Mormon church membership - who to count as members

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Yet known child molesters are found on the rolls of the church. The guy who produced the temple endowment films is one of them. I guess child molestation isn’t a serious sin. 🙂

Do you have any reference that he is on the rolls of the church?  He was sentenced to jail for 6 years.  A jail sentence for molestation almost always triggers a court.  I would assume that he is no longer on the rolls of the church.  I would expect any known child molester would be removed from the membership.  Do you have any evidence that there is a known child molester who is still counted as a member?

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

My kids don’t need to be shunned and othered and neither do my wife and I. I put up with it in order to stay in the family. Lots of PIMO do the same thing. 

This kind of defeats your argument.  You want people like you to be automatically removed from the membership.  But if that happens, your kids will be shunned and othered.  So why do you want the church to automatically remove your membership?

[MustardSeed]

59 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Me a zealot for righteousness?? lol I openly don’t pay tithing. Drink coffee and beer etc. IDGA FLIP about righteousness.

 

my post was not to solely remove sinners. I do think the church should clean up its rolls of inactives and criminals ( sinners I suppose) 

getting the roles cleaned up can accomplish a number of things: 

1- elimination of bad press when an inactive member or career criminal brings attention to the church through their actions. This Charlie Kirk thing will be known to have been committed by a Mormon for a century. Wouldn’t be the case if after he stopped attending and lived with a trans girlfriend/ boyfriend (don’t know the setup) they cut the cord

2- makes future growth measurable against a real number instead of one still inflated by millions of lifetime inactive or baseball baptism victims. 
 

3- focus on the active members. The church does teach to go after the  one of 99, but in reality there really is no effort to do that. 

 

 

 

Ok then, be well

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

1- elimination of bad press when an inactive member or career criminal brings attention to the church through their actions. This Charlie Kirk thing will be known to have been committed by a Mormon for a century. Wouldn’t be the case if after he stopped attending and lived with a trans girlfriend/ boyfriend (don’t know the setup) they cut the cord

Even if the church had removed him, people would still say that Charlie Kirk was killed by a mormon.  Ted Bundy was a member for only about a year and that still crops up.

[Notatbm]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

Do you have any reference that he is on the rolls of the church?  He was sentenced to jail for 6 years.  A jail sentence for molestation almost always triggers a court.  I would assume that he is no longer on the rolls of the church.  I would expect any known child molester would be removed from the membership.  Do you have any evidence that there is a known child molester who is still counted as a member?

He was first disfellowshipped in 1993 (?) for two years for molesting a 13 year old boy. The church did not report the abuse to police. Neither did the parents it seems. 
 

fast forward between 2013 and 2015 while working for the church producing three different temple films, he molested a young girl. He was busted for it in 2019 and was sentenced to six years in prison.. 

Unknown if he has since been excommunicated. The first instance of molesting a boy only got him disfellowshipped. They should have kicked him out the first time. 

[Notatbm]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

Even if the church had removed him, people would still say that Charlie Kirk was killed by a mormon.  Ted Bundy was a member for only about a year and that still crops up.

Bundy was actively in the middle (1975) of his killing spree when he was baptized. He was excommunicated in 1975 after being convicted of kidnapping. 
 

he was a member while murdering people. 

Edited September 17, 2025 by Notatbm

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

He was first disfellowshipped in 1993 (?) for two years for molesting a 13 year old boy. The church did not report the abuse to police. Neither did the parents it seems. 
 

fast forward between 2013 and 2015 while working for the church producing three different temple films, he molested a young girl. He was busted for it in 2019 and was sentenced to six years in prison.. 

Unknown if he has since been excommunicated. The first instance of molesting a boy only got him disfellowshipped. They should have kicked him out the first time. 

They actually did report it to the police.  But the parents didn't want to go through with the case so no charges were filed.  They apparently never told their son about the police involvement.  https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-temple-videos-director-sundance-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-says-website.  I think the police would have treated the case a lot differently today.

