Feast upon the Word Blog

A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching

RS/MP Lesson 27: “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” (Joseph Smith Manual)

Posted by joespencer on January 25, 2009

In my notes on lessons 26 (see here), I briefly discussed the apparent shock Joseph experienced when Elijah came to the Kirtland Temple: the Prophet seems to have believed at first that his revelatory work was complete with the dedication of the temple, and so he was taken by surprise by the sudden announcement that there was actually a great deal more to do. A bit of further clarification about this surprise should lay a good foundation for this lesson.

The stretch from 1830 (the organization of the Church) to 1836 (the dedication of the Kirtland Temple) was characterized by a constant increase and systematization of the Church’s hierarchical structure. When the Church was organized, only four offices existed in the Church (elder, priest, teacher, and deacon), all understood at the time to be part of a single, essentially nameless priesthood. Moreover, there was no centralization of leadership: each (small) congregation (or “church” as they were called in the early revelations) was more or less a band of believers in the Book of Mormon, generally united by a joint belief in the imminent gathering of Israel. The next six years thus saw a series of drastic changes. During those years, other offices of the priesthood were revealed—high priest, bishop, seventy, apostle, first presidency, etc.—eventually arranged according to a two-tiered priesthood (Aaronic and Melchizedek or lower and higher). By 1835, when the Doctrine and Covenants was first published, the shape of the Church, more or less as we know it now, had come into existence.

Joseph’s sermons, letters, and revelations from the time nicely articulate a kind of vision of what this organization was for: the Church was to be a system of hierarchized councils, no single person having unique authority. The Kirtland Temple physically embodied this order of things: the pulpits at the two ends of the assembly room gave this conciliar organization a physical reality. And so it is that Joseph announced, just before the dedication of the temple, that he was about to be done with his revelatory work: so soon, he explained, as the councils were all set in order and the (Kirtland) endowments were bestowed upon the priesthood holders, he could more or less step down and allow the councils to carry off the work. Joseph could finally subtract himself from the burdensome task of running the Church more or less singlehandedly.

This is why the sudden visit of Elijah a few weeks later seems to have taken Joseph so much by surprise: Joseph and Oliver found themselves, all over again, in a privileged position with respect to the Church, and Joseph must have realized that he would not be able to go, as it were, into prophetic retirement (not retirement from work, but retirement from the day-to-day management of the Church). There was more to do.

Perhaps what was most shocking about the visit of Elijah was that Joseph was forced to see that the councils that had just been established were essentially—and not by their own fault—without any understanding of what was really at the bottom of the work. Joseph described the period beginning with Elijah’s visit later as one in which revelations and visions constantly rolled before his mind like an “overflowing surge.” At the very moment he thought he could step down, he realized that he had the hardest work of all ahead of him.

Ironically, the Saints too seem to have wanted, so soon as the councils had been set in order, to depose Joseph as well. The great “Kirtland apostasy” set in just after the dedication of the temple. And this is the historical context of the present lesson. And Joseph, importantly, saw it all coming. The introductory part of the lesson quotes him as having announced: “Brethren, for some time Satan has not had power to tempt you [because of the temple dedication events, etc.]. Some have thought that there would be no more temptation. But the opposite will come; and unless you draw near to the Lord you will be overcome and apostatize.” (p. 315)

Joseph predicted correctly. The next year saw a series of financial crises, in part brought on by the excessive debt incurred for the building of the temple. Joseph moved to set up a bank to solve the problem. The state of Ohio rejected the petition, and so the Saints established an anti-banking society. Within months, however, there was a banking crisis across the United States, and the Kirtland Anti-Bank closed its doors along with so many others. Joseph explained that it was because people, in their greed, wouldn’t listen to him (he did not get the patience from his people that Jimmy Stewart could command). Many were literally ruined in the matter of a few weeks. And apostasy followed in turn.

