Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[DBMormon]

-Reel, like you said, your real issue is that you feel betrayed by discovering that some of the less salubrious twists and turns of church history are not laid before the membership. My response would be:What do you want the church to say?

I agree with your entire post. I will have to settle for the fact that it would be self destructive for the church to unload all it's trouble areas on members. but when one makes a commitment to Christ through the medium of the church.... it is a big commitment. I just always think in my head it should give people everyhting and let them decide if they want to make that commitment. I now see that isn't realistic. but it still feels right in my gut. Ex: if I came to you and said Would you please walk accross that field over there and grab that little girl who needs help 50 yards that way. You accept, and begin to head accross the field. halfway accross you realize it is a mine field. I wasn't completely upfront with you. I had all the info but was afraid you wouldn't go if I told you everything... I didn't give you the whole story. Now perhaps you still continue forward knowing the girl needs help, perhaps you head back. Doesn't matter, it is your choice but to me you at least deserved all the relevant info so that you make an informed choice. ....

I know that spiritual decisions do not have to be based on logical information, but I have felt like we owe it to them to give them all the relevant info.

sorry.... perhaps a silly example but I think it puts it in a way that we can relate to. Also once halfway in the field it feels any direction you head is difficult, painful, risky, and you are already committed which is good for the one who asked you to cross the field to begin with.

Edited April 19, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Also I think the church needs to have a resource where thourough answers to problems can be studied out and where research is given, where one who desires to, after reading a blip in a manual can go and read more and better understand the issues in their context. a special area of LDS.ORG perhaps

[DBMormon]

also regarding the Library question - does Deseret Book constitute being distributed by the church? since The church owns deseret book and it least in theory is the distributor?

[DBMormon]

Also I think the church needs to have a resource where thourough answers to problems can be studied out and where research is given, where one who desires to, after reading a blip in a manual can go and read more and better understand the issues in their context. a special area of LDS.ORG perhaps

perhaps one that requires a account where you sign in

[altersteve]

also regarding the Library question - does Deseret Book constitute being distributed by the church? since The church owns deseret book and it least in theory is the distributor?

No, several books that are sold at Deseret Book are not aimed specifically at LDS audiences or even written by LDS authors at all, and are not distributed by the Church.

[Buzzard]

Ex: if I came to you and said Would you please walk accross that field over there and grab that little girl who needs help 50 yards that way. You accept, and begin to head accross the field. halfway accross you realize it is a mine field. I wasn't completely upfront with you. I had all the info but was afraid you wouldn't go if I told you everything... I didn't give you the whole story. Now perhaps you still continue forward knowing the girl needs help, perhaps you head back. Doesn't matter, it is your choice but to me you at least deserved all the relevant info so that you make an informed choice. ....

I messed up the quote editing it, so I bolded my response...

Let's tweak your analogy a little bit, if I may. I come to you and say I found a chest full of jewels on the other side of the a field. I show you the beautiful diamond I found there and invite you to cross the field. Halfway across, you notice that the field is muddy. If you don't step carefully, you might get gunk on your shoes. And some pranksters have hidden cans of paint under the dirt that if you step on them can splash paint all over you. Most people avoid them, but some folks get to the other side a bit of a mess. Most are still delighted with the incredible treasure they have found, but some are so upset at getting red paint all over their new Dockers that they pitch the priceless jewel they just found up into the dirt and stomp off angrily. Others hang on to the jewel, but mutter about how it's not fair that they were not told about the mud and the paint. And some just exclaim that reaching this jewel has changed their lives. Heck, they can now not just buy new clothes, they can buy the store that stocks the clothes if they want. All three groups crossed the field, none of the three were told "everything", but at the end of the day, they each had the chance to posess a jewel, it's what they did with that chance that makes the difference between stalking home covered with mud and paint and full of bitterness, or with newfound untold riches and a profound sense of gratitude and happiness.

My analogy has probably as many holes and flaws as yours, but that's how I see it, anyway.

[DBMormon]

My analogy has probably as many holes and flaws as yours, but that's how I see it, anyway.

your analogy is very well put!

thank you

[CV75]

you at least deserved all the relevant info so that you make an informed choice. ....

