Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Mormon Baptism of Mary, Mother of God
Concerned Christians.com ^ | April 15, 2010 | Helen Radkey

Posted on 05/09/2010 11:27:53 AM PDT by Colofornian

Hail Holy Queen
Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, identified in the New Testament as the wife of Joseph and the mother of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe Mary conceived Jesus miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit. For twenty centuries, Christians have cherished Mary and given her titles that reflect their love and admiration—such as the Blessed Virgin Mary, Theotokos (Mother of God), Our Lady, and Queen of Heaven. As the most celebrated woman in Christendom, Mary is considered the epitome of virtue by Christians, especially Catholics and Orthodox. Protestants generally perceive Mary as an outstanding example of a life dedicated to God. Over two thousand years after she gave birth to Jesus Christ—who is recognized by Christians and Mormons as the Redeemer of mankind—Mary of Nazareth was offered “eternal salvation” through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS.)

Mary, a Mormon by proxy
“Mary Mother of Jesus,” the spouse of “Joseph „of the House of David‟…” was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on December 16, 2009; an endowment ceremony on December 26, 2009; and a sealing to parents on January 7, 2010—all rites occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple.

Until recently, a description of those LDS temple rituals for Mary could be found in the “Search for Ancestors” section of New FamilySearch—the genealogy database of the LDS Church that contains updated details of proxy temple ordinances that have been done for dead people—online at: Family Search.org Only an accredited Mormon with a special user log-in can currently access this website.

The New FamilySearch listing for “Mary Mother of Jesus” with “personal identifier” KJPL-STD disappeared as an individual record in that database, after April 2, 2010, which is the date of my most recent copy of that entry. Record KJPL-STD for “Mary Mother of Jesus” has now been merged into a single record with numerous other blocked listings for Mary. LDS ordinance details on this combined record are all unavailable. The standard LDS procedure for blocking LDS ordinance information, which is attached to controversial records, is to mark ordinance details on those listings as “Not available.” Notes linked to the original entry for “Mary Mother of Jesus” reveal that the source used for that submission was: I149103-Mary(0016 B.C. - )

Mary’s “Husband #1” is identified as “God the Father” on the Smith “family tree” which the submitter used as the source for the “Mary Mother of Jesus” submission. The fictional marriage relationship between Mary and “God the Father” from the Smith link is also defined in the notes on the original New FamilySearch record for “Mary Mother of Jesus,” record KJPL-STD.

However, there was no LDS temple marriage sealing performed for “Mary Mother of Jesus” and “God the Father,” according to the (now blocked) LDS ordinance section of that temple listing. Instead, Mary’s spouse was correctly shown as “Joseph…” But the marriage sealing of Mary and Joseph on that record was marked “Needs more information” (before this ritual can be performed.)

LDS teachings about Mary
Mary is somewhat important in Mormon theology. LDS tradition more or less honors her. Mormons believe Mary was chosen for her role as the mother of the Savior prior to her birth. Although there is little about her in Mormon literature, she is often used as an example of a woman of faith, sacrifice, and obedience to God. Even so, Mormons believe Mary was susceptible to sin because she was mortal. The baptism of Mary is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. More than a few Mormons today seem to think Mary needs to be “washed clean” in order to receive posthumous “redemption” because her name has been submitted numerous times into the LDS temple system for proxy rites.

An extreme Mormon teaching that separates the LDS faith from historic Christianity is the unofficial LDS view about the virgin birth. Unlike Christians, many Mormons do not believe Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. The LDS Church teaches that God the Father is an exalted man who has a glorified body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.

While not doctrinally binding, Mormonism advocates the idea that the conception and birth of Jesus were the result of “natural action” between God the Father and Mary—that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary to beget Jesus.

This bizarre perception of the “relationship” between God the Father and Mary would explain why some Mormons have listed Mary on LDS records as the “wife” of God the Father, whom Mormons refer to as “Heavenly Father,” or by the name-title, “Elohim.”

