Merry Christmas and Cheers to the Fall of Mormon Stories

[MiserereNobis]

On 1/2/2026 at 8:25 PM, Pyreaux said:

Can't you see what the Church is doing? Sovereignty. We’d rather own the entire means of production, so we never have to depend on anyone. Never at the mercy of inflation and supply chain breaks

So, you have no objections to the historical Catholic accumulation of wealth? The Papal States? Vatican City?

Just checking for consistency 🙂

[california boy]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Of course they have, but the reasons you presume for that success are condescending.

I know you will fail to see why, even if I explain- so I will just back away now and let you do you.

Probably a good idea

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Probably a good idea

🙄

[Teancum]

On 1/5/2026 at 3:17 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why is it that those opposed to the Restored Church believe the Church is in freefall because numbers are lagging in white Western countries? Do the record converts and increased retention rates in, um, not so white areas of the world not count? Why are only the numbers of white members important? What does that say about those critics?

🤷🏻‍♂️

I do not know if you are referring to me. I simply noted my friends experience in Chili and an MP. Feel free to enlighten us on activity rates in other areas. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 12/24/2025 at 10:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

It is a central theme in "Social Identity Theory" (SIT) and "Role Exit Theory".

Former =/= Ex

This is what I'd like to see.

On 12/24/2025 at 10:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

"The process of disengagement from a role that is central to one's self-identity and the reestablishment of an identity in a new role that takes into account one's ex-role constitutes the process I call role exit" (Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit (1988) Pg 1 by sociologist Helen Rose Ebaugh)

She was a former nun and she explains that "Ex" is a unique social category. An "Ex" is someone who has not simply left a role but has created a new identity based on the one they left. An "Ex" is defined by their past. They often remain anchored to the previous institution because their new social status relies on the contrast.

Indifference =/= Ex

I think its fine to distinguish between those who identify as "ex" whatever and those that are merely ex-members. If you want to use the label of "ex" to only apply to those that have taken it on as an identity that's an okay choice, but its on you to specifically state it and it is entirely unfair to expect others to play along. No where in your quote above or quote below is there an article or book (I'd love to see it if there is) that distingishes between ex and former. If I identify as a former mormon, I see no difference (based on your sources) than identifying as an ex-mormon. The key part of their narrative is what it takes for someone to identify as something they are not (not what words they choose to do it). If you assumed that people talking about ex mormons are using the phrase differently than you, that's 100 percent on you

On 12/24/2025 at 10:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

Psychologists Kimberly Elsbach and C.B. Bhattacharya in their 2001 paper, “Defining Who You Are By What You're Not,” and their subsequent work on the Expanded Model of Organizational Identification categorize the relationships into four distinct quadrants.

Identification "I am the organization." Active support, defense, and time investment.

Disidentification "I am the opposite of the organization." Active criticism, monitoring, and "Ex-" identity.

Ambivalence "I love parts and hate parts." Internal conflict, toggling between support and critique.

Indifference "I don't think about it" Passively disengaged.

A guy checking "None" on a census is only showing Indifference. The guy who resigned is showing Disidentification.

Two past customers chose not to eat at McDonalds today as they passed by, but one did it because he wasn't hungry and simply never thought about it, the other because he is now a vegan and so opposes everything McDonald's stands for. Those are two vastly different people.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 12/24/2025 at 8:39 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is a ridiculously narrow way to define exmormon. Better to look at self identified members versus church records. 

Surveys show Utah as 50 percent Latter-day Saint vs 2/3 via church records. So 25 percent exmormon in a place where identifying as Latter-day Saint faces the most favorable conditions. For the United States as a whole the 60000 person CCES survey discussed here shows 1.14 percent self identify as Latter-day Saint. This if true would give 45 percent exmormon.  See discussion here: 

 

 

On 1/5/2026 at 1:17 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why is it that those opposed to the Restored Church believe the Church is in freefall because numbers are lagging in white Western countries? Do the record converts and increased retention rates in, um, not so white areas of the world not count? Why are only the numbers of white members important? What does that say about those critics?

🤷🏻‍♂️

Sometimes I wonder if you even bother to read the thread? My first statement above was about Mexico which is not "white". Unfortunately, based on the choices of your church's leadership, good data on church activity is difficult to find. If you have any objective data to share that shows "increased retention rates" anywhere in the world, I'd love to see it! Please to share. As for the amount of converts, that seems wholely unrelated to the thread. As far as I can see, there are more people who have left your church (i.e. those who were baptized, but no longer identify as members) than those that currently identify as latter-day saints. If you have data from any country that shows otherwise, I'd love to see it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 1/1/2026 at 12:14 PM, Teancum said:

I think this is spot on and I think Dehlin and others have experienced this when they have tried to build a sustainable community of ex and disaffected members. I do not think any have had much success. I could be wrong as I do not follow such groups and where I live there is not a lot of LDS people-active, ex or disaffected so a community is tough to sustain with those low numbers.

I went to an meet up three times (not associated with Mormon Stories). Not a consistent group outside the leaders. Definitely hard to keep a group coming. It's a bit cathartic and then not really necessary. 

[Teancum]

On 1/5/2026 at 5:00 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

What other things would account for the fact that when you bring up the record baptism, and retention rates that, they default back to, "BUT LOOK HOW BAD THINGS ARE IN AMERICA AND EUROPE!!!" ??

If you think your world wide activity rate is all hunky dory more power to you. The only one bringing up regions is you.

[Teancum]

On 1/6/2026 at 8:10 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

You honestly have no idea how condescending your second paragraph is- do you?

🤦🏻‍♂️

Why? It is factually true.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why? It is factually true.

So it's factually true that the only reason they join the Church is because they are ignorant and poor??

Tell me who the racists are again.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So it's factually true that the only reason they join the Church is because they are ignorant and poor??

Nobody said that it was the “only” reason. You are misrepresenting in order to be hypbolic.

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Tell me who the racists are again.

The people you are backing, hope this helps.

See, I can do misrepresentative hyperbole too!

[Teancum]

On 1/9/2026 at 6:11 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So it's factually true that the only reason they join the Church is because they are ignorant and poor??

Tell me who the racists are again.

Man you have pretty thin skin. It is simply factually true that the church is only having significant growth in demographics where people are poorer. That has nothing to do with race at all.  And you said ignorant not me. So take a hard look in the mirror. 

[The Nehor]

On 1/2/2026 at 9:25 PM, Pyreaux said:

Can't you see what the Church is doing? Sovereignty. We’d rather own the entire means of production, so we never have to depend on anyone. Never at the mercy of inflation and supply chain breaks. We are the supply chain. When food prices spiked in 2024–2025, the Church didn't have to raise more money to buy food; they just kept farming and kept on rocking it. If the Church didn't own the farms, we'd be spending twice as much to do half as much good. If we are hoarding money, we either have big plans for it or trying to micromanage every dime.

Autarky is the economic system of complete independence from external inputs. The closest state to autarky today is probably North Korea. It was also the goal of such states as Nazi Germany, Maoist China, the Soviet Union, and Francoist Spain. Not exactly a winning group there.

Also the idea that this kind of self-sufficiency is possible in a church is silly. They need electricity and fuel to keep the whole thing going. They don’t own the entire means of production. There are way too many inputs into the process. The independent yeoman farmer ideal that Ezra Taft Benson seemed obsessed with was a myth even in his own time.

Edited January 16 by The Nehor

[sunstoned]

I'm not sure how the church's focus on upscale apartments and business real estate aligns with self-sufficiency and means of production of goods.  

[Pyreaux]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Autarky is the economic system of complete independence from external inputs. The closest state to autarky today is probably North Korea. It was also the goal of such states as Nazi Germany, Maoist China, the Soviet Union, and Francoist Spain. Not exactly a winning group there.

Also the idea that this kind of self-sufficiency is possible in a church is silly. They need electricity and fuel to keep the whole thing going. They don’t own the entire means of production. There are way too many inputs into the process. The independent yeoman farmer ideal that Ezra Taft Benson seemed obsessed with was a myth even in his own time.

Right. No modern entity, even one as wealthy as the LDS Church, can be truly self-sufficient because the global supply chain is too integrated. However, the Church's strategy is risk mitigation and institutional resilience. A "true" autarky is impossible. However, the LDS Church is practicing Vertical Integration. An autarky will not trade with the outside. A Vertical Integration will own the stages of production so we aren't at the mercy of the outside. They don't do this to "cut off" the world, but to ensure that if the global supply chain fails, their internal welfare system remains stocked.

Ezra Taft Benson’s obsession might be dead for the individual, the Church has replaced it with Industrial Agribusiness. Now the Church is one of the largest beef producers in the United States. The Church cannot produce its own diesel or microchips (yet). If the power grid or the oil market collapses entirely, the Church's "means of production" would grind to a halt just like everyone else's. However, the Church isn't necessarily trying to be North Korea; they are trying to be a "State within a State." They want to be 'among the organizations' standing if the fuel, electricity, food become scarce for the general population.

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure how the church's focus on upscale apartments and business real estate aligns with self-sufficiency and means of production of goods.  

If you look at the Church's strategy through the lens of Investment Diversification, it does. You know, this "Rainy Day" the Church is preparing for isn't a recession; they are preparing for an actual future where their membership might actually become rather massive, but their tithing revenue might decline. Instead of having to relying on members, the Church is building a portfolio that can self-fund the entire operation of the Church (temples, missions, buildings) indefinitely using only the interest and rent. An apartment is producing... rent. Rent is a "passive" input that is more resilient than just farming.

That day I described is called by economists as the "Great Transition" of the LDS Church. Areas where the Church is growing the fastest, the Global South, are the areas with the lowest per-capita tithing potential. The cost to build a meetinghouse, maintain a temple, and supporting them will be higher than the tithing revenue generated. Currently, you see a rush to build temples in Africa right now. They can "afford" to convert millions of people in Africa who may never be able to pay for their own buildings, because the interest from stocks and real estate will cover the bill.

If the current trends continue, the "median" Latter-day Saint will soon no longer be white Westerners but a person of the Global South. How else will we manage a massive membership that contributes almost nothing to the treasury but will require 90% of the administrative effort?

Edited January 17 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Right. No modern entity, even one as wealthy as the LDS Church, can be truly self-sufficient because the global supply chain is too integrated. However, the Church's strategy is risk mitigation and institutional resilience. A "true" autarky is impossible. However, the LDS Church is practicing Vertical Integration. An autarky will not trade with the outside. A Vertical Integration will own the stages of production so we aren't at the mercy of the outside. They don't do this to "cut off" the world, but to ensure that if the global supply chain fails, their internal welfare system remains stocked.

It won’t stay stocked.

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Ezra Taft Benson’s obsession might be dead for the individual, the Church has replaced it with Industrial Agribusiness. Now the Church is one of the largest beef producers in the United States. The Church cannot produce its own diesel or microchips (yet). If the power grid or the oil market collapses entirely, the Church's "means of production" would grind to a halt just like everyone else's. However, the Church isn't necessarily trying to be North Korea; they are trying to be a "State within a State." They want to be the last organization standing if the fuel, electricity, food become scarce for the general population.

Being a “state within a state” is really really creepy. Also if all that becomes scarce mass starvation follows. The Church’s organization won’t keep functioning. It is spread out all over the nation and the breakdown of transportation would destroy it. I suppose it might work in a Second Coming situation if the 90%+ of the population is mass murdered by Jesus on His return. That might wipe out enough people that subsistence farming might be enough to feed the population even without electricity and fuel. If that is the purpose though I don’t think I want to live to see the Millenium.

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If you look at the Church's strategy through the lens of Investment Diversification, it does. You know, this "Rainy Day" the Church is preparing for isn't a recession; they are preparing for an actual future where their membership might actually become rather massive, but their tithing revenue might decline. Instead of having to relying on members, the Church is building a portfolio that can self-fund the entire operation of the Church (temples, missions, buildings) indefinitely using only the interest and rent. An apartment is producing... rent. Rent is a "passive" input that is more resilient than just farming.

Rent-takers are a blight on the economy. It is the idle eating the bread of the laborer writ large. That kind of passive income doesn’t come from nowhere.

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

That day I described is called by economists as the "Great Transition" of the LDS Church. Areas where the Church is growing the fastest, the Global South, are the areas with the lowest per-capita tithing potential. The cost to build a meetinghouse, maintain a temple, and supporting them will be higher than the tithing revenue generated. Currently, you see a rush to build temples in Africa right now. They can "afford" to convert millions of people in Africa who may never be able to pay for their own buildings, because the interest from stocks and real estate will cover the bill.

I have my doubts that this large-scale growth in Africa will continue for much longer.

9 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If the current trends continue, the "median" Latter-day Saint will soon no longer be white Westerners but a person of the Global South. How else will we manage a massive membership that contributes almost nothing to the treasury but will require 90% of the administrative effort?

Maybe raise the Global South to the living standards of the rest of the world? Sounds like a better solution to me.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

They want to be the last organization standing if the fuel, electricity, food become scarce for the general population.

Are you sure you want to put their motivation that way?  Last organization standing?  As if there’s a competition going?

Edited January 17 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It won’t stay stocked.

Being a “state within a state” is really really creepy. Also if all that becomes scarce mass starvation follows. The Church’s organization won’t keep functioning. It is spread out all over the nation and the breakdown of transportation would destroy it. I suppose it might work in a Second Coming situation if the 90%+ of the population is mass murdered by Jesus on His return. That might wipe out enough people that subsistence farming might be enough to feed the population even without electricity and fuel. If that is the purpose though I don’t think I want to live to see the Millenium.

Rent-takers are a blight on the economy. It is the idle eating the bread of the laborer writ large. That kind of passive income doesn’t come from nowhere.

I have my doubts that this large-scale growth in Africa will continue for much longer.

Maybe raise the Global South to the living standards of the rest of the world? Sounds like a better solution to me.

The Church isn't preparing for the Apocalypse where everyone dies. Its preparing for Tribulation where there is economic volatility. If the dollar loses 20% of its value, they can continue to feed members even if the price of bread triples. During the COVID-19 pandemic many food banks were empty, the Bishop's Storehouses were overflowing because they owned the farms. They didn't have to wait for a supplier; they were the supplier.

Are you channeling Marxist critiques of "Rent-Seeking?" If the Church collects rent from luxury apartments, its from the elite, the "Renters by Choice". We used Capitalist tools (luxury real estate, stock markets) to harvest money from the world's wealthy. We spend that money on our global membership (to build churches or temple in Africa). Isn't that wealth redistribution?

Raising the standard of living is the focus of programs like BYU-Pathway Worldwide. Low-cost, high-quality university degrees online to members in Africa, the Philippines, and South America to create a middle class of Latter-day Saints who can eventually pay for their own local infrastructure. The reality is even with education, the wealth gap is so massive that it will likely take centuries for Africa's "tithing" to equal the cost of its "temples."

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you sure you want to put their motivation that way?  Last organization standing?  As if there’s a competition going?

They just hope that regardless of whatever happens, specifically after all economic volatility, hyperinflation, or social upheaval, the work of the Gospel will not stop. But I've changed it to "among the organizations still standing".

Edited January 18 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I'm not sure how the church's focus on upscale apartments and business real estate aligns with self-sufficiency and means of production of goods.  

Matthew 25:16-17.

[longview]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Right. No modern entity, even one as wealthy as the LDS Church, can be truly self-sufficient because the global supply chain is too integrated. However, the Church's strategy is risk mitigation and institutional resilience. A "true" autarky is impossible. However, the LDS Church is practicing Vertical Integration. An autarky will not trade with the outside. A Vertical Integration will own the stages of production so we aren't at the mercy of the outside. They don't do this to "cut off" the world, but to ensure that if the global supply chain fails, their internal welfare system remains stocked.

It won’t stay stocked.

Don't be silly. If worse comes to worse, God can EASILY float MANNA onto the people. Three to six million former Hebrew slaves could not have any sustainable way of living wandering the howling wilderness for 40 years without the guidance of God.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Ezra Taft Benson’s obsession might be dead for the individual, the Church has replaced it with Industrial Agribusiness. Now the Church is one of the largest beef producers in the United States. The Church cannot produce its own diesel or microchips (yet). If the power grid or the oil market collapses entirely, the Church's "means of production" would grind to a halt just like everyone else's. However, the Church isn't necessarily trying to be North Korea; they are trying to be a "State within a State." They want to be the last organization standing if the fuel, electricity, food become scarce for the general population.

Being a “state within a state” is really really creepy. Also if all that becomes scarce mass starvation follows. The Church’s organization won’t keep functioning. It is spread out all over the nation and the breakdown of transportation would destroy it. I suppose it might work in a Second Coming situation if the 90%+ of the population is mass murdered by Jesus on His return. That might wipe out enough people that subsistence farming might be enough to feed the population even without electricity and fuel. If that is the purpose though I don’t think I want to live to see the Millenium.

Oh sure! Better for the ENTIRE world to knuckle down to the uniformitarian collective, mindlessly obeying the dictates of the HIVE mind. At least, that was what Lucifer was demanding </end sarcasm>.

By the way, it was not obsession but wisdom by Benson that helped strengthen the Constitutional Republic. He warned people against the delusions of collectivist utopia and encourage loyalty to the Heavenly Banner.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If you look at the Church's strategy through the lens of Investment Diversification, it does. You know, this "Rainy Day" the Church is preparing for isn't a recession; they are preparing for an actual future where their membership might actually become rather massive, but their tithing revenue might decline. Instead of having to relying on members, the Church is building a portfolio that can self-fund the entire operation of the Church (temples, missions, buildings) indefinitely using only the interest and rent. An apartment is producing... rent. Rent is a "passive" input that is more resilient than just farming.

Rent-takers are a blight on the economy. It is the idle eating the bread of the laborer writ large. That kind of passive income doesn’t come from nowhere.

Young people do not always have the wherewithal buy a home. Others go thru transitions where they want live in a rental for only a few months or a few years. They would rather skip the burdens of ownership and onerous process of deed transfers.

Home rentals and apartments are a very important service to people. The landlords and owners take on the burden of maintenance and risks of depreciation and a few abusive/dysfunctional renters. This is a good source of investment activity for the Middle Class that make up the backbone of a free and productive economy.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That day I described is called by economists as the "Great Transition" of the LDS Church. Areas where the Church is growing the fastest, the Global South, are the areas with the lowest per-capita tithing potential. The cost to build a meetinghouse, maintain a temple, and supporting them will be higher than the tithing revenue generated. Currently, you see a rush to build temples in Africa right now. They can "afford" to convert millions of people in Africa who may never be able to pay for their own buildings, because the interest from stocks and real estate will cover the bill.

I have my doubts that this large-scale growth in Africa will continue for much longer.

There were several tribes in Africa that learned of the Church thru pamphlets and such in the early days. They organized themselves into informal "branches" even when missionaries could not come. They had to wait many years before the Church could make an official visit and bring the priesthood. Africa WILL grow by gangbusters just like South America. Aftrica WILL continue to grow to be dynamic just like South America is now dynamic.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If the current trends continue, the "median" Latter-day Saint will soon no longer be white Westerners but a person of the Global South. How else will we manage a massive membership that contributes almost nothing to the treasury but will require 90% of the administrative effort?

Maybe raise the Global South to the living standards of the rest of the world? Sounds like a better solution to me.

No reason why they have to be LIKE western countries. African tribes can continue their pastoral ways (at least some) just like native Americans wanted to live in harmony with nature.

The Church has been bringing innovative technologies such as the "sun oven" (I have one) or water filtration devices or any quality of life enhancements. The same is occurring for members in India. All local leaders will explore the most appropriate options. With assistance from various levels of leadership.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

encourage loyalty to the Heavenly Banner.

You are not saying that this is the American flag, correct?  It is just the “Constitutional Republic” preceding it makes that connection possible, but I am assuming and want to be sure I am understanding you correctly that you don’t equate the Kingdom of God (which the Heavenly Banner would most likely stand for) with the “Constitutional Republic”.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You are not saying that this is the American flag, correct?  It is just the “Constitutional Republic” preceding it makes that connection possible, but I am assuming and want to be sure I am understanding you correctly that you don’t equate the Kingdom of God (which the Heavenly Banner would most likely stand for) with the “Constitutional Republic”.

Correct. I have always associated Heavenly Banner with the Constitution. Joseph Smith testified of this.

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, longview said:

Correct. I have always associated Heavenly Banner with the Constitution. Joseph Smith testified of this.

Perhaps I misread Calm's comment (or yours), but I'm not sure there is congruety between her question on your response.

[longview]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Perhaps I misread Calm's comment (or yours), but I'm not sure there is congruety between her question on your response.

I used chatGPT to dig up the reference and to format a cogent overview:

Quote

what did joseph smith say about the Heavenly Banner?

 

Joseph Smith used the phrase “heavenly banner” in relation to the United States Constitution, not to something like a literal flag in heaven. His comments come from historical letters and teachings in the 1830s and early 1840s, where he described the Constitution with deeply reverential language:

What Joseph Smith actually said

• In a letter written around March 22, 1839 while he and the Saints were in hardship, Joseph Smith wrote about the U.S. Constitution:

“The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner… it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of its liberty like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land…”

This language likens the Constitution to:

• a glorious, divinely-rooted principle,

• a heavenly banner symbolizing liberty and protection,

• and a source of shelter and refreshment to those who enjoy freedom.

Context & interpretation

• “Heavenly banner” in this usage is metaphorical — Joseph Smith was not describing a literal celestial object, but rather expressing that the Constitution’s principles of liberty and rights were of divine origin and great spiritual importance.

• Later Latter-day Saint leaders, such as Ezra Taft Benson, quoted this statement and taught that Joseph viewed the Constitution as a God-ordained document worthy of reverence and protection.

• Some accounts connected Joseph Smith’s description with the so-called White Horse Prophecy, which holds (in folk tradition, not official church doctrine) that the Constitution might one day be in peril and that the Saints would help preserve it. However, that prophecy is not part of official LDS scripture and remains controversial in its authenticity.

Summary: Joseph Smith referred to the U.S. Constitution as a “heavenly banner” to emphasize his belief that it was a divinely inspired foundation for liberty and rights — a beacon of freedom that should be upheld and cherished.

ETA: I just thought of Captain Moroni tearing his coat and hoisting his version of the Title of Liberty:

Quote

Alma 46:13. And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

Alma 46:36. And it came to pass also, that he caused the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land, which was possessed by the Nephites; and thus Moroni planted the standard of liberty among the Nephites.

Alma 51:20. And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.

 

Edited January 18 by longview

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Perhaps I misread Calm's comment (or yours), but I'm not sure there is congruety between her question on your response.

I now understand how he was using heavenly banner, which is why I asked.