Pyreaux

Interesting observation. It seems like a matter of clarity and sensitivity. The term "concubine" carries a specific, often historically loaded and uncomfortable connotation, implying a lesser status. While the Bible uses the term, modern Church often opt for language that is more immediately understood by a global, contemporary audience and less likely to invoke outdated or culturally specific baggage. "Multiple wives" is a straightforward, encompassing term for polygyny (a man having more than one wife) that avoids a potentially distracting discussion about the exact social status of every partner. The purpose of the lesson text is to address the general principle that God has, at times, commanded plural marriage as an exception to the standard of monogamy. The term "multiple wives" adequately covers the practice without getting bogged down in the distinction between wives and concubines, which isn't the theological point the curriculum is trying to make about the Patriarchal figures. The curriculum does not de-emphasize the purpose of raising "seed unto [the Lord]." The manual references Jacob 2:30, which directly states God commands the practice "that he may raise up seed unto me." Doctrine and Covenants 132 itself, particularly verse 63, mentions the continuation of "seed" in fulfilling the Abrahamic promise of a numerous posterity, it indeed remains a promise for the seed of Abraham.

It hadn't escaped me that being a Latter-day Saint there is a bit of irony that I personally have entertained the Smithsonian, or the Vatican are hiding the truth of Mormonism. On the other hand, thinking poorly of Creation Scientists that think NASA, geologists, biologists are hiding the truth. While all Christianity depends on faith in many things without evidence. I'd then have to say by religious faith we believe the proof of the faith's historicity is out there (hidden in the earth or by the Smithsonian/Vatican), but the foundation of your testimony rests on a personal, spiritual encounter with God. The evidence of the truth is, first and foremost, internal and current. The Ballardite foundation of belief is based on a secondary claim (a powerful "Deep Church" enemy) that requires a primary, external object (documentation) to prove it. The belief is entirely conditional on the reveal. If its only the memo, the story collapses. They have a "good story," and no personal, divine encounter to substitute for the missing proof. The dilemma is that they put faith in a falsifiable, external evidence of a document, and the document hasn't been produced.

I'd like to wait for evidence too, the promise of proving the "Deep Church" is a powerful motivator to hold out. It's easy to get invested, not just in Ballard, but in the cause and the idea that the truth is being suppressed. What is crazy is how the power dynamic flipped. When does the lack of evidence becomes evidence of the conspiracy for those committed to the belief, making the wait for actual proof a potentially endless loop? Waiting for the evidence becomes an act of loyalty and faith against the perceived dark forces, regardless of how long the wait is or how many times the deadline for the "proof" is missed. If the long debunked "Pace Memo" is the evidence of the "Deep Church" claim, it looks like a long wait for a train that won't come.

It is not disavowing doctrine, in that doctrine typically is measured by such things as the standard works, not traditions or speeches. Is it found in the Standard Works? Was it proclaimed by the united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Is it a core principle essential to the Plan of Salvation? The prophet hears a few words from God from time to time but he is not infallible in all matters that were not directly revealed as doctrine. It is widely accepted in LDS thought that a prophet can be wrong in personal opinions, they could find their way into their talks. The principle that the prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church "astray" usually means that the prophet will not change the ordinances or be so wrong that it would disqualify members from exaltation. So, if Joseph Smith or any Bible prophet had said in a sermon or poem that he thought the earth was flat would not have led the Church astray because believing in a flat earth has no bearing on salvation or following Christ. Prophets hold personal, non-salvational views that may later be proven incorrect or non-essential. Accepting this allows the Church to embrace continuing revelation and correct past errors (both doctrinal and cultural) without undermining the prophetic office itself.

"They" who? Orthodox Jews? Many Orthodox Jews, especially those past their younger years, quietly engage with Kabbalistic teachings and accept the concepts of the Shekhinah and the feminine Sefirot (divine emanations) as integral parts of their belief system. The ideas of the Divine Feminine were not deleted but were re-categorized and reserved for advanced, disciplined study.