The seriousness of the apostasy cannot be overemphasized. Heber C. Kimball later claimed that, at its height, not twenty men in Kirtland believed Joseph was a prophet. Half of the Twelve apostatized over the course of a few months, and split-off groups began to form. The manual quotes Joseph: “It seemed as though all the powers of earth and hell were combining their influence in an especial manner to overthrow the Church at once.” (p. 317)

Some few were infinitely faithful. Among them, of course, was Brigham Young, who confronted a group of apostates with his famous line that though “they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell.” (p. 317) Perhaps more interesting still, though, is how Brigham then went on to describe his own efforts during the apostasy: “During this siege of darkness I stood close by Joseph, and with all the wisdom and power God bestowed upon me, put forth my utmost energies to sustain the servant of God and unite the quorums of the Church.” (p. 317) What I think is striking about this is the fact that Brigham seems to have seen as his principle task to “unite the quorums of the Church.” The councils had indeed received the injunction to bear off the work of the Kingdom, and the growing apostasy had led to dissension and complete breakdown. Brigham’s work was that of keeping the councils and quorums moving. For the most part, of course, he struggled in vain, but the result of the whole affair was that, at the end of the period of apostasy and darkness, Brigham came out as the new President of the Twelve. He went on to lead the Church as the president of that same quorum.

All this unwonted introduction leads, finally, to the actual teachings in the lesson. They are all, of course, about apostasy: about what it is, about how it formulates, about how to avoid it, etc. And they deserve careful attention.

The Teachings of Joseph Smith

I want to begin with the last three paragraphs of the lesson, the teachings gathered under the title “If we follow the prophets and apostles,” etc. (beginning on page 324). These, it seems to me, when carefully read, provide the most expansive views in the chapter.

Each of these three paragraphs is attributed to a different person, but it is quite clear that they are all remembering the same occasion. Taken together, it is at the very least arguable that Joseph said something about keeping with the majority of the Church, as a brief quotation of each of the paragraphs shows: “Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray”; “if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, . . . you will never be led astray”; “The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by impostors.” (pp. 324-325)

Now, the first thing that must be said is that this is a rather surprising teaching. Joseph was himself hardly a follower of the herd, and after some of the experiences he had had, it is especially surprising to see him suggest that anyone should follow the majority. It was, after all, Joseph who had said that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men to exercise unrighteous dominion. And it was, after all, Joseph who had faced precisely the apostasy discussed above, at the height of which only twenty people in Kirtland believed him a prophet—hardly the majority! And even now, the majority of the (whole) Church is, technically speaking, inactive, and so it hardly seems wise to suggest that one should follow the majority today! What on earth could Joseph have meant?

A first way of dealing with this is to focus on the second of the three recollections: in the William G. Nelson version, Joseph does not make reference to the majority of the members of the Church, but to the majority of the Twelve Apostles. This would work nicely, perhaps, because of the canonical idea (see D&C 107) that the quorums and councils, when a majority opinion is reached, have commanding authority in the Church. However, it is a bit of a stretch to reject without question the wording of the other two recollections. At the very least, the possibility that Joseph had reference to the people as a whole needs to be countenanced.

Perhaps the third version of the recalled words provides a clue: “The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by impostors.” This seems to imply that Joseph’s emphasis was not on discerning an appropriate model of faith or behavior, but on the question of dealing with split-off groups. That is, Joseph seems to have been concerned primarily, in this teaching, to suggest something like the following: it is always the largest Mormon faction that is the correct one, and so split-offs should be avoided.

This emphasis, made clear in the third recollection, fits nicely with the other two: Joseph seems to have been talking about how to deal with split-off groups.

Given that this is the case, a detail that shows up only in the second and third recollections becomes rather interesting: “if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray”; “The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by impostors, nor would He allow the records of this Church to fall into the hands of the enemy.” (pp. 325-326) In both of these versions of the teaching, Joseph laid emphasis not only (perhaps not even primarily) on the majority of Church membership, but on the presence of the Church records in an organization.

A further question, then: what is meant by “the records of the Church”? If the subject matter was, as argued above, about how to deal with split-off groups, then it seems clear that “the records” are exactly what we usually refer to as “the records of the Church,” the books and records so emphasized in D&C 128, containing records of the ordinances performed for the living and the dead to be kept in the temples, etc.

So Joseph seems to have taught that the way to know which Mormon faction should be followed is to look at which one (1) has a majority following and (2) maintains the records of the Church. But still, is this not an odd teaching?

A first point, then: it must be noted that there were even in Joseph’s day a number of split-off groups. Though Latter-day Saints today tend only to talk (to know?) about the Reorganites and the Fundamentalists, there have actually be dozens of split-off groups in the history of the Church, and a surprising number of them started up even during the life of the Prophet. It should thus be recognized that Joseph was giving a very relevant point of clarification: though it would be a long shot to claim that the majority of Mormons are unhesitatingly faithful, it does not seem too much to suggest that the majority of Mormons do fall in line with whatever seems to be the right group. If this is for nothing more than the fact that complacency tends to gather, albeit complacently, around truth, it nonetheless is an important insight.

Second, and much more importantly, it should be noted that Joseph here lays heaviest emphasis on the presence of the records of the Church. What matters, in the long run, is those records, if we at all believe D&C 128. The split-off groups, regardless of whatever other benefits might be had among them, do not have the records, and the records are absolutely vital. Joseph’s emphasis on that written record is uncompromising.

Third, then, I think the following conclusion can be drawn: one should follow the majority group with which the records of the Church remain, even if a split-off group appears to be right. Even if one were to find out, for example, that we should have been practicing polygamy all along, it would be no reason to run off and join the Fundamentalist group. Rather, one should stay right with the majority and the records of the Church and use one’s righteous influence to press always toward the truth. It doesn’t matter what might be claimed by an apostate group, if they do not have the keys and the records—those all-important books—they will have no power to save, in the end.

Now, I’ve stated all of this a bit extremely. Let me be quite clear that I do not at all believe that any split-off group is right! I’m merely pointing out what Joseph’s teaching seems to imply: it is the presence of the records (and hence, the keys of the priesthood) and the following of the majority (all of whom can be put to work, etc.) that matters most here. Everything else will come along eventually. As Elder Oaks (I believe it was) said in one of the past few years in General Conference: it is more important that we all be one than that we be perfectly right.

All of this sets the stage, I think, for the remainder of the lesson. Most of it deals with what leads to apostasy.

It should be noted first that Joseph teaches that there is a road that leads to apostasy, and that that road is eternal: there are eternal principles behind this question of apostasy. This is why, I believe, he speaks so much about “keys”: one has to understand how it is that apostasy comes about so as to avoid it; and the way it comes about never changes.

It is on pages 320-321 that Joseph provides what seems to me to be the most important clue to the business of apostasy: “Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes.” What Joseph points out, somewhat subtly here, is that apostates must be taken as distinct from sinners. Sinners reject or fall short of a “professed determination to live godly,” but—and this is the vital point—apostates always leave the Church with a “professed determination to live godly.”

This distinction is, I think, quite important. It is not sins that lead one out of the Church, but piety. That is, what always lies at the heart of apostasy is one’s belief that to be righteous, one must break with the Church. That, it seems to me, is the key.

What Joseph points out in this quotation, though, is that apostates very soon after their departure end up entrenched in sin. Which is to say that their profession of piety masks something else: sins. One could then say: apostasy is the consequence of covered sin, of pretending to piety while desiring or following sin. So it is, I think, that Joseph can refer to apostates on page 322 as “enemies of truth”: apostasy results from a fundamental lie, namely, a profession of righteousness that covers over sin.

But that, of course, is not the whole story—it is only what lies at the bottom of apostasy. How does this hypocrisy develop further?