But if he had been excommunicated, he would probably have been rebaptized after a few years.  We do believe in repentance and that people can change.

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Bundy was actively in the middle (1975) of his killing spree when he was baptized. He was excommunicated in 1975 after being convicted of kidnapping. 
 

he was a member while murdering people. 

Sure, and he was excommunicated about as quickly as you can for a person who was just recently baptized (baptized in Aug 1975, excommunicated by the middle of 1976)

Even if the church was purging people, the killer of Charlie probably wouldn't have been purged yet.  As you've pointed out, it would be unfair to purge people because that might cause them to be othered and ostracized.  So any automatic purging would probably wait till he is older and out of his family home.  I'm not sure auto-purging college kids is a good idea for the same reasons you expressed so he wouldn't be purged until a few years after that.

[Notatbm]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

They actually did report it to the police.  But the parents didn't want to go through with the case so no charges were filed.  They apparently never told their son about the police involvement.  https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-temple-videos-director-sundance-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-says-website.  I think the police would have treated the case a lot differently today.

But if he had been excommunicated, he would probably have been rebaptized after a few years.  We do believe in repentance and that people can change.

Ok… 

He could have changed but apparently the only change was switching from teen boys to little girls. 

[Notatbm]

Just now, webbles said:

So any automatic purging would probably wait till he is older and out of his family home.  I'm not sure auto-purging college kids is a good idea for the same reasons you expressed so he wouldn't be purged until a few years after that.

He was 22 living with his trans lover in his own place. What time is better than that? 
 

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

My kids don’t need to be shunned and othered and neither do my wife and I. I put up with it in order to stay in the family. Lots of PIMO do the same thing. 

[...]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I don’t care if I’m counted as a member or not. The church SHOULD purge its roles of known inactives and convicted criminals as a means to protect its “good name.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Church actually followed your advice and purged the rolls of all known inactives, and that led to your family “shunning and othering” you and yours, you’d be right back here complaining about the Church anyway. Sounds less like you want a solution and more like you just want something to complain about.

 

Quote

I mean just this week two people come to light who are members (one inactive and the other probably active due to garment wearing) one of which is an assassin and the other a child porn trafficker all in the same incident. If the inactive had been purged and the other dude also purged because of his long list of criminal activity the church wouldn’t have the PR problem. Granted they just choose to ignore it so it goes away but people round the world read the news and know these two are Mormon. It’s one thing to have to keep tabs on your active members, but it is a whole different task having to answer to the actions of those who have not shown up to church in years or are chronically in trouble with the law. 

You’re giving way too much credit to the idea that ex-ing people would solve the PR problem. The reason these stories get traction isn’t because some journalist dug through church records and confirmed membership status - it’s because it’s scandalous whenever someone associated with Mormonism does something heinous. If the perpetrators weren’t officially members, the story would (as we saw in this very case) just be reworded as “raised Mormon,” “former Mormon," "[fill-in-the-relationship status] to prominent Mormon," etc. Purging the rolls wouldn’t make the headlines disappear; at best it just changes the headlines a little, and not in a way that would keep us out of them. 

 

Quote

every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc. why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless… unless the theory that the truthfulness of the gospel is proved by the growth of membership numbers… oh there we go 

I suspect that most of the orgs you’ve been part of were either clubs or businesses. The Church is neither. It’s a family, and you don’t get “purged” from a family just because you stopped showing up to dinner.

At least, I'm pretty sure that's not how the story of the prodigal son ended...

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Ok… 

He could have changed but apparently the only change was switching from teen boys to little girls. 

No one but he knew that he was going to keep doing it.  He successfully lied to everyone (and maybe himself).  But we shouldn't stop believing that people can change just because someone didn't change.  There are some behaviors that we, as a society, have started to realize are harder to change.  And we are now being a little more skeptical of proclamations of change, but this is a 1993 case and before most of that realization.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

He was 22 living with his trans lover in his own place. What time is better than that? 
 

 

He was going to college and had a roommate.  Who was supposed to know that he had a trans lover and why should having a trans lover mean automatic purging?

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

[...]

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Church actually followed your advice and purged the rolls of all known inactives, and that led to your family “shunning and othering” you and yours, you’d be right back here complaining about the Church anyway. Sounds less like you want a solution and more like you just want something to complain about.

 

You’re giving way too much credit to the idea that ex-ing people would solve the PR problem. The reason these stories get traction isn’t because some journalist dug through church records and confirmed membership status - it’s because it’s scandalous whenever someone associated with Mormonism does something heinous. If the perpetrators weren’t officially members, the story would (as we saw in this very case) just be reworded as “raised Mormon,” “former Mormon," "[fill-in-the-relationship status] to prominent Mormon," etc. Purging the rolls wouldn’t make the headlines disappear; at best it just changes the headlines a little, and not in a way that would keep us out of them. 

 

I suspect that most of the orgs you’ve been part of were either clubs or businesses. The Church is neither. It’s a family, and you don’t get “purged” from a family just because you stopped showing up to dinner.

At least, I'm pretty sure that's not how the story of the prodigal son ended...

 

I’m out of reps to give today, so here’s a high five. 🖐️ 

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I don’t care if I’m counted as a member or not. The church SHOULD purge its roles of known inactives and convicted criminals as a means to protect its “good name.” I mean just this week two people come to light who are members (one inactive and the other probably active due to garment wearing) one of which is an assassin and the other a child porn trafficker all in the same incident. If the inactive had been purged and the other dude also purged because of his long list of criminal activity the church wouldn’t have the PR problem. Granted they just choose to ignore it so it goes away but people round the world read the news and know these two are Mormon. It’s one thing to have to keep tabs on your active members, but it is a whole different task having to answer to the actions of those who have not shown up to church in years or are chronically in trouble with the law. 
 

every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc. why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless… unless the theory that the truthfulness of the gospel is proved by the growth of membership numbers… oh there we go 

We absolutely called it. This quote is a textbook illustration of the very dynamic I described. The exact moment where the disingenuous pretext of "PR advice" crumbles entirely, revealing the underlying venomous motive. The final phrase, "oh there we go," that little fake epiphany shows the unguarded truth that confirms the entire thesis.

It was always disingenuous to suggest anything you'd want was for the sake of the Church's "good name", this feigned desire to help the Church avoid a "PR problem" was a facade. The "advice" is merely a clever way to couch a hostile demand.

The comparison of the Church to "every org" you've ever been a part of is a false equivalence. A church is not a club, using secular metric (dues and attendance) to undermine a spiritual institution, knowing full well the comparison is flawed.

The true, venomous motive is revealed; the final sentence is a moment of pure, unfiltered glee. You have "found" the supposed secret. The only logical reason to keep inactive members is to "prove the truthfulness of the gospel by the growth of membership numbers." 

Yet, even the "inflated numbers" theory is also a fake motive, clearly, it's being taken for granted, so you can weaponize cherry-picked data; The most emotionally charged and extreme examples just to openly taint an entire group. This is not about a reasoned argument; it's about how many times you can associate the entire Church with the most heinous crimes imaginable.

All of this is just a cry for personal vindication. Having rejected the faith, and for that decision to feel justified, the faith itself must be seen as a fraud or a failure. The old and tired "inflated numbers" theory provided a vehicle for this.

Projection

A psychological and moral defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to another person or group. In this case, the ex-Mormon poster is projecting their own qualities onto the Church.

Lying: Notatbm's argument is disingenuous, as it is presented as helpful advice but is actually a hostile attack. He accuses the Church of being deceptive by inflating its numbers, yet he himself is being deceptive about his motives. He becomes the very thing claimed to hate or criticize, is a powerful and destructive psychological cycle. It often stems from deep-seated resentment and a need to externalize one's own perceived flaws. 

Intolerance

Notatbm seems to be a typical secular ex-Mormon that was made by "deconstruction". To see flaws results in a new, impossible standard for any Church to live up to because it often involves the rejection of the core principles of mercy, forgiveness, and grace that are fundamental to any church. When a former member deconstructs their faith, they may replace this theological framework with a new, secular-based moral absolutism that has no room for human imperfection or redemption.

The critic reduces every moral issue to a simple black-and-white binary. They cannot tolerate a system that offers mercy and a path to repentance, because it violates their new, rigid sense of justice they used to separate from their church.

In a faith-based worldview, a church is a "hospital for sinners" where flawed people can find forgiveness and a path to repentance. This is inherently messy and imperfect.

In the deconstructed secular worldview, there is no atonement to cover imperfections, there are only human actions and their fixed consequences. The person leaving the faith may develop a totalitarian intolerance toward anyone they deem a "sinner" or a "criminal". Their new standard becomes an authenticity test of absolute purity and moral consistency, a test that no church or community of flawed humans can ever pass.

This new, unforgiving standard allows the individual to feel morally superior to the church they left. They see the church's merciful approach, keeping "sinners" on the rolls, offering second chances, not as a virtue, but as a sign of institutional weakness, hypocrisy, or even corruption. By being "intolerant" of these individuals, they can claim the moral high ground and say, "My moral code is tougher, more consistent, and therefore better than the church's." This is a core part of the deconstruction narrative: the hero of the old faith is recast as a flawed or evil character, thus justifying the individual's new moral superiority even in nihilism.

Edited September 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

He was going to college and had a roommate.  Who was supposed to know that he had a trans lover and why should having a trans lover mean automatic purging?

His ministering dude from church should know… 

the church isn’t Anti lgbtq or trans??? Remember they have to remains celibate. No problem disciplining unmarried heterosexual couples for living together 

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[webbles]

20 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

His ministering dude from church should know… 

the church isn’t Anti lgbtq or trans??? Remember they have to remains celibate. No problem disciplining unmarried heterosexual couples for living together 

Why should his ministering dude from church know?  Couldn't the ministering brother have just known that he has a roommate?  I've visited people and didn't realize they were in a relationship until much later (one of them was my own sister).  You seem to expect that people know all things, but they don't.  That's probably the biggest problem with this purge idea.  That would require far more invasive knowledge by the church and would harm far more people.  The problem you are trying to be solving (membership number is too high) is nothing compared to the problem you are going to create.  No one is harmed with the inaccurate numbers but people will actually be harmed with this massive invasion of privacy.

[Notatbm]

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

Why should his ministering dude from church know?  Couldn't the ministering brother have just known that he has a roommate?  I've visited people and didn't realize they were in a relationship until much later (one of them was my own sister).  You seem to expect that people know all things, but they don't.  That's probably the biggest problem with this purge idea.  That would require far more invasive knowledge by the church and would harm far more people.  The problem you are trying to be solving (membership number is too high) is nothing compared to the problem you are going to create.  No one is harmed with the inaccurate numbers but people will actually be harmed with this massive invasion of privacy.

They don’t know cuz they don’t actually minister to people. Since when is the church concerned with an invasion of privacy?

I distinctly remember a bishop asking 11.95 year old me if I masturbate. Mormon bishops and mission presidents have asked that forever… still do. 
 

Why about someone trying to cancel a sealing after a divorce? The form specifically asks you to list all sins committed even if they have already been confessed to a bishop.  Yep no privacy there. “Jesus forgot about your sins, but he actually works for us so we need to revisit them. “
 

anyway- ministers who do their jobs will most likely know. Something about getting to know the people you minister to. someone like Robinson would have told a ministering bro about his situation. Kids brag on that stuff now. 
 

I still think the relief society pres is best source. When my wife was in presidency some crazy stuff got brought to them… mostly hubbys playing with himself  to porn but there was plenty of wife beating, dui arrests and borderline child abuse accusations told to them. The women with crap hubbys love to vent to other women. 

 

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

11 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

 

Why about someone trying to cancel a sealing after a divorce? The form specifically asks you to list all sins committed even if they have already been confessed to a bishop.  Yep no privacy there. “Jesus forgot about your sins, but he actually works for us so we need to revisit them. “

Funny I just mentioned sealing  cancellation. Went to lds Reddit and this was the first post there: 

“i just started the sealing cancellation process with my bishop- it asks for all sins i’ve committed since the day i got married, and to list anything whether or not it’s already been taken care of with priesthood authority. Why? I spoke to friends who had a sealing cancellation years ago and they didn’t have to do this.

Also any insight in to what this process will look like are greatly appreciated. :)”

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Since when is the church concerned with an invasion of privacy?

I distinctly remember a bishop asking 11.95 year old me if I masturbate. Mormon bishops and mission presidents have asked that forever… still do. 

If that question is supposed to be standard, then every bishop and priesthood leader I’ve ever had must have been heretics - because not a single one of them has ever asked me that.

I'm not denying your experience - just pointing out that it isn't universal.

I get the impression that such used to be more common in the Mormon Corridor though, especially back in the 90's / early 'oughts, but the guidance today is more centered on gospel principles (e.g., avoid arousal of lustful thoughts / feelings) and doesn't focus on specific behaviors. 

 

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

If that question is supposed to be standard, then every bishop and priesthood leader I’ve ever had must have been heretics - because not a single one of them has ever asked me that.

I'm not denying your experience - just pointing out that it isn't universal.

I get the impression that such used to be more common in the Mormon Corridor though, especially back in the 90's / early 'oughts, but the guidance today is more centered on gospel principles (e.g., avoid arousal of lustful thoughts / feelings) and doesn't focus on specific behaviors. 

 

Boy sounds like you missed out… lol

this is between 1978 ish till I got out of high school. My boys are both adults and were also asked about it repeatedly in the 2000s.

anyway yep before you became a deacon you got asked point blank by the bishop… they’d ask a couple times cuz of course either the kid had no idea what he was talking about or his answer was a lie. Many kids learned how in their first interview cuz the bishop had to describe what it was and why people ( only bad people of course) did it then the kid goes home and figures it out lol. 
 

also they made sure to tell you it can make you gay. 
 

Packer gave a talk in a general conference priesthood session about it… see pamphlet narrative I attached. 
 

I have heard this crap brought up all the way through the 2000s in priesthood meeting too. Heck when smart phones came out and you could look up porn on them my bishop stormed into elders quorum one day and accused everyone of masturbating to porn with their phones. He said he had just left the relief society room full of women bawling their eyes out about their husbands porn use…  asked my wife later what happened in RS and she verified about ten women were venting about it so now the whole ward knows. Like I mentioned earlier RS is a great source of info there’s always a couple of em who gotta spill the tea on their hubbys publicly. I hear all kinds of stuff from my wife back in the day. yep it was a time. 

human nature being what it is, likely the q15 and bishops carrying their water were totally guilty of the same thing they shamed others for. 
 

this pamphlet got issued to all of us when I was a kid. I’ve seen it around in the 1990s even. 
 

https://archive.org/details/ToYoungMenOnly/page/n2/mode/1up

Edited September 18, 2025 by Notatbm

[halconero]

It is possible that our individual anecdotes do not constitute a generalizable reality, without invalidating our own experiences.

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, Notatbm said:

every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues, attend meeting etc. why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless… unless the theory that the truthfulness of the gospel is proved by the growth of membership numbers… oh there we go 

Call for References: name me another church organization you know who purges their inactive members and who don't tithe [or one that doesn't have criminals as members.]

Edited September 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

22 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Call for References: name me another church organization you know who purges their inactive members and who don't tithe [or one that doesn't have criminals as members.]

Where did I say ANY church does that?

[JVW]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

We absolutely called it. This quote is a textbook illustration of the very dynamic I described. The exact moment where the disingenuous pretext of "PR advice" crumbles entirely, revealing the underlying venomous motive. The final phrase, "oh there we go," that little fake epiphany shows the unguarded truth that confirms the entire thesis.

It was always disingenuous to suggest anything you'd want was for the sake of the Church's "good name", this feigned desire to help the Church avoid a "PR problem" was a facade. The "advice" is merely a clever way to couch a hostile demand.

The comparison of the Church to "every org" you've ever been a part of is a false equivalence. A church is not a club, using secular metric (dues and attendance) to undermine a spiritual institution, knowing full well the comparison is flawed.

The true, venomous motive is revealed; the final sentence is a moment of pure, unfiltered glee. You have "found" the supposed secret. The only logical reason to keep inactive members is to "prove the truthfulness of the gospel by the growth of membership numbers." 

Yet, even the "inflated numbers" theory is also a fake motive, clearly, it's being taken for granted, so you can weaponize cherry-picked data; The most emotionally charged and extreme examples just to openly taint an entire group. This is not about a reasoned argument; it's about how many times you can associate the entire Church with the most heinous crimes imaginable.

All of this is just a cry for personal vindication. Having rejected the faith, and for that decision to feel justified, the faith itself must be seen as a fraud or a failure. The old and tired "inflated numbers" theory provided a vehicle for this.

Projection

A psychological and moral defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to another person or group. In this case, the ex-Mormon poster is projecting their own qualities onto the Church.

Lying: Notatbm's argument is disingenuous, as it is presented as helpful advice but is actually a hostile attack. He accuses the Church of being deceptive by inflating its numbers, yet he himself is being deceptive about his motives. He becomes the very thing claimed to hate or criticize, is a powerful and destructive psychological cycle. It often stems from deep-seated resentment and a need to externalize one's own perceived flaws. 

Intolerance

Notatbm seems to be a typical secular ex-Mormon that was made by "deconstruction". To see flaws results in a new, impossible standard for any Church to live up to because it often involves the rejection of the core principles of mercy, forgiveness, and grace that are fundamental to any church. When a former member deconstructs their faith, they may replace this theological framework with a new, secular-based moral absolutism that has no room for human imperfection or redemption.

The critic reduces every moral issue to a simple black-and-white binary. They cannot tolerate a system that offers mercy and a path to repentance, because it violates their new, rigid sense of justice they used to separate from their church.

In a faith-based worldview, a church is a "hospital for sinners" where flawed people can find forgiveness and a path to repentance. This is inherently messy and imperfect.

In the deconstructed secular worldview, there is no atonement to cover imperfections, there are only human actions and their fixed consequences. The person leaving the faith may develop a totalitarian intolerance toward anyone they deem a "sinner" or a "criminal". Their new standard becomes an authenticity test of absolute purity and moral consistency, a test that no church or community of flawed humans can ever pass.

This new, unforgiving standard allows the individual to feel morally superior to the church they left. They see the church's merciful approach, keeping "sinners" on the rolls, offering second chances, not as a virtue, but as a sign of institutional weakness, hypocrisy, or even corruption. By being "intolerant" of these individuals, they can claim the moral high ground and say, "My moral code is tougher, more consistent, and therefore better than the church's." This is a core part of the deconstruction narrative: the hero of the old faith is recast as a flawed or evil character, thus justifying the individual's new moral superiority even in nihilism.

@Notatbm I don't know that you'd ever respond to this if I didn't tag you so I 'm tagging you. I'm really curious to read your response to this. There are assumptions and inferences made here based off of what you've posted so far in the thread and I'm curious how accurate they are. How you felt while reading this post? Is there any truth to it? What is correct, what is possibly correct, what is possibly wrong, and what is absolutely false about the thoughts expressed by Pyreaux?

I personally love when people call me out on my crap because it invites deep introspection. I typically do not respond with hostility to these kinds of call outs. I don't know that I've ever dealt with them through avoidance, which is what you appear to be doing. Please, if you would be willing to, take a few minutes to share your thoughts about what Pyreaux has stated in the quoted text above.