The Church, through its leaders, is responsible for giving all the relevant information that permits a witness from the Holy Ghost, which it accomplsihes through an inspired, key-driven proselyting approach. Those responsible to do this would stand condemned before the Lord if they disseminated that which is not relevant to God's children receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost.

In this way, the Church effectively manages inviting people unto Christ and membership in the Church by the Spirit, and also gives them instruction on how to navigate the minefields set up intentionally by Satan and/or either intentionally or unintentionally by mankind. Lehi's dream is a very basic example (mists instead of mines). Everyone is vulnerable to some type of mine, and this each must discover himself, knowing there are many ways to commit wickedness and to be deceived, but one Gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Church adresses the darkness du jour and the stumbling blocks that overtake a society, focusing more specifially one one matter or another as a threshold of need is met. This is revelaed to its leaders by inspiration and revelation. Sometimes the light bursts forth, and sometimes it dawns gradually, depending on the need. The priority is preparing the world for the Lord's Second Coming.

[CV75]

A hypothetical: Individual leaders in the Church were misled into or wickedly orchestrated implementing uninspired measures running contrary to the Lord’s will. Who stands under the greater condemnation, those watchmen who didn’t do their jobs, or the poor souls who suffered as a consequence? Of course it would be the watchmen. Who stands under the greater condemnation, those who forgive, or those who do not? Of course it would be those who do not forgive.

Who stands under the greater condemnation, those worthy watchmen who continue to do the Lord’s will, or those souls who, because of their experience under unworthy watchmen, will not sustain the worthy watchmen or forgive the unworthy watchmen? Of course it would be those who will not sustain or forgive accordingly. This is why the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so precious.

[wenglund]

Different problem - to me not the same - the superfiscial surface issues of why did Joseph treasure hunt? why did he attempt to translate the kinderhook plates? why were african americans not allowed to have the PH, why did Brigham Young teach Adam God? those issues I was easily able to work out with FAIR, FARMS, SHIELDS and other LDS apoligetic sites as to a thorough explantion of these events. what I feel the church better solves is putting more of these trouble areas into the material.

Interesting. Again, I am glad you responded.

If I understand you correctly, you aren't so much concerned with the Church providing full disclosure (what ever the critics may mean by that) or complete resolution so that you can move on; rather, what you are asking for is a mention of these so-called "trouble areas" in Church material. Right?

If so, I have some follow-up questions for you.

1. What problem does this supposedly solve, and why is that a problem?

2. What are the specifics of your proposed solution--i.e do you have a list of "trouble areas" and a plan for when and where and how these "trouble areas" may be included in Church material?

3. What other options have you considered for solving that problem?

4. Why is your proposed solution supposedly the best for that problem?

5. Do you think that your proposed solution will be satisfactory to all the critics clambering for full disclosure (what ever they mean by that) and complete resolution of their personal challenges (their personal crisis of faith)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Also I think the church needs to have a resource where thourough answers to problems can be studied out and where research is given, where one who desires to, after reading a blip in a manual can go and read more and better understand the issues in their context. a special area of LDS.ORG perhaps.

Since, as CV75 astutely pointed out, most of the "problems" are of an academic rather than spiritual nature. Why, then, would you propose that resources and thorough answers to these academic questions be posted online by a spiritual organization rather than academic organizations? Wouldn't it make more sense to have academic organizations (like FARMS, FAIR, and SHEILDS) provide resources and answers to the academic questions?

In other words, what do you think will be gained by all parties through shifting from the current solution to your proposed solution, and at what cost?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Far be it from me to make a suggestion along those lines, but since the Maxwell Institute is now formally part of BYU, a Church institution, by the Church's invitation, might a link to it on LDS.ORG be appropriate?

[CV75]

Far be it from me to make a suggestion along those lines, but since the Maxwell Institute is now formally part of BYU, a Church institution, by the Church's invitation, might a link to it on LDS.ORG be appropriate?

The mission of the Maxwell Institute is: “By furthering religious scholarship through the study of scripture and other texts, Brigham Young University's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship seeks to deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints while promoting mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths.”

This is very different from the proselytizing mission and method of the Church for bringing people of all faiths to Christ through spiritual conversion (by the power of the Holy Ghost). For members, the work of the Institute is for their improved understanding and discipleship, and for those of other faiths, for mutual respect and goodwill; it is not to make disciples of them.

Members have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and may use it in understanding and discipleship; those of other faiths may use their own talents, the Light of Christ, or, under certain conditions experience the power of the Holy Ghost in promoting mutual respect and goodwill. From there, only benefiting from the Church’s proselytizing mission can save them. I think this is why at the bottom of the Institute's hime page, there is a link to the Church website!

[DBMormon]

1. What problem does this supposedly solve, and why is that a problem?

I am thinking on the go here with these

It shows the church is A.) aware of the issue and B.) not hiding anything... this complaint of the church only disclosing the faith promotong side of the story would diminish greatly. and many members who have struggled with this loss of trust or betrayal would no longer see an issue

2. What are the specifics of your proposed solution--i.e do you have a list of "trouble areas" and a plan for when and where and how these "trouble areas" may be included in Church material?

little piece of info to set up my answer

Some in this post have stated I am an ally of John Dehlin... not true. I know who he is and I absolutely enjoyed his interviews with Richard Bushman, Teryl Givens, FAIR, Dan Peterson, and even Mike Quinn's interview was really good. I skip the ones that are done with those who have left and are sharing their story.. and While I felt he was moderately balanced in the beginning he has become very one sided of late. I also listen to the FAIR podcast as well. Again I try to get both sides.

Now my answer - While you guys may think John Dehlin is a crackpot and his recent survey is anything but an accurate desription of faith crisis, I would begin with the issues his survey takers suggested as major issues for them. They also match up with the ones that I see as the most troubling in the way in which the church presents or doesn't present them.

3. What other options have you considered for solving that problem?

A.) I would like to be more constructive (and already am on some level) in helping this problem myself in the context of softly correcting bad history in church settings. Trouble there is there are others who firmly still hold a fundamental view and you risk offending them or put them on defense thinking you are speaking incorrect stuff

B.) Not sure of other ways within my ward but in the church as a whole, I could make suggestions to curriculum department as stated earlier. help others who have similar issues out on discusssion boards such as these. Lots of those types of things we can all do

4. Why is your proposed solution supposedly the best for that problem?

Until the church themselves address it better, it will always be easy to accuse them of hiding their troublesome history. Again they don't have to discuss in full just briefly acknowledge them within their historical or theological context. I think the jist of Dehlin's survey is that their were about a dozen issues that members with faith Crisis found extremely troublesome. But it appears that no one issue put the nail in the coffin. From the written responses it appears to me that the issue is like mine.... It is not an issue here or there but rather the feeling one gets when all 12 or so issues are discovered one feels the church didn't disclose it's history in a truthful manner. Disclosing it takes the 12 issues off the table as a reason for faith crisis. Once disclosure is not the issue, then members will work through these issues and overcome them just as I did early on in my membership. I know this doesn't fix it for everyone and there will always be other issues but it fixes it it for the large group similar to me that Elder Jensen is concerned about in his comments

5. Do you think that your proposed solution will be satisfactory to all the critics clambering for full disclosure (what ever they mean by that) and complete resolution of their personal challenges (their personal crisis of faith)?

I am not generally concerned about critics as there will always be critics, I care about and am concerned about the members on the bubble of leaving the church feeling a break in their trust. That is the group that is growing larger and larger that we must address

Wouldn't it make more sense to have academic organizations (like FARMS, FAIR, and SHEILDS) provide resources and answers to the academic questions?

At the end of the day FARMS is a facet of the Church. Like LOG says - make it link to FARMS from LDS.ORG and once on FARMS each issue is addressed. In addition I would address it the following way

List factual quotes and within their context - do not try to create possible answers that may be proven false someday. Simply do as Elder Jensen states. Tell them what you know, tell them what you don't, give them the issue in context and let them fall on their faith

Edited April 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[wenglund]

I am thinking on the go here with these It shows the church is A.) aware of the issue and B.) not hiding anything... this complaint of the church only disclosing the faith promotong side of the story would diminish greatly. and many members who have struggled with this loss of trust or betrayal would no longer see an issue little piece of info to set up my answer.

Do you have any evidence that your proposal would do what you suggest above.

While you guys may think John Dehlin is a crackpot and his recent survey is anything but an accurate description of faith crisis, I would begin with the issues his survey takers suggested as major issues for them.

I am not familiar with the specifics of Delhin's survey. So, could you list the major issue for me?

...in the church as a whole, I could make suggestions to curriculum department as stated earlier.

Could you be more specific? Could you please take a look at the current curriculum for each age group and tell me where exactly in the curriculum for each you would bring up each of the items from Dehlin's survey and how you would present them--please keep in mind that each lesson is designed to accomplish stated objectives, and so you will need to bring up each item and present it within a given lesson in such a way as to best meet the stated objective for that lesson. I can only wish you good luck with that since the objectives tend to be spiritually related, and as CV75 astutely pointed out, the items from Dehlins survey are likely academic in nature.

Hopefully, as you think things through in this way you will begin to understand that while your intents are good, your proposed solution is inappropriate, and that there are more appropriate venues (academic) in which to address these academic issues. But, we'll see.

...help others who have similar issues out on discusssion boards such as these. Lots of those types of things we can all do Until the church themselves address it better, it will always be easy to accuse them of hiding their troublesome history.

That is an accusation that can and will be made regardless of what the Church does. Even your proposal isn't impervious to that criticism. It is important that you understand this, and that you realize that it isn't the role of the Church to answer accusations. Rather, the role of the Church is to bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him.

I care about and am concerned about the members on the bubble of leaving the church feeling a break in their trust. That is the group that is growing larger and larger that we must address.

If people are on the bubble of leaving the Church over academic issues, this means they aren't properly comprehending that, as CV75 astutely pointed out, the intent and purpose of the Church is spiritual, and not academic. I hope that you will begin to see over the course of our exchange that these good people on the bubble will likely only gain that proper comprehension, and correct their mis perception, and deflate the bubble, by having their minds reoriented to the spiritual. Your proposal advises that the Church take time away from the spiritual to instead address the academic. Not only would this conflict with the intent and purpose of the Church, but it may also effectively reinforce people's mis perception.

In short, as we continue this exchange, I hope you will come to see that your proposed solution, while proffered with the best of intents, hasn't been thought through to sufficient extent and depth, and consequently may inadvertently create more problems than it solves, and that there may be other solutions, particularly those of an academic in nature, where the benefits outweigh the costs. Again, we will see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

While you guys may think John Dehlin is a crackpot

My impression is that very few LDS, including apologists, think of Dehlin as a crackpot. Rather they see him as a shrewd intelligent person who is good at conveying the picture he wants to convey. Where I see him as lacking is where he is presented as perhaps not an expert, but as someone well versed in the literature and yet in various discussions his questions and answers at times show little more subtlety, understanding or information than one encounters at seminary level. Edited April 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

My impression is that very few LDS, including apologists, think of Dehlin as a crackpot. Rather they see him as a shrewd intelligent person who is good at conveying the picture he wants to convey.

I think that john started out with a very interesting concept with his podcast and he became a needed addition to the lds community. And he came across as someone who was learning lds history and not as an expert. And so, his podcasts were mainly for him, and he shared them with others so the lds public can learn also.

He received much adulation for his podcasts and of course, this can give a person more importance than they actually have and then maybe he began to do what you said in your last sentence: convey an impression. Maybe now he has an agenda whereas before he was just learning with the rest of us who listened to his podcasts.

Edited April 20, 2012 by why me

[Brade]

If people are on the bubble of leaving the Church over academic issues, this means they aren't properly comprehending that, as CV75 astutely pointed out, the intent and purpose of the Church is spiritual, and not academic. I hope that you will begin to see over the course of our exchange that these good people on the bubble will likely only gain that proper comprehension, and correct their mis perception, and deflate the bubble, by having their minds reoriented to the spiritual. Your proposal advises that the Church take time away from the spiritual to instead address the academic. Not only would this conflict with the intent and purpose of the Church, but it may also effectively reinforce people's mis perception.

In short, as we continue this exchange, I hope you will come to see that your proposed solution, while proffered with the best of intents, hasn't been thought through to sufficient extent and depth, and consequently may inadvertently create more problems than it solves, and that there may be other solutions, particularly those of an academic in nature, where the benefits outweigh the costs. Again, we will see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As one who has effectively left the Church, though not technically, I think Wade has the right idea. The Church, the people who administer in it, ought to spend their time shoring up the relevant sort of spirituality. I even happen to think that the academic topic of spirituality ought to receive more apologetic attention.

I think that the apologetic project often amounts to a waste at best and a detriment at worst by focusing too much energy on quibbling over this or that historical matter and by advancing what often enough amount to nothing more than mere possibilities. I take this view because of my own experience, which is that I was happy to go along with the Church, despite being familiar with much of the controversial historical matters, so long as I accepted, or at least seriously entertained, the sort of epistemology advanced by the Church. Once I found myself sufficiently at odds with that sort of epistemology, the history, in a manner of speaking, was allowed to do its work.

Or, to put it another way, by rejecting the Church's claims for the sorts beliefs and commitments one should adopt from certain sorts of experiences, I was left with the history to assess whether I should believe the Church's foundational claims and be committed to the Church with my time and money; and, clearly, I don't believe, absent spiritual conviction, that the best available historical evidence weighs in favor of belief and commitment.

But to bring this back around, I wouldn't have the Church focus its time on the prickly historical issues because I think a better strategy for the health of the Church (that is, its members) is to strengthen commitment to the relevant sort of religious epistemology; and I think if people are sincerely committed to the right sort of religious epistemology, then historical evidence be damned.

[why me]

As one who has effectively left the Church, though not technically, I think Wade has the right idea.

But you have left the church. So, what should have apologists and the lds church have done to keep your mind at ease that the lds church was the true church if you left over historical issues?

[Brade]

But you have left the church. So, what should have apologists and the lds church have done to keep your mind at ease that the lds church was the true church if you left over historical issues?

Um, did I say I left merely over historical issues?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Brade

[why me]

Um, did I say I left merely over historical issues?

You said: Once I found myself sufficiently at odds with that sort of epistemology, the history, in a manner of speaking, was allowed to do its work.

The history was the catalyst because it was allowed to do its work. So, what should the church and apologists do so what happened to you does not happen to someone else? My take is simple: everything is based on interpretations. Apologists and the lds church need to sharpen their interpretation and give an extremely good one to combat the critics. It is not easy playing the black pieces at chess because black entails a good defense. And this is the problem the apologists and the lds church has: always playing black.

[Log]

I read him thusly - he found himself doubting whatever spiritual witnesses he had received meant anything (the cause of that doubt is unspecified). From thence, certain narratives of historical events corroded what remained of his faith until he has almost lost the desire to believe.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Brade]

You said: Once I found myself sufficiently at odds with that sort of epistemology, the history, in a manner of speaking, was allowed to do its work.

The history was the catalyst because it was allowed to do its work.

No, the history was not the catalyst. The catalyst in this case was me not believing that the epistemological method taught by the Church is sufficient for belief and commitment.

So, what should the church and apologists do so what happened to you does not happen to someone else?

I thought I already explained what the best course of action is - defend the Church's religious epistemology. I'm not suggesting that that would have kept me in, or that it will keep other people like me in, because after spending the better part of a decade milling over the issue I'm not hopeful that there is a good defense. But, I do think the Church could do a better job defending the view, and I think apologists would serve their audience better by spending more time on defending the epistemology at the expense of some the historical quibbles and pointing out that this or that is possible (the latter being obvious to anyone giving serious thought to the issues).

I read him thusly - he found himself doubting whatever spiritual witnesses he had received meant anything (the cause of that doubt is unspecified). From thence, certain narratives of historical events corroded what remained of his faith until he has almost lost the desire to believe.

This isn't quite right either. I didn't find myself doubting whatever specific spiritual witnesses I had received - rather, I did not, and do not, believe there's good reason to accept the very notion of the types of experiences described by the Church as being good grounds for believing certain claims and justifying the time and money requirement asked of active participants. If anything, it was the idea I doubted, not the experiences themselves. In fact, I still maintain that I had certain powerful experiences whilst engaged in religious and specifically Mormon activities. What I don't believe is that from those experiences I can infer anything about certain foundational Church claims.

Additionally, it was not as if historical narratives then suddenly overwhelmed me and I saw them in a new light. Even at my most committed I believed that the best available historical evidence at the very best left it an open question whether the Church's foundational claims were true, but probably, on the whole, weighed against the Church's claims. So, why did I then stay active and committed for so long (over a decade)? For lots of reasons (there are social reasons, for example), but among them was that I hadn't settled the epistemological question and I was optimistic that, despite my initial concerns about the epistemology, I would find the epistemology robust enough and defensible enough.

So again, it wasn't as if, once I accepted that I simply do not accept the Church's epistemology, I suddenly viewed the history differently. The possibility of spiritual experience being informative in the way the Church teaches it should be was the reason I was in (or, at least a large part of it). When I jettisoned that idea, I was left with the view I already had about the history - that it weighs against the Church. And having that view, I was forced to assess whether I should participate on that basis.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Brade

[Cobalt-70]

I thought I already explained what the best course of action is - defend the Church's religious epistemology. I'm not suggesting that that would have kept me in, or that it will keep other people like me in, because after spending the better part of a decade milling over the issue I'm not hopeful that there is a good defense. But, I do think the Church could do a better job defending the view, and I think apologists would serve their audience better by spending more time on defending the epistemology at the expense of some the historical quibbles and pointing out that this or that is possible (the latter being obvious to anyone giving serious thought to the issues).

Part of the problem is that the LDS Church is caught indeterminately between two epistemologies. One is the mystical epistemology, which says that gospel and spiritual knowledge are obtained mystically through prayer and the "burning bosom." This mystical epistemology creates a direct line of knowledge between God and the Mormon, which does not pass through any human intermediary. This is the epistemology represented by the First Vision, and through "Moroni's challenge."

On the other hand, the church has a very different epistemology which says that gospel and spiritual truth is obtained through "the Prophet" who acts as mediator between God and the Mormon. It says that all knowledge not obtained through "the Prophet" is suspect, that only "the Prophet" can guide us to truth, and that only "the Prophet" can answer our questions regarding the meaning of scripture.

These two conflicting models of epistemology are often at odds with each other, and it is hard to defend such an ambivalent theory of knowledge.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[DBMormon]

I am not familiar with the specifics of Delhin's survey. So, could you list the major issue for me?

First percentage is it was a factor in their faith crisis the second is it was a primary factor in their crisis

Book of Abraham 81% 26%

Polygamy/Polyandry 84% 26%

Blacks and the Priesthood 87% 17%

DNA and the Book of Mormon 79% 15%

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony 52% 15%

Multiple, conflicting versions of the First Vision 71% 13%

Women and the Priesthood 68% 13%

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g. horses, steel, etc.) 67% 12%

Past church positions on science, age of the earth, evolution, etc. 70% 12%

Changes in the temple ceremony 57% 12%

Issues with the authenticity or credibility of the priesthood restoration 39% 12%

Blood atonement 64% 11%

Joseph's use of peep stones in the translation of the Book of Mormon 39% 11%

Adam-god theory 41% 10%

Mountain meadows massacre 72% 9%

Loss of Credibility of the Three Witnesses 37% 8%

Kinderhook Plates 18% 7%

Joseph Smith's history of treasure digging 12% 7%

Mark Hofmann scandal 8% 7%

View of the Hebrews 8% 6%

http://whymormonslea...30Jan2012v4.pdf

Also why the church is in charge of spiritual there has to be in ones mind enough reason to see something as plausible.

Santa Claus for me was a very spiritual thing and yet once proof tipped the scale then I could no longer believe. Many see in these issues and the way they are handled, enough proof or evidence to discontinue belief..

Your other questions would take long long answers. I have no evidence that what I am saying will make all better only that it fixes the issue for those like me which is a growing group and not small by any means.

Let me ask you a question - Why am I still in the church and active and have a testimony in the midst of these struggles and others have simply picked up and left. Many of these folks loved the church, very involved, had spiritual experiences... What is the difference... I don't know but curious over your answer(s)

Edited April 20, 2012 by reelmormon