The logic of this development is important. Riddling it out from the whole lesson first, and then returning to the words of Joseph Smith to explain it, I see something like the following. This initial hypocrisy is common enough, but what makes it blossom into genuine apostasy happens in four stages. First, one comes to recognize (even if implicitly or unconsciously most of the time) that the Church is a threat to the lie that structures one’s hypocrisy (the leaders of the Church might say something that reveals one’s lie). Second, one comes to recognize (again: even if implicitly or unconsciously most of the time) that the Church’s enemies will likely overlook one’s hypocrisy if one sets up in opposition to the leaders of the Church, accusing them. And so, third, one begins to seek out accusations, to unearth foibles in the leaders, to search for apparent problems in the doctrines, etc. Finally, fourth, one makes a complete break, perhaps especially once one is rebuffed for one’s criticisms, etc.

That, it seems to me, is the road to apostasy that Joseph establishes. Hypocrisy is what sets one on the road, and then the four stages begin to unfold, one after another.

Note, then, that it is not concern or even criticism of the Church or the Brethren that is at the heart of apostasy. Rather, it is hypocrisy-leading-to-opposition that is at its heart. Of course, the difficulty is that stages one and two of the road to apostasy, as described above, can too easily happen unconsciously, implicitly—and so one can already be at stage three without recognizing that there is where one is.

How can one tell the difference between someone at stage three and someone who is merely expressing some concerns or making constructive criticisms? The difference is entirely in how one speaks of oneself: “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy.” (p. 318) If one is as self-deprecatory as one is critical, then one is likely doing just fine. But if one criticizes the Church or the leaders without recognizes his or her own sin, then problems are brewing.

That said, what does Joseph have to say about each of these four stages I’ve drawn from the lesson?

Regarding the first, Joseph is reported to have said: “When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can 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.” (p. 324) This seems pretty clear: once one is in the Church, neutrality is over, and one must recognize that one’s hidden sins will not be countenanced by the Church. And so it is that hypocrisy places one at the border of the first stage: one implicitly or unconsciously recognizes that one is out of place when one becomes a hypocrite. The implicit recognition that the Church is a threat comes from the disappearance, at that point, of all neutrality.

Regarding the second stage: “Renegade ‘Mormon’ dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters].” (pp. 322-323) This seems clearer still: there is an implicit recognition on the part of the hypocrite, not only that the Church cannot countenance hypocrisy, but that the world is willing to overlook it in its incessant battle against Mormonism. Any and every enemy to Mormonism can find friends and supporters. (Incidentally, this is a point that Hugh Nibley liked to make. A Latter-day Saint scholar who finds that his or her work can’t seem to get enough attention can take the easy way to popularity—read: controversy—by attacking the Church. But nothing else they write or publish or say ends up receiving any attention: they are not earning any of their fame on their own account, but only on the Church’s.)

Much of the early material in the lesson is tied to the third stage: “The very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom” (p. 318); “In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood” (p. 318); “If there are any uncharitable feelings, any lack of confidence, then pride, arrogance and envy will soon be manifested; confusion must inevitably prevail, and the authorities of the Church set at naught” (p. 319). This seems straightforward.

Finally, the fourth stage: “It would be gratifying to my mind to see the Saints in Kirtland flourish, but think the time is not yet come; and I assure you it never will come until a different order of things be established and a different spirit manifested. . . . How frequent has your humble servant been envied in his office by such characters, who endeavored to raise themselves to power at his expense, and seeing it impossible to do so, resorted to foul slander and abuse, and other means to effect his overthrow. Such characters have ever been the first to cry out against the Presidency, and publish their faults and foibles to the four winds of heaven.” (p. 320)

The pattern is, it seems to me, quite clear. And, as Joseph avers, it is an eternal pattern.

Of course, as Joseph is equally quick to point out: this path can be abandoned at any point by repentance. But note what it is to repent here: it is not to stop criticizing, but to stop being a hypocrite. It is, in short, to confess one’s sins and give up one’s idols. And then one can return to favor.

25 Responses to “RS/MP Lesson 27: “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” (Joseph Smith Manual)”

  1. Rob said

    Week after week I’m just blown away by how great this Joseph Smith manual is, and I’m so glad that we are being told to take this all seriously. No longer are these statements hidden away for gospel hobbyists to engage with, they are the meat of our instruction for these two years. Awesome!