New FamilySearch records for Mary
There is no way to know how many times Mary has been subjected to LDS proxy rituals. While there are multiple listings for her in New FamilySearch, most of these entries show any attached LDS ordinances as “Not available.” Numerous submissions, which have been contributed by different Mormons, have been merged into the previously mentioned combined record with various descriptions of Mary’s identity, including record KJPL-STD for “Mary Mother of Jesus.” Other listings for Mary appear individually. Some “…Virgin Mary” entries indicate “Needs more information.” The sizeable array of New FamilySearch records for Mary were submitted by a large number of Mormons—evidence that the idea of contemporary baptism for her is not limited to just a few people.

On March 2, 2010, “Heavenly Father” was named as Mary’s only spouse on a New FamilySearch entry for her with “personal identifier” 9HFF-PVQ. She is described on that record in double sets of brackets as “[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin].” The “family tree” on record 9HFF-PVQ currently indicates Mary is the mother of “Jesus the Christ,” and also originally stated she was the mother of “(First Man) Adam (-3170 BC).”

There was a separate listing in New Family Search, on March 2, 2010, for “Heavenly Father” with his “personal identifier” given as 21JV-899. Details of any marriage sealing of “Heavenly Father” to “[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin]” were marked “Not available.” Individual LDS ordinances for “Heavenly Father,” like baptism, confirmation, initiatory and endowment rituals, were tagged “Needs more information.”

By March 10, 2010, roughly a week later, the name of “Heavenly Father” had vanished from record 21JV-899, and “Heavenly Father” was no longer listed as Mary’s spouse on record 9HFF-PVQ for “[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin].” Also removed from that entry for Mary was the name of “(First Man) Adam (-3170 BC),” previously listed as her son.

Record 21JV-899 for “Heavenly Father” now shows “[Unknown Name] (-) Living.” The LDS ordinance section of this entry currently reads:

“This individual is living, and his or her ordinances cannot be displayed. To obtain this information, have the person contact his or her ward or branch clerk.”

Was the name of “Heavenly Father” removed from record 9HFF-PVQ for “[The Virgin] Mary [The Virgin”] because he is presumed to be alive, or because this was an off-the-wall entry? Why was “Heavenly Father” listed in New FamilySearch—not only as the spouse of Mary—but as a living being who could possibly need LDS ordinances?

Why Mormons perform “saving” rituals for the dead
It is a fundamental Mormon objective that the entire human race, both living and dead, should be subjected to LDS temple rites. Mormons believe this process offers the opportunity of eternal families, “godhood,” and “exaltation” in the afterlife to those deceased who died without accepting the Mormon gospel while they were alive on earth.

LDS temple ordinances are performed by living church members as proxies for the deceased. “Temple work” for the dead includes: baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination (for males), initiatory and endowment ceremonies, sealing to spouse, and sealing of children to parents. As for the living, baptism for the dead is primarily done for the remission of sins. Mormons believe water baptism by immersion cleanses the soul of sin, prior to the recipient receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost—when he or she is confirmed a member of the LDS Church. For the dead, this will always be by proxy.

The Salt Lake Tribune protects the interests of the LDS Church
Toward the end of December 2009, Salt Lake Tribune news editor, Dave Noyce, informed me that the Tribune had been saturated with reports about proxy baptisms. It was unlikely they would be running future stories about those whom the LDS Church had posthumously baptized. Nevertheless, the LDS baptism of Mary is a story that deserves press coverage. Mary is revered by billions as a cornerstone of traditional Christianity.

On February, 11, 2010, I decided, regardless, to give the Tribune details of the proxy rites for “Mary Mother of Jesus” which had occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple in December 2009, and January 2010. Evidently, the Tribune decided that information did not deserve Tribune coverage because it was not a new angle on baptism for the dead.

Five days later, I mailed a letter to the Public Forum of the Salt Lake Tribune. My letter contained four pages of evidence from New FamilySearch to support my claims that “Mary Mother of Jesus” was posthumously baptized in a Mormon temple in Idaho:

[To the] Public Forum February 16, 2010 The Tribune regularly publishes reports that present temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a flattering light. Whenever the LDS Church announces a new temple, [the renovation of an existing temple,] an open house, or the dedication and opening of a temple, the Tribune runs these announcements as though they are prime news.

However, when it comes to the publication of articles that disclose controversial information about LDS temple practices the Tribune is not as generous. Tribune staff ignored the news that LDS Church members “posthumously” baptized “Mary Mother of Jesus” in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple in December 2009.

Mary is revered by Christians, especially Catholics and Orthodox, for being the mother of Jesus, and especially because she always and only said yes to God.

Although Mary is generally regarded as a pure vessel of God by Christians, apparently some Mormons think she needs to be “washed clean” of “sin” and offered “salvation” through Mormon proxy rites. Two thousand years after she lived on Earth, LDS temple “ordinances,” including baptism, have been performed for Mary, the Mother of God. Isn’t that outrageous news worthy of the Tribune?
Helen Radkey

A slightly amended version of the same letter was emailed to the Public Forum on February, 18, 2010. About two hours later, I received an email in error from Elbert Peck, the editor of the Public Forum. Peck’s “Dearest Peggy” message was intended for Peggy Stack, a Tribune religion reporter, whose journalism is geared toward the LDS faith:

Dearest Peggy,
I'm not running this letter. I suspect that the posthumous baptism of Mary the Mother of God was a set up. If Jesus' baptism by John was valid, then I think it's fair to assume that Mary's occurred and was valid, too. If she wasn't baptized before the resurrection, she undoubtedly was after. Still, her contemporary baptism is silly. Doesn't someone in the temple name bureaucracy read these names? And was she sealed to Joseph?

Elbert Peck’s email demonstrated unexpected collaboration between himself and Stack. I had sent a letter to the Public Forum. I had expected that communication to be treated with confidentiality, courtesy, and respect, and not to be forwarded—with a certain degree of hostility regarding its content—to other Tribune staff, and then sent back to me.

In a later phone call to Peck, he apologized for sending me the email that was intended for Stack. Peck also informed me that my (emailed) Public Forum letter did not refer to a published Tribune article in its content, presumably as a reason for its rejection. At the time, Peck had not received the hard copy of my letter with enclosed copies. If he had, he would have realized that Joseph was not “sealed” to Mary in the series of proxy rites for her that occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple in December 2009, and January 2010.

The copies I mailed Peck of the New Family Search record for “Mary Mother of Jesus” indicate that the Mormon submitter, who is named on the record, was probably sincere about his submission. The entry was unlikely to be a “set up,” as Peck stated in his “Dearest Peggy” email. The submitter supplied well-detailed information, including the submittal source, which was the questionable Smith “family tree.” The submission was a likely reflection of the Mormon theology that would insist that the entire non-Mormon world, dead or alive, should be baptized, irrespective of secular or biblical stature.

Shortly after noon, on February 18, 2010, I emailed details of Elbert Peck’s “Dearest Peggy” faux pas to Dave Noyce and Peggy Stack. The information was also sent to Vern Anderson, editor of the Tribune’s editorial page; and Kristen Moulton, Tribune religion reporter. In that message, I voiced my objection to Peck, as the editor of the Public Forum, “squishing” my effort to be heard concerning the recent LDS baptism of Mary.

Less than a week later, on February 24, 2010, the Tribune ran an article by Stack: “Madonna mural: Downtown Salt Lake City painting is catching eyes, lifting spirits”: Madonna mural: Downtown Salt Lake City painting is catching eyes, lifting spirits .

Stack’s story gave me a very good reason to submit another letter to the Public Forum. On February 28, 2010, as Peck had suggested, I linked my next Public Forum letter to a Tribune article—Stack’s report about the mural of Mary in downtown Salt Lake City:

[To the] Public Forum February 28, 2010
It seems appropriate that “Ave Maria,” an iconic 44 feet high image of the Virgin Mary, is now prominently displayed in downtown Salt Lake City: “Madonna mural: Downtown Salt Lake City painting is catching eyes, lifting spirit,” by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Tribune, February 24.

Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is the most hallowed and celebrated woman in Christendom. Over two millennia after she gave birth to Jesus, who is recognized by Christians and Mormons as the Redeemer of mankind, Mary was offered posthumous “salvation” by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

According to her LDS ordinance record from the new FamilySearch, “Mary Mother of Jesus” and spouse of "Joseph…” was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple. Initiatory and endowment rituals were also performed for Mary in the same Idaho temple in December 2009, along with a sealing to parents in January 2010.

Therefore, why not display a large mural of Mary, Mother of God, in the heart of Mormon-dominated Salt Lake City—perhaps with an inscription giving details of the LDS temple rites that were recently done on her behalf?
Helen Radkey

My second Public Forum letter was also rejected. The publication of its contents by the Tribune would, no doubt, have caused a public relations stir for the LDS Church.

What is questionable about the Stack story concerning the painting of Mary is the timing. “Ave Maria” was created in November [2009], as Stack stated in her article, and this web link: Mac & Retna Mural in Salt Lake City - "AVE MARIA" .

The Tribune does not wait three months to run LDS news. Those reports are usually published without delay. Why did it take three months for the Tribune to feature the story about the mural? Why did that article appear directly after I reported Mary’s baptism to the Tribune?

With all due respects to the mural artists, El Mac and Retna, who created the exquisite “Ave Maria” image of the Virgin Mary, was Stack’s belated effort an attempt to present a story about Mary that would be acceptable to Utah’s Mormon population?

Stack’s article suggests the mural of Mary is a universal piece that can be appreciated by people of different faiths to promote religious understanding. Christians and Mormons believe the biblical perspective that Mary was chosen by God to be the mother of Jesus of Nazareth—and she was obedient to the divine calling. The buck pretty well stops there.

Christians should not be expected to understand or tolerate LDS temple activities that would appear to demean the untarnished reputation of Mary, the mother of Jesus—including any baptismal rite that implies Mary needs to be “cleansed” from sin—or fictitious record-keeping that claims God the Father is Mary’s literal and eternal spouse.

The Salt Lake Tribune should have published the details of the recent LDS rites for Mary, or one of my letters to their Public Forum. By not reporting on a news item that would have damaged the reputation of the LDS Church, the Tribune shrugged off information that could have generated a flood of complaints from their Mormon readership. It was easier to keep quiet—bow to what was in the best interests of the LDS Church—and keep Tribune readers uninformed. It is no excuse that the evidence came from a genealogy database, built and maintained by the LDS Church, with blocked public access.

Had the Tribune investigated further it would have found that the New FamilySearch record for “Mary Mother of Jesus” was not necessarily a “set up,” or an isolated example of an errant submission for Mary by a “whacko” Mormon. The LDS Church can indicate that its new program, the New FamilySearch, is a technological deterrent to improper submissions. The LDS Church can say that its New FamilySearch, will halt, or slow down, the submission of incorrect, inappropriate, or dubious information that is being fed into its temple system by “overzealous” Mormons. That does not make it so.

Behind closed temple doors, Mormons quietly perform private rites that are intended to offer “salvation” to all “unsaved” dead, including, for the record—Mary, Mother of God.

© Copyright 2010, Helen Radkey—Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: baptismforthedead; beck; glennbeck; inman; lds; mary; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last
From the article: “Mary Mother of Jesus,” the spouse of “Joseph „of the House of David‟…” was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. She was subjected to initiatory temple ordinances on December 16, 2009; an endowment ceremony on December 26, 2009; and a sealing to parents on January 7, 2010—all rites occurred in the Idaho Falls Idaho Temple. Until recently, a description of those LDS temple rituals for Mary could be found in the “Search for Ancestors” section of New FamilySearch—the genealogy database of the LDS Church that contains updated details of proxy temple ordinances that have been done for dead people—online at: https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/unsec/welcome . Only an accredited Mormon with a special user log-in can currently access this website. The New FamilySearch listing for “Mary Mother of Jesus” with “personal identifier” KJPL-STD disappeared as an individual record in that database, after April 2, 2010, which is the date of my most recent copy of that entry.
1 posted on 05/09/2010 11:27:53 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I went onto that forum.

I see the ADMIN of this site is calling Catholicism a “cult.”

Not cool.

2 posted on 05/09/2010 11:37:30 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

They are about 2000 years late, you know that whole Assumption thing.


3 posted on 05/09/2010 11:37:47 AM PDT by maddogconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

A prayer:

Father, please let them whom you have called be released from snares of religionists.


4 posted on 05/09/2010 11:48:58 AM PDT by dasboot (Down: up. Up: down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I think this is just plain silly. Nothing more, nothng less.

I feel bad for people this stupid... but what can you do? If they want to baptize me without my permission -go ahead


5 posted on 05/09/2010 12:05:59 PM PDT by Mr. K (This administration IS WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Mary would be rolloing over in her grave . . . if she weren’t already in heaven that is.


6 posted on 05/09/2010 12:48:31 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
“Mary Mother of Jesus,” the spouse of “Joseph „of the House of David‟…” was baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS Church by proxy on December 9, 2009 in the Idaho Falls Idaho (LDS) Temple. S

This goes beyond mental derangement. The blasphemy makes me want to vomit.

7 posted on 05/09/2010 1:03:19 PM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Amen.

I know she weeps for these misguided souls as well..

8 posted on 05/09/2010 1:12:03 PM PDT by ejonesie22 ( Tagline being renovated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Fill your bathtub with water and someone will be there soon, but if they hold your head under water too long it may water boarding instead of baptism and if they don’t they don’t let you up at all.....


9 posted on 05/09/2010 1:19:11 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
“I think this is just plain silly. Nothing more, nothng less.

I feel bad for people this stupid... but what can you do? If they want to baptize me without my permission -go ahead”

I think y'all are missing something here. These are data entries in a computer. Have YOU ever tried leaving a field blank in a computer form that requires an entry?

10 posted on 05/09/2010 1:24:57 PM PDT by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

So here’s a strange thought .... Bid Deal, So What!

If a Mormon believe’s that someone needs a certain type of baptism to be acceptable before God, and one of them is interested in spending the time to do it .... So What! It only matters if God respects the baptism right? So, What’s all the whining about?

Either God respects the baptism or not right? Clearly you believe that he doesn’t ... in which case, this person wasted their time ... so, what’s the skin off your nose?

Pull your thumbs out of your mouths and let’s have a few adults in here!


11 posted on 05/09/2010 1:39:57 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
I see the ADMIN of this site is calling Catholicism a “cult.”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

12 posted on 05/09/2010 1:46:45 PM PDT by dware (3 prohibited topics in mixed company: politics, religion and operating systems...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
I see the ADMIN of this site is calling Catholicism a “cult.”

Next thing ya know; some fool will show up here and call OUR church a CULT!

--MormonDude(But I have it on GOOD authority that it's not!)

13 posted on 05/09/2010 1:50:46 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Mary would be rolloing over in her grave . . . if she weren’t already in heaven that is.

How'd she get there so SOON?

14 posted on 05/09/2010 1:51:39 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Old Student
Have YOU ever tried leaving a field blank in a computer form that requires an entry?

I did; just the other day.

I was at my computer, trading stocks like I usually do, when I must have entered a BILLION or something like it where I regularly only put a MILLION; when my 120 volt power line went out.

It was off for about 2 hours, and when it came back on, my account showed I'd hit the lottery or something.

My church is LOVING the tithe I paid this morning!!!


Am I blessed or WHAT!!!

15 posted on 05/09/2010 1:55:54 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

It is pretty silly to think that if the LDS church was the true Church, Jesus wouldn’t have made sure his mother was not baptized until 2009. In fact it demonstrates why the LDS faith is false.


16 posted on 05/09/2010 1:57:35 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Anyone pushing Romney must love socialism...Piss on Romney and his enablers!!" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Correction: ...Jesus wouldn’t have made sure his mother was not baptized until 2009...
17 posted on 05/09/2010 1:59:16 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Anyone pushing Romney must love socialism...Piss on Romney and his enablers!!" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

.... LDS people believe that it is also necessary to have the 2nd baptism identified in Acts 1:5 as a requirement to be worthy for heaven, this particular so-callled baptism didn’t come until after the crucifiction.

They also believe that people who have died without recieving baptism can gain it after thier death as in 1st Cor 15:29.

So ... if some overzealous person performed this ordinance .... what does it matter to you? If the church is false .... why are you whining about it?

Talk about sitting around and waiting to be offended! Grow up!


18 posted on 05/09/2010 2:24:59 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe

You might want to familiarize yourself with the rules of decorum on the religion forum sparky.


19 posted on 05/09/2010 2:32:18 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Anyone pushing Romney must love socialism...Piss on Romney and his enablers!!" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: teppe
Arrogant presumption compounded with arrogant presumption.

That is sooooo Mormon...

20 posted on 05/09/2010 2:45:58 PM PDT by ejonesie22 ( Tagline being renovated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson