Question for Wade, Gaz, and anyone else who can help...

[_keene]

7 You would be right here as well. The nature of the plan of salvation is everlasting growth, ever increaeing order.

Abr. 3:11-12
11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;
12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

And those are just the creations of Christ. I should note that there is the possibility that the creations of the Father and Son are counted as one and the same, but nevertheless, the creations are always expanded.

8 Timothy Leary was a drug addled idiot. His declarations have resulted in more pain, death, tragedy, and anguish than the Nazis in World War II. Acid is death.

9 I will concede a little here, and say that some spiritual gifts are innate. I think there will be some judgement in how we used them.

10 I'm a little up in the air concerning sacred geometry. I know that math is considered important, and it brings further understanding in the sence of order. As far as ritual and magic is concerned, I don't think so. But in increaseing understanding of the order of things, then yes. The Drummer from Tool, Daney Carey, is really into this and wrote alot about it on his website.

11 That Prophets, when they are called, are shown a vision of heaven, and of the fullness of the Plan of salvation is testified in numerous places.(1 Nephi 1:6-15) The rest of what you say here I would disagree with. The plan of salvation is taught and instructed in increaeing degree to those who love God and seek to obey his commandments. Those who worship false gods and follow the philosophies of men are not counted in this group.

12 I'll agree with you here. But we can gain the mind of God by obedience to the principles he reveals to us, directing our imagination.

D&C 76:5-10
5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.
6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.
7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.
8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.
9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.
10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man.


13 This sounds like some teaching from eastern religions I heard. On my mission I ran into some religions leader in the home of an Indian (as in packistani) family. He rambled on about something similar to this. And he was wrong also.

This belief runs contrary to what all of the prophets have testified concerning the plan of salvation. We are the children of God, and the same sociality that exists among us here wil exist among us there. (D&C 130: 1-2, 20-22)

So, basically what you've just stated by going through all these is "We have different beliefs." Well, yeah, Gaz. That's what this is all about. I was revealed one thing, you were revealed another. How do we tell which is right and which isn't? Especially since we both received our revelations through Moroni's Promise.

14 I have no idea what you are talking about here. Is this from "Hitchhikers guide" ?

Yes. In the radio show, after Arthur Dent finds the question (what is nine times five), a small voice can be heard in the background shouting "Base thirteen!" followed by Arthur's classic line; "You know, I always felt there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe."

15 I hope I can assist you in finding new evidence.


Lets look at this evidence:

An excerpt from Hugh Nibleys talk on the Meaning of the Temple:

<snip>
The article in full can be found here: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=58 Please read it in full to see his conclusions and view that tie to this.

The author of this article obviously doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the four natural forces (strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity).

Let me put it simply: Although we LOOK organized, we are not. The act of organizing takes energy; so much energy that simply by existing, we are causing more heat and chaos, breaking down the universe that much more. The swiss watch argument and the "tidy room" argument are both fallacious, because they do not take the whole of the system into account. A swiss watch maker-- a higher intelligence -- puts together the watch, and by doing so, creates more chaos than order.

Any order you see is merely interpreted as order in your own mind. Buildings, life, etc, these all appear ordered, because we think of them that way, but in all reality, these things are chaotic, and create more entropy faster than if there had been no life.

God is in control, and the testimony of hundreds of Prophets is available to us in testimony of his presence, and will concerning us his children. You state Keene that there are many spiritual viewpoints, but what you fail to see is that many are false spirits, and the conclusions need to be viewed and compared with what we already know. What makes sence, what is edifying?

More to come....

My question, Gaz, is how do we know which are false spirits, and which are not? You went through each of my beliefs and compared them to yours, but this has still not addressed any of my core questions. How can I know that you are not the one receiving false spirits? How can I know if either of us are correct, or if we are both wrong?

If we are to judge based on what makes sense, and what is edifying, than I must be forced to conclude that your revelation is wrong, and take mine in faith -- but that doesn't get us anywhere, we have learned nothing from that. There is still no verifiable way to determine the correctness of either of our revelations.

Gaz

Keene

[_keene]

Thanks Wade. Your response is very appreciated, and [suprisingly] open minded. Although it raises a few more questions...

First off, you say we are to follow our own revelations and code of ethics. What about when these revelations begin to affect people outside of the realm of our revelation? The most obvious example is that of homosexual marriage; in the revelation I received, the freedom of people to get married and define their own life is granted by God. Yet, from what I've read of your posts in the past, your revelation compels you to act in a manner that would deny marriage to homosexuals.

The same applies to most every belief and code of ethics (whether secular or religious, or the product of revelation or derived from some other means). I may believe that the speed limit for freeways should be 80mph, while other may prefer 55 mhp. I may think a certain area would be best zoned for commercial, while others may prefer residential. I may prefer not to be subjected to second-hand smoke while walking on public sidewalks or at public parks and facilities, while others may think it perfectly okay to smoke in those locations.

In our democracy, these differing beliefs and ethics are worked out through public debate and ultimately it comes down to registering one's preferences through one's vote--that is, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

As long as I and others are able to successfully make the case to the majority of U.S. citizens for legally defining marriage the way it has been defined for a mellenia (between a man and a woman), and for government sanctions to be restricted to the types of familial unions that may best serve the society as a whole (between a man and a woman), and as long as we don't violate any constitutional rights (which we don't), then there shouldn't be any problem. Right?

It would seem pertinent, then, that if we are to affect the lives of others, that we should be able to justify it to those we are affecting. If revelation is personal, how can we justify affecting others lives based on that revelation -- ESPECIALLY if their revelation is different?

I am sure it helps to justify it. But, not always are people convinced by the justifications nor think it justified. As long as the isue is handled constitutionally, that should suffice. Right?

My second question is on how we can judge the "fruits" of any revelation. How do we determine which "fruits" are good, and which are sub-standard? For example, again, I would consider a homosexual marriage to be a good fruit, whereas you may not. You may consider a full tithe as a good fruit, whereas I may not. It seems a fallacy to judge on the fruits of the revelation, because every revelation will find the fruits it's looking for, by definition. If someone were to be revealed that they should kill children, they would see dead children as fruit of the revelation, proving it true. Can you understand my skepticism in this particular way of judging revelation?

That is not exactly what I mean by "fruit". Let's say I employ Moroni 10 and I receive what I firmly believe to be revelation that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. That revelation becomes a seed of faith (rather than the fruit of faith) planted in my heart and mind. Through nuturing the seed and growing plant of faith (through study, prayer, and obedience to the precepts of the Book of Mormon), if it bears the fruit of a more enightened, mature, and enriched life, then by that fruit I may have increased confidence that the revelation was true rather than false.

The same is true for secular beliefs. For example, if an authoritative source (be it a teacher or otherwise) reveals to me that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy works, and that seed of faith is planted into my heart and mind. Through nurturing the seed and growing plant of faith (through implementing the principles and practices of CBT), if it bears the fruit of less depression and greater intra-personal and inter-personal functionality, then I may thereby have increased confidence that the revelation was true rather than false. I may experience the opposite were it to be revealed that Freudian psycho-therapy works.

However, as with any paradigm or belief system (secular or religious), as with the nature of the human mind, the means of weighing and measuring and tasting fruit is dependant upon, and biased by, the evaluative tools of the respective paradigms, epistemologies, or belief systems, themselves. In other words, paradigms et. al. are unavoidably, and paradoxically, encasulated, and thus to some degree circular--not that this nominal level of logical fallaciouness is necessary problematic given the lack of viable alternatives and in light of how well they tend to serve our intents and purposes.

Let me bring it all into context for you... If I were to hold public office, and I were given a bill that would potentially affect your life (by say, limiting the allowed number of children in any given household, completely for the sake of argument...) I'm sure you'd want me to take your revelations in consideration as I vote whether to pass the bill or not. But with so many people having so many different revelations, how do we know which is "good?"

Actually, I wouldn't so much want you to take my revelation into consideration, but rather my expressed opinion and the case I may make as it relates to secular governance of our society. But, more importantly, I would want you to consider my vote. If you differ with my expressed opinion, and are not influenced by my vote (both in terms of the previous election and the pending re-election), and the bill is able to pass through the legislature and also pass constitutional muster (which it can't), then I would be obliged to accept that outcome as a citizen of your legislative jurisdiction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I find we agree on all the points I have brought up with you, Wade. But on a spiritual matter, I feel the initial question is unresolved. The claim of the church is that it is the "one true church." It also makes the claim that the truth can be known through moroni's promise. Yet when following Moroni's promise, there have been a great mutlitude of "truths" made known that simply do not coincide.

So how do we tell which truth is the "one truth"? If we are to follow our own personal revelations, then why such vehemence against those with different revelations?

And if our spiritual future rests on finding the "one truth" then doesn't it seem vital that the different revelations be tested and worked out until the "one" is found? Otherwise, the church's claim of being the "one true church" would have to be disregarded in order to reconcile one's belief.

[_wenglund]

I find we agree on all the points I have brought up with you, Wade. But on a spiritual matter, I feel the initial question is unresolved. The claim of the church is that it is the "one true church." It also makes the claim that the truth can be known through moroni's promise. Yet when following Moroni's promise, there have been a great mutlitude of "truths" made known that simply do not coincide.

So how do we tell which truth is the "one truth"?

...using the same process previously described for determining the truth.

If we are to follow our own personal revelations, then why such vehemence against those with different revelations?

I suspect there are a variety of reasons to explained the supposed vehemence (both that which may be directed towards my faith as well as that which may come from members of my faith)--from personal insecurities, to jealousy, to fear, and even love.

And if our spiritual future rests on finding the "one truth" then doesn't it seem vital that the different revelations be tested and worked out until the "one" is found? Otherwise, the church's claim of being the "one true church" would have to be disregarded in order to reconcile one's belief.

In terms of personal or shared beliefs (whether LDS or otherwise, secular or religious), I think it perfectly appropriate for those possessing the beliefs to view them as the "one truth" (particularly the more the individuals and groups confidence grows in the verity of their respective belief system), and to witness to that belief unto others.

Where it becomes somewhat ineffectual is when such witnesses are used as an "argument" in interfaith dialogue.

In other words, if you believe your revelation is the "one truth", then I have no problem with that. In fact, I would expect that you would view your beliefs that way. We don't all need to believe the same thing in order for each of us to believe we, ourselves, have the "one truth". But, even though I may respect that you may view your beliefs as the "one truth" (not that you necessarily view your faith in that way), it would have little probative or persuasional value for you to state that belief as an "argument" in support of your belief.

Now, you may not have the strength of conviction in your own belief to consider it the "one truth", but that shouldn't prevent those who do have the strength of conviction in their belief to consider it that way. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keene]

In terms of personal or shared beliefs (whether LDS or otherwise, secular or religious), I think it perfectly appropriate for those possessing the beliefs to view them as the "one truth" (particularly the more the individuals and groups confidence grows in the verity of their respective belief system), and to witness to that belief unto others.

Where it becomes somewhat ineffectual is when such witnesses are used as an "argument" in interfaith dialogue.

In other words, if you believe your revelation is the "one truth", then I have no problem with that. In fact, I would expect that you would view your beliefs that way. We don't all need to believe the same thing in order for each of us to believe we, ourselves, have the "one truth". But, even though I may respect that you may view your beliefs as the "one truth" (not that you necessarily view your faith in that way), it would have little probative or persuasional value for you to state that belief as an "argument" in support of your belief.

Now, you may not have the strength of conviction in your own belief to consider it the "one truth", but that shouldn't prevent those who do have the strength of conviction in their belief to consider it that way. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, these are all things I agree with.

So then the question becomes one of "arguments."

One last question, at that point -- Which comes first? Or more importantly, which ends last? The argument, or the faith? If an argument were to come that went against revelation, how would you (or how should one) approach that argument? How would it affect your faith?

[_Gazelam]

The question to ask is, What is the purpose of the revelation? How do we know if its from God?

In February 1847 Joseph Smith appeared to Brigham Young in a dream and said: "Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord, and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you how to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it. They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife, and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God. Tell the brethren if they will follow the Spirit of the Lord they will go right. Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world. Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right."

Brigham Young, vision, Feb. 17, 1847, in Brigham Young Office Files, 1832–1878

The Spirit of the Lord brings Peace and Joy.

Mosiah 4:3
3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

Judg. 6:24
24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.

Jehovah-shalom translates to Peace of the Lord


The Holy Ghost brings Calmness, order, and happiness

by contrast, the Spirit of the Devil brings Confusion, disorder, and misery.

What is the purpose of the revelation? If it tells a person not to be baptised, not to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, not to hear the words of the Lords annointed, not to be sealed in the Temple to an eternal companion, not to receive the blessings of the kingdom, then it is not of God.

A Revelation from the Lord will not be in opposition to Christ. It will not be in opposition to his teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is edifying. It causes a person to stretch and grow, and it builds upon the teachings of Prophets that have come before.

Early scriptures waste no time confirming Gods existence, This fact is well understood. Every nation, every tribe, every individual seeks out an object of reverence. Confirmation of what is true concerning God can be found in those scriptures that support one another through the ages, and all scripture testifies of Christ. Be they the words of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham. All testify of Christ.

These words can be comapred to other stories from around the World. be they the stories of the Egyptians, or the Norse myths, there is always the Father and the Sons struggleing against one another. The story is the same.

The gospel is the same throughout eternity. Salvation is found in Christ.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more."

Joseph Smith stated this in regards to the Plan of salvation. The teachings of the Holy Ghost are edifying, causeing us to stretch and grow and become more like God.

You mentioned before that you felt the spirit testified that upon death we lose ourselves to a greater mind, becoming nothing ourselves. This is contrary to the doctrine of the ressurection, and you can know therefore that it is not of God. Compare all supposed revelations in this same manner.

Gaz

[_keene]

Gaz, I'm not sure you understand my questions, because the answers you're giving seem to be for different questions entirely. Perhaps it is my fault in the clarity of my questions... Allow me to try once again.

The question to ask is, What is the purpose of the revelation? How do we know if its from God?

In February 1847 Joseph Smith appeared to Brigham Young in a dream and said: "Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord, and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you how to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it. They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife, and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God. Tell the brethren if they will follow the Spirit of the Lord they will go right. Be sure to tell the people to keep the Spirit of the Lord; and if they will, they will find themselves just as they were organized by our Father in Heaven before they came into the world. Tell the people to be sure to keep the Spirit of the Lord and follow it, and it will lead them just right."

Brigham Young, vision, Feb. 17, 1847, in Brigham Young Office Files, 1832–1878

The Spirit of the Lord brings Peace and Joy.

Mosiah 4:3
3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

Judg. 6:24
24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.

Jehovah-shalom translates to Peace of the Lord


The Holy Ghost brings Calmness, order, and happiness

by contrast, the Spirit of the Devil brings Confusion, disorder, and misery.

By this logic, my revelations are of God, because they bring calmness, order, and happiness. Confusion, disorder, and misery are all removed by the nature of questioning, logic, and choice.

Yet, whenever I tried to practice the concepts I was presented with in Mormonism, I was met almost exclusively with Confusion, Disorder, and Misery.

What is the purpose of the revelation? If it tells a person not to be baptised, not to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, not to hear the words of the Lords annointed, not to be sealed in the Temple to an eternal companion, not to receive the blessings of the kingdom, then it is not of God.

A Revelation from the Lord will not be in opposition to Christ. It will not be in opposition to his teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is edifying. It causes a person to stretch and grow, and it builds upon the teachings of Prophets that have come before.

Early scriptures waste no time confirming Gods existence, This fact is well understood. Every nation, every tribe, every individual seeks out an object of reverence. Confirmation of what is true concerning God can be found in those scriptures that support one another through the ages, and all scripture testifies of Christ. Be they the words of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham. All testify of Christ.

These words can be comapred to other stories from around the World. be they the stories of the Egyptians, or the Norse myths, there is always the Father and the Sons struggleing against one another. The story is the same.

And yet the results are dramatically different. In the aztec and Mayan worlds, the sacrifice of the Gods to the Sun must be repaid in human blood, lest the sun go out. In the Egyptian world, the Son raised the Father into the afterlife.

The story is the same because it's the same in every family -- The father and sons struggling against one another. It's true with my father, it was true with his father, and it was true with his father, and it will be true for my son.

So how do you know that the judeo-christian version of that story is the correct one? What gives the judeo-christian scripture precedence over the hindu scripture, or modern scripture? You say "confirmation of what is true concerning God can be found in those scriptures that support one another through (sic) the ages..." I have modern script that supports ancient Mayan script, that supports hindu script... These scriptures all support one another through the ages, but none speak of Christ. What gives the Christ story more relevance than others?

The gospel is the same throughout eternity. Salvation is found in Christ.

"This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more."

Joseph Smith stated this in regards to the Plan of salvation. The teachings of the Holy Ghost are edifying, causeing us to stretch and grow and become more like God.

I can say the same things about my revelation, but that doesn't solve our initial problem.

You mentioned before that you felt the spirit testified that upon death we lose ourselves to a greater mind, becoming nothing ourselves. This is contrary to the doctrine of the ressurection, and you can know therefore that it is not of God. Compare all supposed revelations in this same manner.

But how can I know that the doctrine of Ressurection is true, and of God, if it goes against my revelation?

And the same with all my revelations. You responded to each of my revelations with scripture, but that doesn't answer the last question I had of how can I trust the scripture? What authority does the scripture hold, how does it get that authority, and how am I to trust it?

Gaz

Just a quick recap, so I don't lose my place. Questions are numbered, and a summary of your response below it.

1.) The first question I asked was in response to your statement "Commandments aren't about control, they're about right and wrong." My question was "Which commandments?"

Your response was that the holy ghost will make it known to you. You will "Just Know" what laws are still meant to be kept, and which to leave behind (like Stone your Son!)

2.) My second question could most easily be summarized as "How do you 'just know'?"

Your response on that was to bring moroni's promise up, and to tie it in to my current situation.

3.) It was at this point where I brought up our differing revelations, and also asked "How can I be assured that the revelation from Moroni's promise is different than Auto-suggestion or other psychological techniques?"

In response to my differing revelations, you brought up the concept that we should check our revelation against scripture (much like your last post).

4.) My next question was twofold: Which scriptures? And how do we know that those prophets were revealed the correct things?

At this point, you mentioned moroni's promise again. -- I think this is where things start to fall apart:
Q: Moroni's Promise revealed something different?
A: Check Scripture.
Q: Which Scripture?
A: Check Moroni's Promise.

But we continue, because I feel this is a very important question! You asked me at this point to express my revelation, in the form of Articles of Faith. I happily obliged.

Your response to my articles of faith was to check each belief against your scripture. You mentioned False Spirits.

5.) My question at this point is, how am I to be assured that it is my revelation that is suffering from false spirits, rather than yours?

Your response was to understand the feeling of the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, this still brings us back to the problem: the Holy Ghost has not only revealed to me something different, but has confirmed it to me through scripture and through the peaceful, calm, and motivating feeling. This brings us back to question number 2.

I suppose at this point, the question we need to answer (that I asked before) is: If my revelation does not match the judeo-christian(Mormon) viewpoint of the Bible(Book of Mormon), how can I be ASSURED that it is my revelation (or the interpretation thereof), and not the Bible(Book of Mormon), that is at fault?

[_wenglund]

Again, these are all things I agree with.

So then the question becomes one of "arguments."

Actually, I think the question becomes more about value and workability. What anchors me to the CoJCoLDS is the immense value I have derived from that belief system, and how well it works in my life. The only thing that would change my beliefs is were I to find a belief system that offers greater value and workability.

I suspect the same is true for everyone and their respective belief systems. I would guess that your current belief system is one that you see as the most valued and workable. It embodies the things you value most in life at your age (such as freedom--as you currently understand that notion). As you grow older, continue to mature, increase in knowledge and understanding, and take on a variety of increased responsibilies (most notably the family), each of which may unavoidabley limit freedom and give a different perspective on freedom, your values may change and your understanding of what works may also change. Who knows?

One last question, at that point -- Which comes first? Or more importantly, which ends last? The argument, or the faith? If an argument were to come that went against revelation, how would you (or how should one) approach that argument? How would it affect your faith?

Granted, facts and arguments play a significant part in increasing confidence in beliefs, or even changing beliefs. The later occurs when the facts and arguments are considered compelling or undeniable. But, more often than not, the facts and arguments are pragmatically analyzed in a biased way (in accordance with one's existing belief system), and are value driven. (For a more expanded discussion on this, please see the "Confirmation Bias" thread, particularly the links to scholarly material that I and others provide there.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-