  2. Cherylem said

    Thanks for these notes on the PH/RS lessons. They are absolutely invaluable.


  3. […] Posted in Uncategorized at 3:16 pm by mommywhat RS/MP Lesson 27: “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” (Joseph Smith Manual) […]

  4. James said

    Who are you? and where did you all get your information?

  5. joespencer said

    So far as I know, I’m just another Latter-day Saint, seeking truth.

    As for where I personally get my information, I think I would have a different answer for every paragraph in the original post above. (In other words, if there are any particular sources you are interested in, let me know!) But generally speaking, my information comes from the text under discussion: I’m just reading the lesson itself, reflecting on it, the scriptures, and whatever else I’ve read about Church history that might be relevant. My lesson notes are what result.

  6. nhilton said

    Joe, great lesson notes here. I think Elder Oak’s talk, “Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall” is worth noting in respect to this lesson:http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9d1b3ff73058b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

  7. GM said

    Hi Joe-

    Amazingly insightful as always.

    Curious what the source is for the Heber C. Kimball quote…
    “not twenty men in Kirtland believed Joseph was a prophet”

  8. Andrew said

    “As Elder Oaks (I believe it was) said in one of the past few years in General Conference: it is more important that we all be one than that we be perfectly right.”
    I don’t suppose you know which talk that was…or provide any further clues to help me search?

  9. joespencer said

    GM – Journal of Discourses, 4:108. Here is the quotation directly:

    “That was nineteen years ago, when “Mormonism” was introduced into that nation [England; Kimball is referring to 1837 when he was called to open the mission to England]; I went over about the time when the Church was broken up in Kirtland, and when there were not twenty persons on the earth that would declare that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.”

    Andrew – I’m sorry, but I can’t seem to come up with it. It has been a few years, and so I’m not sure how the wording was exactly, and my searches are yielding nothing. As I recall, whoever said it was quoting someone else, a past general authority. But I’m not entirely sure. Sorry for not delivering on this one!

  10. Tad said

    Joe, I greatly enjoy your notes, which I just came across a couple weeks ago. When will you post notes on Lesson 28?

  11. BrianJ said

    Joe: thanks for these notes! I especially benefited from the way you explain the reference to the records of the church.

    I’m not so sure I follow your explanation of sin/hypocrisy leading to apostasy. Partly I wonder if that’s really what Joseph was getting at—that some sin (other than pride) is always at the root of apostasy, and that the apostasy is an attempt to hide that sin.

    And even if Joseph meant that, I wonder if it’s true. We all have sins and we all hide them, but we’re not all apostates. So what really sets apostates apart?

  12. joespencer said

    Tad, I’ll have lesson 28 up in an hour or so. (I was going to get it up yesterday, and then ran way out of time!)

    Brian, I’ve been away from this lesson long enough now that I’d have to revisit it in some detail. And I’ll have to give a raincheck on that one for now!

  13. Karen said

    I give the 2nd Sunday and I really appreciate your comments and they help me so much. I just wish you would put them up sooner because I like to be organized so I get going on my lesson just as soon as the last one is taught.

  14. joespencer said

    Karen, I’ve thought about doing the lessons further in advance, but I’ve decided not to do so for a number of reasons. Most important is that I would not be able to study anything else until I had worked all the way through the book, and each lesson takes me four or five days, half an hour each day, to prepare, and then two or three days, an hour each day, to write up for the blog. I just haven’t the time to get them up any earlier. This past week, for example, I finally had to abandon a scriptural topic that has been obsessing me so that I could get the lesson done. Now that I’ve finished, rather than getting on to the next lesson immediately, I’m going to get back to that topic, over which I’ve been drooling for a week!

    I do hope what I get up here is helpful nonetheless! :)

  15. BrianJ said

    Fair enough, Joe. I should have posted those thoughts earlier, but they really didn’t come to me until yesterday as I was teaching the lesson. Take all the time you need.

  16. Cherylem said

    I know this lesson is past, but here is a treatment of the lesson I also thought very good: http://the-exponent.com/2009/02/03/relief-society-lesson-27/

  17. Cherylem said

    Also, the Bushman article quote in the exponent (see #16) is here:


    Very very worth reading.

  18. Karen said

    I really appreciate all your thought and comments for my lesson. They are so helpful to me. Sometimes these lessons are hard to put into a “lesson”. I probably am not saying that well, but they are difficult to organize sometimes into what I want to say. You always have great points that help in that direction. Thank you so much.

  19. josh said

    i just love how some folks want your lessons up sooner, why can
    t you get this and that done for me. You do this as a help to us all and I thank you for even posting these discussions. It is very helpful and just want to tell you thanks for taking whatever time available to you.

  20. BrianJ said

    Josh, We typically keep Joe locked in a basement and give him food only when he publishes lesson notes. We’ve recently let him out for short walks, but if this extra freedom proves too distracting (i.e., if he’s ever late with a post), we’ll have to lock him down again.

    Joe, if you’re reading this: get back to work!

  21. Matthew said

    Great post. Wish I had read it earlier. Thanks Joe!

    BTW, I am especially interested the part about “the majority of the Church” and “the records.” I’m having trouble reconciling that though with the supremacy I think we have to give to revelation. I’ve go to think more about this I guess.

    [This is a tricky subject. I had written a much longer response but I’m afraid that what I wrote could so easily be misunderstood as sort of espousing apostasy that I wasn’t comfortable with posting it. Maybe later once I figure this out more.]

  22. Becky said

    I just got the calling to teach in RS 3rd Sunday and I appreciate reading different peoples views to help me decide how I want to present my lesson. Thank you for taking time to share.

  23. Douglas Hunter said

    Matthew writes:

    “I am especially interested the part about “the majority of the Church”

    I agree. I don’t think we can have a good discussion of the topic without acknowledging what this quote points to. One of the things it points to is the social aspect apostasy. I didn’t have time to write up my notes on this lesson but my reading of the lesson places the social front and center. I think if we take the lesson as a sort of guide to understanding /defining / measuring apostasy we are not attending to the larger function of apostasy in the Church. The larger function is directly part of the social.

    Briefly the first social aspect comes in when JS describes the strength he felt when supported by the community, this is the strength of a community united in support of its leader, a community without apostasy. Then there is the identification of the apostate individuals and the threat that they are held to pose. Then there is the response by the faithful to the apostate. Then there is the idea that the quote from the lesson points to as the inherent correctness of the beliefs of the majority, and so on. Of course this kind of thinking about the majority is problematic for a number of reasons.

    But we also need to look at how apostasy works in the social dynamic of the contemporary church. In the past year anyone who has had their eyes open will have seen that apostasy has a specific social function that is not descriptive of an individual who has actually become apostate. Perhaps the primary social function of apostasy is as a public claim made by one member or group against another member or group of members. As a social event the claim of apostasy has less to do with the beliefs of the individual being accused than it does the accuser’s (incorrect) understanding of the boundaries of Mormon orthodoxy.

    If we are going to understand apostasy, we need to understand its function as a mirror reflecting the fear and anger of the individuals who accuse. They lack methods and context for understanding different forms of faith within the Mormon community. Such public accusations of apostasy are common and important because their function is to create divisions, fear and distrust. They also function as an attempt to control and limit the possibilities of Mormon faith, teaching, and engagement with social justice. These accusations are genuinely destructive for the individuals on both sides of the accusation as well as for local communities and the larger church. We’ve had a lot of experience with how and why this is the case over the past year. It’s this aspect of apostasy that really deserves our attention; Apostasy as a social / discursive event that is an expression of fear and anger as well as an attempt to define and limit mormon faith and orthodoxy.

  24. bank said


    […]RS/MP Lesson 27: “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” (Joseph Smith Manual) « Feast upon the Word Blog[…]…

  25. romantictoysle said

    check this for your all your cheap sex toys demands

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: