If the church, it's leaders, and its members don't fare any better than the rest of the world when things hit the fan, then something's wrong. The entire second half of the book was inconsistent, contained Mormon urban legend (lost tribes underground in the Arctic?), and was generally depressing. One Amazon review phrased it quite well John Pontius should have quit after the NDE and not gone into the 'last days vision'. Can you remember the most objectionable red flag you uncovered? I have been particularly interested in translation for the past 39 years. I loved especially the descriptions of translated beings and their role in our universe with us. I liked the book because of its soaring nature and hopeful possibility. No I am sorry to report my involvement is in reading it and knowing one of Spencer's friends only. Do you have any insight about that particular situation? Did you attend the meeting (I think they termed it some kind of family reunion) a while back that was organized by Sister Pontius in which 'Spencer' spoke? There was a recording available of it for a while, but they removed it - along with other references to 'Spencer' being at the meeting. Here's another question for you since you seem to believe in the book. The anonymous nature of the book and lack of evidence provided don't help. We then sat down and discussed it and all came away with the conclusion that there were too many red flags raised by the book to be comfortable with. Read it all the way through, along with several other people. You say it's nonsense and I say 'bring it on.' You say tomaato and I say tomato. Pontius who clearly said the visions are real or metaphor or both. One of the postings earlier quoted from the widow of John M. A leap of faith is taken by them and me for that matter. Our Jewish brothers are constantly working hard to verify our scriptures with scientific evidence, but it's impossible. One of my daytime occupations is to work with Hasidic Jews daily from our Brooklyn, New York office.

It's not very satisfying, but it's what he says.

When the question about anonymity has been asked before, I have only heard he doesn't want any limelight and doesn't want to be anyone's guru. I know his name and know a great deal about him, but I have not met him and am not likely to have the privilege. So you know who 'Spencer' really is? (not that I asking for his identity) How about asking him the question why he doesn't go public with who he is and is instead using an alias so that his story can be checked for accuracy on his claims of what happened to him (having doctor friends who describe his descriptions as just plain silly…among other things)?

Who is spencer in visions of glory