It is highly likely that Hudson and Miller used a resource like a Strong's Concordance that would clearly show "with" as a potential translation for "bet" (H9003) and then selected that meaning to support a modern theological view. Neglecting the collocation (how words are used together) in an advanced lexicon like the Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) or Koehler-Baumgartner (HALOT), they would see that the entry for the verb masal specifically directs the reader to the context of dominion when used with the bet preposition. This, Hebrew students, would be considered a case of eisegesis (reading a desired meaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text).

Well, that interpretation seems theologically motivated to promote equal partnership in marriage. The phrase "he shall rule over you" in uses the Hebrew verb "masal" ("to rule") followed by the prepositional prefix "bet" which does have a range of possible meanings, including: "in" "at" "by means of" and "with" (often in the sense of "in the company of"). However, when masal is used with the bet preposition it gets interpretated throughout the Hebrew Bible as "to rule over," indicating governance or authority over a thing in virtually every other instance of masal + bet, Joseph ruling over Egypt in Genesis 45:8, or a king ruling over his people. The meaning should be one of subordination and authority exercised over someone or something, not with them as an equal partner. Because if the original text had intended "rule with" in the sense of partnership, typically clearer Hebrew words for "with" or "in the company of," such as im or et, would have been used. A Parnership of Sorts I think the verse is typically thought of as describing a fallen state of marriage rather than a prescriptive, divine ideal of hierarchy. The corrupted relationship will now be where the woman will struggle for control ("your desire shall be to/for your husband") and the man will respond with domination ("he shall rule over you"). This is what happens in a sinful world, not what God commands to happen. The rare Hebrew word for "desire" (tesuqah), used in Genesis 3:16 in light of its immediate next use in Genesis 4:7, creates a crucial alternative context. God warns Cain: "Sin is crouching at the door; its desire (tesuqah) is for you, but you must master (or rule) it." The woman's desire in 3:16 is not a lust, but a desire to control her husband, or usurp the man. His rule is then interpreted as a necessary corrective or struggle against her attempt to dominate him, paralleling Cain's need to "master" Sin so it doesn't dominate him. The verse describes a "battle of the sexes" introduced by the Fall, where the wife seeks control, and the husband must rule to prevent their relationship from descending into chaos. It's a balance, "rule" is a form of protection, preventing the total collapse of the family or relationship into a power struggle where one partner (the woman) is consumed by the drive for control. If the man rules justly (not tyrannically) and the woman finds contentment within those boundaries, a sort of functional, albeit hierarchical, partnership can emerge. They operate in balance, with the man acting as the decisive authority, which prevents the relationship from getting dominated by the woman's disruptive desires. Hudson and Miller's "rule with" argument asserting that the word "bet" means God intended them to rule together at this juncture there appears to be a wishful re-reading of the word.

Dude, post it! I'm not in FB, and I almost can't believe this.

There are 200,000 LDS members reported there, and it is a rapid growth area. The Church's presence is heavily concentrated in the South-Eastern and South-Central parts of Nigeria, with significant growth also seen in the West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_in_Nigeria While the most severe, targeted violence against Christians is often reported in the northern, Muslim-majority states and increasingly in the Middle Belt. https://globalchristianrelief.org/resources/countries/nigeria/ Our Church's traditional stronghold in the South-East may be less immediately impacted by the violence originating from the far North, but an increasing spread of attacks suggests a risk across the country. The Church is not a named target of the major militant groups like Boko Haram or Fulani militants, in the way that larger traditional Christian denominations are, Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal Churches are. The LDS Church in Nigeria is a very small minority, it may make them a less obvious and thus less appealing target for groups seeking to make anti-Christian symbolic impacts. Christian targeting is often mixed with ethnic conflicts. In the past, missionaries were sometimes associated with West/America like in the 2007 missionary abduction. Since then, Church largely replaced American/foreign missionaries with local Nigerian missionaries, it has reduced this particular security vulnerability.

After reading The Hebrew Goddess by Raphiel Patai, and Margaret Barker, it stirs in me that the Catholic veneration of Mary as co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix is a mistaken identity, they've confused Mary with the other 'Mother of the Lord' who is indeed a divine feminine, co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix. Before Judaism's late official stance on monotheism, there was a persistent proto-Christian royal cult, angel cult, and a Mother Goddess cult or other female divine beings existing in ancient Israel. The Goddess of Wisdom, Asherah and her virgin daughter Anath, evolved into the Hokhmah the divine Wisdom, who is often depicted In Proverbs as the Lord's female co-worker, the Shekhinah, the Matronit (Matron), the Sabbath Bride, who is separated from and seeks reunification with the masculine aspect of God. She was originally central to the royal cult and early Israelite religion but was later purged from the official Hebrew texts (the Old Testament canon) in monotheistic reforms of King Josiah around 600 BC. But preserved in ancient non-canonical texts and eventually re-emerged in early Christianity as the Holy Spirit and morphed into the veneration of the Virgin Mary. These Marian titles of co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix are a misidentification, where the roles and attributes of the ancient, purged, divine "Mother of the Lord" have been transferred to the historical mother of Jesus, Mary. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mary is not the Mother of the Lord in Isaiah 7:11. The Masoretic Text says "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God..." (Isa 7:11) (Hebrew: she'al-lekha 'ot me-'im YHWH 'Elohekha) The crucial word is me-'im, which means "from with" or "from the presence of" the LORD (YHWH). This directs Ahaz to ask for a sign directly from God. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa), "Ask a sign for yourself from the Mother of the LORD your God..." (Hebrew: she'al-lekha 'ot me-'em YHWH 'Elohekha) The preposition min [from] plus the noun 'em [mother]. The Gospel of the Hebrews, several Church Fathers like Origen and Jerome quote, "My Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor." Directly identifies the Holy Spirit as Jesus's Divine Mother. The Holy Spirit is the agent of Jesus's conception, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35). Jesus saying He and John the Baptist are the children of Wisdom, "Wisdom is justified by Her children" (Matthew 11:19). Solomon equates "the Holy Spirit" with "Wisdom" (Wisdom of Solomon 9:17) The Mother of Christ of Revelation 12 is not Mary, it's the Holy Spirit matching the ancient concept of the Divine Feminine in Judaism and early Christianity. The Shekhinah that accompanied Israel in exile aligns with the Woman's flight to the wilderness. The mother of Jesus and mother to "the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus" (Rev 12:17). The Holy Spirit is universally understood as the one who brings the "new birth" and sustains the Church, making her the mother of all believers. The Woman is not human, she has wings, she is "clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars", is the divine Wisdom (Hokhmah). The Spirit is portrayed as hovering/fluttering upon the sea like a bird in Gen 1:2, descending as a dove in Matt 3:16. King Josiah removed the Asherah Yam (She who treads upon the sea), the sun, moon and stars from Solomon's temple. When the Babylonian spirit of the temple of Herod is burned by Rome, the Woman comes back as the bride. The Catholic doctrines of Mary's cooperation in redemption and mediation of all graces grant her a status that critics and even the Vatican's recent guidance here say risks obscuring Christ's unique mediation because the terms imply a parallel, near-divine role. They mistake attributing the roles of the ancient, divine Lady Wisdom to the human Virgin Mary. Catholic Marian maximalism is an unconscious revival of the original Divine Feminine cult, but mistakenly focusing it on a human being, which elevates Mary beyond the traditional Christological boundaries. It very seems like a theological category error conflating the human mother of the historical Jesus with the ancient, cosmic Mother figure of the Lord who is a co-mediatrix.

A French Apostle?! I knew the Church was getting more global, but I didn't realize we were going straight to the international surrender flag jokes this fast. But maybe he'll help change the sacrament water back into wine.

Take all your medicines when you are supposed to. Exercise your mind, not just the body. Easy on the sweets.

Or it's a cycle that just started and there is no Heavenly Grandfather making the next generation unprecedented and so they might worship the Grandfather. LDS are starting to realize there is more than one logical way to interpret the revealed materials if they look passed the unrevealed commentary. There is a possibility that though the prophets have great insights into things, they could be limited in understanding. Even if Joseph Smith thought there was eternal regression, the America was empty in the BOM, or Eden is in Missouri, if it's not written verbatim as a revelation anywhere, it may not be the case. It may not be as neat and tidy as that, if those aren't the words the Lord said. Maybe you just get a promised land to rule over like the Abrahamic covenant says, or maybe its grander and you make your own galaxy, universe or reality ... And maybe in that reality there technically is no Heavenly Grandfather.

Is there a dominion of Heavenly Mother? Latter-day Saints generally believe there is an exalted, divine Mother alongside a Father in Heaven, because the doctrine of exaltation (becoming like God) is taught for both men and women. The general principle of exaltation suggests joint dominion and partnership. The ideal exalted god is described as an eternal marriage unit. The idea of a husband holding "solely" dominion would contradict the principle of eternal partnership, where a worthy man and woman are "heirs together" (1 Peter 3:7) and both receive "all that [the] Father hath" (D&C 84:38). Do offspring worship their divine parent? Latter-day Saints are explicitly taught to worship God the Father. This is a fundamental and non-speculative tenet. The plan of salvation is often thought of as a cycle, it can follow logically that future spirit children created by an exalted couple would worship that couple. But this is a projection of the doctrine and not a core, explicit teaching. The idea that its cycle I think is the logical apologetic leaders used, meant to defend exaltation. That children grow up to be like their parents, and we are children of God. Never really intended to settle who has divine preeminence in the next spiritual generation. Will exalted beings create their own worlds or previous worlds God created? The Church statement explicitly rejects the popularized idea of "getting your own planet." This phrase is seen as speculative folklore, distracting from the central doctrine of becoming like God. A "dominion" is not strictly a planet, its power, rule, authority, or realm. The Church is clarifying that the specifics of how we become like God, like making a planet, are unrevealed and therefore not doctrine. Whether they create a planet for them or preside over an existing realm is speculative. The doctrine of eternal increase (having spirit children) and exaltation (becoming like God) is true, while explicitly disavowing the speculative folk doctrine. Not for being false, but for being unrevealed.

I think there is Catholic lore to the 5 larger beads of the Rosary or the points on the Endless Knot are for the 5 wounds of Christ, one version; the scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails, the spear, and the secret wound which some say is his circumcision. An injury not made whole. Hence it puts a hole in the Bloodless Theory thread that claimed Jesus was invulnerable until after Gethsemane.

I use the KJV because I already 'know where the scars are.' I am intimately familiar with its flaws, unique phrasings, archaic language, and even its known interpretive challenges. It allows me to navigate the text, I know exactly where I am, what I am reading and what it means to me. It's not just out of tradition, but also because my entire method of deep study is anchored to its text. It works seamlessly with my study tools; it is the key for using the Strong's numbering system, which correlates KJV English words directly to the Hebrew and Greek roots. To use a different translation is to lose my study maps as well as my mental map of the Bible.

So, we are just assuming the premise of the question is valid? (by the way forum lurkers, its not). Did the Catholic/Orthodox Churches add to the Bible? No, not in the sense that they ever created a new list. They maintained the Old Testament canon in the Septuagint, older than the standardized Jewish canon that the Protestants would later adopt for their Old Testament. Did the Protestant Reformers remove from the Bible? Yes, in the sense that they removed seven books and parts of two others from the Old Testament books that had been accepted and used in Christian Bibles for over a thousand years. They did this by choosing to revert to the narrower canon of Rabbinic Judaism that was fixed in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, long after Christ and the Apostles. And no divine authority to do so. Did Latter-day Saints add to the Bible? No, by continuing revelation we might say God (not "any man") added new scripture of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Technically, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham was canon before the Book of Revelation. I think Protestants might be "cursed" in this view. Well, maybe us for accepting the Protestant Bible.

Being "fully human" means He possessed a complete human nature, would typically include fully functioning systems, including a reproductive system. Therefore, some Christians argue that to be truly human in all aspects (except sin), Jesus would have been fertile (i.e., not sterile). Because sterility would be considered an "imperfection" or "bodily dysfunction." If Jesus had whole sex organs and experienced the full reality of being human would logically mean he was capable of experiencing a nocturnal emission. Most major Christian traditions (including Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant viewpoints) hold that a nocturnal emission (or "wet dream") is not a sin. It is generally viewed as a normal, natural, and involuntary bodily function, a way for the male body to relieve a build-up of seminal fluid in the absence of sexual activity.

Oh, but the big question is, if they are right, is it literally equal to idolatry worthy of death or effects our saving faith in God? Then if the allegation cuts both ways. Will we be justified saying they worship a Greek god, not merely intellectually, but in a manner that condemns them in their ignorance or invalidates their personal faith in God?

Excuse me, a "false god". 6:52 "the spirit can teach me about my false gods, like what are the gods that I put before God" This is a key point where "priorities" are explicitly renamed "false gods" for a new context. 7:10-7:15 "if that thing takes priority, for all intents and purposes, that has become my God in that moment." Elevates any competing priority to the status of a different deity. 7:58-8:03 "are we serving priorities or gods ahead of the god we profess to worship?" Poses the choice as serving a "god" other than the true one. 13:10-13:20 "what I found with false gods that I worship is that they are incredibly fickle." Directly refers to things that take priority over God as "false gods" and contrasts their nature with the true God's. 19:48-20:00 "But you went to this other god who told you what you wanted to hear with your itching ears..." Compares a poor choice (a destructive priority) to choosing a "different god" who offers false comfort. 20:30-20:35 "worshipping some of these other false gods that are that will have massive generational repercussions." Warns of the consequences of following "other false gods," meaning harmful priorities or misaligned focus. 20:46-20:49 "your choices to follow those gods will lead to a cursed life." Directly connects poor choices to following "gods" other than the true one. 21:48-21:52 "They chose other gods. And there's a package deal that comes with those other gods." Uses the phrase "other gods" as a direct substitute for the wrong choices of previous generations. 23:37-23:45 "sometimes I do choose other gods and that has effects on my children..." A presenter personally confesses to choosing "other gods" by indulging in things like scrolling on his phone or watching too much TV. 25:08-25:13 "We live in a world of an infinite number of gods." Broadly claims that the world is full of things competing for devotion, all of which are categorized as "gods." 25:15-25:44 "No, these false gods are powerful... they can for lack of a better word bless your life... they can give what appears to be really good things into your life..." Explicitly attributes power to the "false gods" (i.e., priorities), making them seem like true deities. These examples demonstrate the presenters use the Evangelical polemical category of "false god," "other god," or "different god" to describe any priority, distorted understanding, or misapplied focus that competes with the true God of the gospel. I am concerned that this language, while aiming to emphasize the seriousness of misplaced priorities, inadvertently validates the rhetorical categories used by critics who accuse LDS members of worshipping a "false God." The servant's failure wasn't idolatry; it was paralysis by misconception. The over-application of the term "idolatry" or "false gods" is not about denying that these things can be wrong, but its using these specific, high-stakes theological terms so broadly. If not meant to condemn, there is a loss of gravity of one of the most serious offenses in scripture. Broadly labeling all "misplaced priority" (too much TV), it loses its spiritual and scriptural weight. It creates a false equivalence between serious sin and minor habit. If scrolling on a phone is "idolatry," then what term do you use for apostasy, covenant-breaking, or deliberately worshipping another deity? If it is condemning, true idolatry is an act of worship (bowing down, sacrificing). Telling a person struggling with perfectionism or social media use that they are an "idolater" can induce the very exaggerated fear you noted in the parable of the talents (believing God is "a hard man"). Every daily struggle is now a fight against a "false god" the path of discipleship appears too steep, leading people to give up. Then is how Evangelicals think we are serving a different entity all together by not knowing the true characteristics of God. The Evangelicals argue that because the Saints believe in a figure so fundamentally different from the Nicene God of historical orthodoxy, they conclude, we are literally, not figuratively, worshipping a "false god" and exclude members of the Church from the category of Christian. LDS members risk validating those critiques if we adopt the very terminology they use to undermine the faith, lending credence to the idea that the problem is the object of worship rather than the quality of that worship.

Maybe not us, but you have heard or read other non-LDS people suggest that by not knowing the character of God means never knowing the true God in a very condemning sense that sends people to hell. I think we are trying to match the Higher Law's tone, extolling virtues least vice ultimately lead to sin and damnation. Lust is adultery... in the heart, and not checking your thoughts is a path to making it reality. I don't want the Evangelical condemnatory use and LDS moral-expansive use, to use similar language. I'm certain when these LDS teachers thought to use language like "false gods", they’re just trying to raise the moral standard like we usually do. Caution still matters, it's just like rhetoric that has historically been used against Saints. Borrowing the phrase "a different god," or "different Jesus" from a condemning theological tradition can slowly import its tone, even if unintentionally. Language shapes thought.

It's a slippery slope. I have heard many LDS lessons like that, trying to make old texts apply to us, that idolatry today can apply to anything we put before God; habits, media, pride, work, relationships. Those lessons made sense because they seemed like they were clear that they were stretching "idolatry" metaphorically to describe misplaced priorities, devotion or loyalty we should reconsider. What feels different to me in your description of the podcast’s framing is that it shifts from misplaced priorities to misplaced identity of God Himself. Once we start calling a misunderstanding of God "a different god," that’s a pretty significant theological charge. It’s not the same as saying "maybe I'm idolizing my phone using it so much." I get that the presenters meant it introspectively, not accusingly, but it’s still a slippery slope to add to our worship dialogue. We’ve seen that "different god" language before, so I just think it’s unwise to mirror that framing even if its back onto ourselves. I don’t dislike the modern-idolatry narrative per se, I just think "worshipping a false god" doesn't fit well when it’s about imperfect understanding of the same God we’re all striving to know better.

I edited it while you were asking.

I agree with everything said accept how the principles are related. I won't adopt the language of my oppressors, not understanding God can be just as bad but I will resist the slide into saying that this equals worshiping a "different God." That phrasing carries a lot of theological baggage from Evangelical anti-LDS rhetoric ("Mormons worship a different Jesus"), and importing it into our own discourse risks muddying LDS doctrine. Our perceptions of God deeply affect our relationship with Him. A false view of His character can lead to fear, discouragement, or pride. President Nelson did call to "know the Savior" and "learn who God is" is about shedding misconceptions that distort our discipleship. Wrong ideas about God distort worship, but they don’t necessarily mean you’ve switched deities. The phrase "worshipping a false God" when applied to misunderstanding God is rhetorically dangerous because it confuses misunderstanding God, something all humans do to some degree, with worshipping a different being or actual idolatry or other theological substitution. LDS worship God the Father, but we may misunderstand him, but that doesn’t mean we’re worshipping Baal, Zeus, or a "different Jesus." Paul’s warning about those preaching "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) wasn’t about imperfect understanding of the same Jesus, it was about deliberate replacement of the true Christ with a false one. In contrast, People who are sincerely striving to know God may be in error at times, but they’re still reaching toward the same God. Adopting Evangelical polemical categories like "different Jesus" or "a false god" against our own members plays directly into anti-LDS framing. It trains us to use language of condemnation rather than correction, with heresy-hunting, and internalize the notion that any nonstandard thought means you’ve left the faith.

There are illegal things on public internets spaces. Benign materials ranging from "Faces of Death" (horrible car accidents, bombs, 9/11 footage of people falling) to Snuff (Torture-Murder) films that go around "public" spaces. If anyone remembers Napster, it was a free Peer2Peer file sharing program for mp3s for free. The next generation of programs like Limewire included videos. There are thousands of people in federal prison right now who were not on any "darkweb", no community, did not pay anything, have no connection what so ever to the victims, abusers or black market. The government after the Patriot Act bought the servers and left the files with known hashtags in their data base available. They use Peer Spectre to watch these files move, they look on your computer claiming your share folder is "public". Even just imagery of children tied up is prosecutable. If it's in a folder with other tied up children, or with adult nudity, or tied people with lude faces, in any way erotic, they can show it and convince a Grand Jury that you enjoy it. They bust non-darkweb communities and public websites but keep it online to catch any fool dumb enough to go there. Any tiny thumbnail of an illegal image you never clicked on is still in your cache folder and is criminal. You don't report it, they'll think it was on purpose. 99 percent of the traffic gets away, but you can be that lottery winner. Just because you saw something on normal internet and nothing happened for months doesn't mean they didn't see it and aren't coming.