobertC 23:05, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Robert, thanks for doing that. I actually read all of the commentary on a page before I pose new questions. That way I won't post questions that have already been answered. So I hope people don't get the impression that my questions are redundant. --Sterling

I thought I'd chime in here because I think there is an important point at issue. I realize people are probably (and rightly) ready to move on but here is the point of foundational importance. We are all here as volunteers working on this because we believe in it. Every positive contribution is positive. People can work on whatever positive thing they want. If someone wants to work on the D&C while the rest of everyone else is working on the New Testament--fine.

I see this issue of moving things to the talk pages in the same vein. If someone deletes something and moves it to a talk page for discussion they are doing two closely related items. A) they are deleting it. B) they are moving it to a talk page. If someone only wants to do the first item, I don't see why someone else who feels the second is important can't do that. And if someone else feels it is important but doesn't have the time to do it, then it won't get done.

We really need as many people working on things as we can get who are willing to help. Sean, Joe, Mjberkey, I hope you all continue to contribute regularly. We all need to continue to try to go out of our way to get along. It isn't surprising (it is good) that people have strong feelings about how to interpret scripture. And this makes the task of working together on an interpretation (or unified collection of interpretations) difficult. But it is the same things that make the project hard that make it valuable.

To all those reading, but not wanting to get involved for fear of doing the wrong thing, for fear of offending someone, for fear of people thinking your contribution isn't any good and deleting it, I say "follow the example of Joe, Sean, RobertC, Sterling, Mjberkey and others and make what you believe is a positive contribution to the site." And to you who are contributing, trying to come to a consensus when that is difficult, thank you for the hard work. It is appreciated.

Peace, --Matthew Faulconer 09:46, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

Manifest destiny/election as a sign?

(First, I realized I posted stuff on "class" in the Lexical Notes that had already been posted in the Exegesis section--sorry. I'm sure this will get corrected eventually, by me or someone else.)

I'm wondering if we can't discern a sort of "manifest destiny" idea, or whatever the more correct term is, and link it to the later discussion of sign-seeking. That is, I'm wondering if we can't detect a belief among the Zoramites that their election and class position is effectively a sign of God's favor. I plan to go back through chapter 31 with this idea in mind, as well as seeing if the later discussion of sign-seeking can't be related back to this.

I'm posting this thought here because this bit about class and synagogues got me thinking about it, and I think will play an important role in supporting this idea (if it indeed can be supported). --RobertC 15:51, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

Robert, this brings me back to the insight that in the story of the rich young man who would be perfect, the apostles seem to have understood (culturally?) that the rich are the ones who are to be saved. Weber and what-not. My wife and I have spoken about this idea a great deal lately: are we not in the same boat now in the Church? --Joe Spencer 17:58, 22 October 2007 (CEST)

Laziness, hard work, etc.

Yes, I think we inherited a lot of these Calvinist attitudes in the Church. More interestingly, I think there is an interesting strain of thought condemning idleness and sort of praising hard to work to trace out and think about. I think this ties, also, in interesting ways to the very idea of law, and being blessed for obedience to law, and earning salvation, etc. I'm probably going to be adding keeping a few notes on all this here, cross-references and thoughts as background to thinking about the political setting of this chapter.

• Prov 6:6: I think there are a lot of passages in Proverbs condemning laziness. To what extent might the Nephites have inherited a similar tradition that value work and eschewed laziness?

• 1 Ne 12:23, Mosiah 9:12, Alma 17:15 etc.: From the beginning, a lot of BOM passages seem to talk about "idleness" and "laziness in negative ways. This seems to have been more of an inherited tradition that is built upon and developed in their own unique way, but not a Nephite invention.

• Alma 30:17 (cf. 3 Ne 6:12): I think this was a favorite verse for Nibley to quote in ranting against the evils of capitalism, how it was the anti-Christ Korihor who taught that "every man fared in this life according to . . . his genius, . . . strength" etc. Where I think more work needs to be done (someone please point me to such work if it's already been done!) is in tracing out the theological context into which Korihor is talking. For example, I'm wondering if Korihor isn't sort of twisting or desacralizing the idea of "prosper[ing] in the land according to the promises which the Lord had made unto our fathers (Mosiah 1:17). It seems to me there is a clear association between prosperity (incl. material prosperity) and righteousness that runs through practically all of the BOM (up through 4 Nephi at least--interestingly, I can't think of much discussion of this topic in Mormon through Moroni, though I haven't look carefully...).

--RobertC 19:54, 22 October 2007 (CEST)

Well, King Benjamin talks about that right? Mosiah 4:17 - "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just." --Mjberkey 03:31, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

Mosiah 1:17