Apologists Turned Critics

[Paul Ray]

... to what extent can we, as an online community of LDS believers, assist those whose need for public recognition makes them susceptible to becoming a critic of Daniel Peterson, FARMS, BYU, FAIR, the Book of Abraham, etc.?

Any thoughts?

Well, for one thing, in addition to what I've already told you in some of my other public posts, I will now suggest that we try to help other people feel accepted among us even if they make some comments we don't particularly appreciate.

... lest they feel more inclined to remove themselves from us and then go join the "other side".

Hope that helps.

[Sethbag]

I don't see how the OP is even really a sensible question. It assumes that people become critics out of some need for attention, and not because of an actual shift in their beliefs. It would be like me or another critic starting a thread with the following premise: "I think it's apparent that a lot of apologists remain apologists for the church because they are too mentally conditioned to be able to see the truth, or too prideful to admit that they have been wrong all this time. What can we do to help them overcome the mental conditioning, or ease the hit to their pride, so that they can accept the truth and stop being LDS apologists?" I dare say the TBMs on this board would be pretty offended by the very premise.

That's all I have to say, because obviously I disagree with the very premise of the OP, so I wish those who agree with the premise of the OP a happy discussion, and I hope you get something that you think you need from it.

[Smith]

Why do you think the Work and the Glory sells more copies than anything FARMS has ever published?

I think that's because most of us want to entertain our noggins instead of feed them or make them work by thinking, and those are nice entertaining reads which have the added value now of having been written by a GA.

[John Williams]

I don't see how the OP is even really a sensible question. It assumes that people become critics out of some need for attention, and not because of an actual shift in their beliefs. It would be like me or another critic starting a thread with the following premise: "I think it's apparent that a lot of apologists remain apologists for the church because they are too mentally conditioned to be able to see the truth, or too prideful to admit that they have been wrong all this time. What can we do to help them overcome the mental conditioning, or ease the hit to their pride, so that they can accept the truth and stop being LDS apologists?" I dare say the TBMs on this board would be pretty offended by the very premise.

That's all I have to say, because obviously I disagree with the very premise of the OP, so I wish those who agree with the premise of the OP a happy discussion, and I hope you get something that you think you need from it.

I would disagree with it as a general statement about those of us who made that migration, but David qualified it to "some," which I'm stipulating is a small subset that is not limited to critics (and Juliann apparently agrees with me). The question to me, then, is how you deal with people who just want attention, no matter what.

[Paul Ray]

I don't see how the OP is even really a sensible question. It assumes that people become critics out of some need for attention, and not because of an actual shift in their beliefs.

What is your working definition of a critic, Sethbag?

I'm thinking that a critic is someone who criticizes something in such a way that other people will hear him/her, rather than simply keeping their disagreement to themselves.

It's one thing to have beliefs, and another thing to criticize belief(s) that other people accept for some particular reason... and I believe the reason people openly criticize (or critique) beliefs of other people is to attract attention from those other people.

... and we all have the option of keeping our thoughts to ourselves.

It would be like me or another critic starting a thread with the following premise: "I think it's apparent that a lot of apologists remain apologists for the church because they are too mentally conditioned to be able to see the truth, or too prideful to admit that they have been wrong all this time. What can we do to help them overcome the mental conditioning, or ease the hit to their pride, so that they can accept the truth and stop being LDS apologists?" I dare say the TBMs on this board would be pretty offended by the very premise.

I consider myself to be a TBM and I wouldn't be offended by that comment. It would only show that someone had that belief, for some reason.

... and I would then either share my own personal beliefs or keep my own thoughts to myself.

[John Williams]

What is your working definition of a critic, Sethbag?

I'm thinking that a critic is someone who criticizes something in such a way that other people will hear him/her, rather than simply keeping their disagreement to themselves.

It's one thing to have beliefs, and another thing to criticize belief(s) that other people accept for some particular reason... and I believe the reason people openly criticize (or critique) beliefs of other people is to attract attention from those other people.

... and we all have the option of keeping our thoughts to ourselves.

I've often wondered why it is expected that those who disagree with the LDS church keep their disagreement to themselves. Do you really think that most critics of the LDS church are just trying to get attention?

I consider myself to be a TBM and I wouldn't be offended by that comment. It would only show that someone had that belief, for some reason.

... and I would then either share my own personal beliefs or keep my own thoughts to myself.

I think one can share one's beliefs without being offensive or overly critical.

[Paul Ray]

I've often wondered why it is expected that those who disagree with the LDS church keep their disagreement to themselves.

Where did you get that idea?

I don't expect people who disagree with the LDS church to keep their disagreement to themselves.

Quite the contrary.

I expect people who disagree with the LDS church to make their disagreement known in some way.

Do you really think that most critics of the LDS church are just trying to get attention?

Yes. That's what I just said, in the post you just quoted from me.

We all have the option of keeping our own thoughts to ourselves, whether we agree or disagree with anyone, and I consider critics to be openly critical because they want others to know they don't agree... rather than just keeping their own thoughts to themselves.

I think one can share one's beliefs without being offensive or overly critical.

When you share your beliefs with other people, you are either doing one of two things:

You are sharing how and why you agree

or

You are sharing how and why you disagree

... and when you share how and why you disagree with [something] you are being more critical than you really need to be... since you do have the option of keeping all your thoughts to yourself.

And btw, you now again have the option of keeping all your thoughts to yourself, or openly sharing what you think with all of us... and if you disagree with what I said you will be offering criticism or a critique of what I just said.

... and yes, in this post, I was also being a "critic" and offering "criticism".

... and you can decide for yourslef whether or not you think it is "constructive"

[John Williams]

Where did you get that idea?

I don't expect people who disagree with the LDS church to keep their disagreement to themselves.

Quite the contrary.

I expect people who disagree with the LDS church to make their disagreement known in some way.

It wasn't really in your post, but I've been told by numerous people that we critics need to just keep our beliefs to ourselves; otherwise, we're doing something really wrong. I don't understand that position.

Yes. That's what I just said, in the post you just quoted from me.

We all have the option of keeping our own thoughts to ourselves, whether we agree or disagree with anyone, and I consider critics to be openly critical because they want others to know they don't agree... rather than just keeping their own thoughts to themselves.

When you share your beliefs with other people, you are either doing one of two things:

You are sharing how and why you agree

or

You are sharing how and why you disagree

... and when you share how and why you disagree with [something] you are being more critical than you really need to be... since you do have the option of keeping all your thoughts to yourself.

And btw, you now again have the option of keeping all your thoughts to yourself, or openly sharing what you think with all of us... and if you disagree with what I said you will be offering criticism or a critique of what I just said.

... and yes, in this post, I was also being a "critic" and offering "criticism".

... and you can decide for yourslef whether or not you think it is "constructive"

There's a big difference between expressing your beliefs because you want others to understand your position and expressing beliefs just for attention. I am at a loss as to how sharing "how and why you disagree" is "being more critical than you really need to be."

[Sethbag]

I accept that the fact that I come to this board and share my opinions and thoughts on the non-truth of the LDS church makes me a critic, and not merely an unbeliever. But I don't do it because I crave attention. I was never a public apologist for the church, except as a full-time missionary, however I was an apologist for it in my own life, and with family members. Just months before I made the switch from believer to unbeliever I was defending Joseph Smith from some allegations a brother-in-law had found on the web, and defending the church.

What changed me from believer to unbeliever was a realization that it wasn't true after all, and that I just had to accept it and not kick against the pricks, and what turned me into a critic, by Paul's definition, was that it was a topic of great personal relevance and interest to me, and I wished to both share my feelings on the subject and listen to the feelings and insights of others on a board like this, and I found this board, and there you go. For the record, I posted a few times over at RfM before I found this board, but I quickly tired of some of the more strident criticism, for lack of a better explanatory phrase, and lost interest in active participation over there. This board has suited me much better. Nowhere in any of this was there a desire to be recognized by any side or the other, and that especially had no part in my switch from believer to unbeliever. That was a hard switch. Very hard. I'm not sure that any of the TBMs can possibly understand how hard that is until you actually go through it.

We've strayed from the original topic, though, except to disagree on the premise of the OP. I have nothing to offer David in his search for how to help Mormons to prevent them going from believers to unbelievers.

[John Williams]

We've strayed from the original topic, though, except to disagree on the premise of the OP. I have nothing to offer David in his search for how to help Mormons to prevent them going from believers to unbelievers.

Yep. It's difficult to pigeonhole people. Maybe one way believers can help people from becoming unbelievers is to not make assumptions about the reasons they may disbelieve.

[Paul Ray]

It wasn't really in your post, but I've been told by numerous people that we critics need to just keep our beliefs to ourselves; otherwise, we're doing something really wrong. I don't understand that position.

Well, I could try out my new mind reading ability, if you would like me to.

You do?

Okay.

I think at least some of the people who express that thought are thinking that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe and that nobody should try to convince anyone to believe otherwise... at least not without permission from someone who is asking how and why (and what) another person believes.

... the "harm" being that another person's freedom or "space" to believe whatever they want to believe is being violated by people who are sharing their unsolicited opinions.

... because as we all know, everyone has (and is entitled to) their own opinion.

There's a big difference between expressing your beliefs because you want others to understand your position and expressing beliefs just for attention.

What if I told you that I could see your "wanting others to understand your position" as your desire for attention... or your desire to have another person "notice" your beliefs.

Q: Why would someone share their opinion if nobody had asked them for it?

A: Because they want some kind of attention for their beliefs.

I am at a loss as to how sharing "how and why you disagree" is "being more critical than you really need to be."

As I said before, you do have the option of keeping your thoughts and beliefs to yourself... just like everybody else on this planet has that option.

So why would someone need to explain how and why they disagree with someone?

... especially if their opinion (about anything) wasn't asked for?

I've adopted "live and let live" as one of my mottos.

[John Williams]

Well, I could try out my new mind reading ability, if you would like me to.

You do?

Okay.

I think at least some of the people who express that thought are thinking that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe and that nobody should try to convince anyone to believe otherwise... at least not without permission from someone who is asking how and why (and what) another person believes.

... the "harm" being that another person's freedom or "space" to believe whatever they want to believe is being violated by people who are sharing their unsolicited opinions.

... because as we all know, everyone has (and is entitled to) their own opinion.

What if I told you that I could see your "wanting others to understand your position" as your desire for attention... or your desire to have another person "notice" your beliefs.

Q: Why would someone share their opinion if nobody had asked them for it?

A: Because they want some kind of attention for their beliefs.

As I said before, you do have the option of keeping your thoughts and beliefs to yourself... just like everybody else on this planet has that option.

So why would someone need to explain how and why they disagree with someone?

... especially if their opinion (about anything) wasn't asked for?

I've adopted "live and let live" as one of my mottos.

I think we sort of agree. I don't generally offer my beliefs about Mormonism unless asked. However, this place exists to discuss these issues, so it makes no sense to say that only those expressing support for Mormonism should post here.

[Paul Ray]

I think we sort of agree. I don't generally offer my beliefs about Mormonism unless asked. However, this place exists to discuss these issues, so it makes no sense to say that only those expressing support for Mormonism should post here.

I generally respond to people who ask how and why (and what) I (and LDS in general) believe, which pretty much gives me permission to share my beliefs with other people.

I also just express my belief, sometimes, when I have a compelling urge to do that.

... so I guess you could say there are some times I also crave some attention.

Give me a break, would ya. I'm not perfect, yet, you know.

[John Williams]

I generally respond to people who ask how and why (and what) I (and LDS in general) believe, which pretty much gives me permission to share my beliefs with other people.

I also just express my belief, sometimes, when I have a compelling urge to do that.

... so I guess you could say there are some times I also crave some attention.

Give me a break, would ya. I'm not perfect, yet, you know.

None of us is.

[SlackTime]

I don't see why not being critical would mean that everybody "kept their beliefs to themselves". I have had many discussions with people about their religion in a not critical way.

If I were to visit a Hindu board and participate with the believers on their board, I would listen to them and their beliefs. I wouldn't immediately start a thread saying. "You don't believe in Jesus so you are all going to hell!" Rather I would learn their beliefs. If I saw something that they believed I liked and also believed I would say so talking about my beliefs that were like theirs. If I saw something they believed a little differently than I, I may ask questions to make sure I understand the differences, but I wouldn't insult them or say they were wrong and I was right. If I found aspects of their beliefs that harmonized with Christ and my beliefs I would point them out. If I found things that I disagreed with, I would ask enough questions to be sure I understood their belief properly and admit that we would have to agree to disagree and having understood it, I would leave it alone.

I do not believe confrontation and offensive attitudes are helpful to understanding, and for me, that is what it is all about. Understanding, and acceptance. I am perfectly happy for the Hindi to retain his beliefs. I want to understand them, and I want him to understand me. If he chooses to join my religion after having learned it, wonderful, if not, still wonderful. At least he may understand me better and I will do my best to understand him better.

That applies to any religion, Christian or non-Christian. And I believe that dialogue and understanding approached in this manner would be much more fruitful in human inter-relations than confrontation. And make our world a better place too.

-SlackTime

[charity]

About helping apologists. One thing that impressed me with my first encounter with apologetics was the caution about becoming involved at all.

For a long time, I "lurked" on the FAIR board because I was not sure I could handle apologetics.

I would think that those who are going to become critics would have benfitted from some counsel from more experienced apologists.

But I really suspect that the "great and spacious building" is at fault. Some people are more sensitive to mocking and ridicule than others.

I don't buy the argument that the apologist turned critic has just been exposed to "the truth" at last and finally figured out he/she was wrong all along. We have discussed Dr. Terryl Givens' idea that there is plenty of information to sway anyone in either direction. Some just choose to believe and others choose to disbelieve.

[Olavarria]

Hey David Boko

What can we do for these people?

Love them

Pray for them

Fight them(non-violently of course)

[Paul Ray]

I don't see why not being critical would mean that everybody "kept their beliefs to themselves". I have had many discussions with people about their religion in a not critical way.

Try thinking of the term "critical thinking" skills.

When I think of that term, I think in terms of being analytical in my thinking.

A "critique" is a form of being critical.

Do you have any more comments?

I believe I have already explained my beliefs.

[Paul Ray]

This post about how good doughnuts are has been deleted and this is the second post that has been removed after you were told to stay on topic. Please leave the thread before you get yourself suspended. ~ Mods

[Calm]

I just find it interesting that people believe that you "drift" if you try to understand the folks on the other side. It doesn't have to be that way.

I quite agree, but I think there are some people who are susceptible to this. I think an important question to look at in answering the first post is to how to identify when this is a potential problem--what characteristics are connected with this potential for drifting.

There may not be any that can be identified, even if up close and personal...but having said that, there have been several posters I've seen over a long period of time where I've thought it likely they would 'drift' and I have unfortunately ended up being correct.

It's not that the group so much controls the narrative as perhaps the group setting controls the way the narrative is delivered.

But this includes a reward/nonreward/punishment behaviour as if one uses the language of the group, greater connection is made than if not and therefore it is more likely that the behaviour will be rewarded by being responded to. Not using the language can often result in punishment as happens in the example of LDS using salvation in ways EVs do not being punished by EVs in their labeling of LDS as "non-Christian" and "deceptive," etc.

Do you really think that most critics of the LDS church are just trying to get attention?

I think one can share one's beliefs without being offensive or overly critical.

Again I think it's a particular type and the problem is trying to identify when it's this type and not another one, say someone who just likes to engage in interesting conversation and finds this topic of interest. I think in the latter case, inflammatory behaviour is much less likely to happen UNLESS they find setting other people off is what makes conversations interesting for them. But even here there may be varying reasons for doing this; on the one hand, you may have someone who is interested in the emotional response more than the content; on the other hand, you may have someone who is actually malicious and enjoys seeing people upset.

Yep. It's difficult to pigeonhole people. Maybe one way believers can help people from becoming unbelievers is to not make assumptions about the reasons they may disbelieve.

I disagree here, I think it's very easy to pigeonhole people, it's doing it accurately that is hard.

I think not making assumptions about the reasons for belief or disbelief is key to approaching a conversation in a more detached, analytical fashion, which can help immensely when dealing with controversial subjects. If you've read Bushman's interaction with the journalists, you can see this in action even though the more personal emotional reaction is downplayed even with those that reacted in that way.

[SlackTime]

Try thinking of the term "critical thinking" skills.

When I think of that term, I think in terms of being analytical in my thinking.

A "critique" is a form of being critical.

Do you have any more comments?

I believe I have already explained my beliefs.

Only that two words derived from the same root, like critique and critical, and even the same (kinda) word used in two different contexts like "criticizing John's beliefs" and "critically evaluating John's beliefs", can have very different meanings and consequences. I can critically evaluate and apply them to my life in accordance with my evaluation without criticizing John and offending him. And I think you know that.

Also, if you will check my posting, it was an observation, not directed at anybody. You seem to have assumed that it was directed towards you.

-SlackTime

[David Bokovoy]

the fact that I come to this board and share my opinions and thoughts on the non-truth of the LDS church makes me a critic, and not merely an unbeliever. But I don't do it because I crave attention.

Sethbag,

I certainly accept the accuracy of this statement as it stands for your case. Clearly many apologists turned critics have done so for reasons other than the scenarios Iâ??ve described. I have personal friends and acquaintances that have followed this path for reasons other than failed attempts at notoriety.

However, if you will return and read the two â??fictitiousâ? scenarios I presented earlier in the thread regarding the hypothetical CES teacher and online apologist, I suspect that the specifics of the situation Iâ??m addressing will make sense as one reason that some apologists have moved towards apostasy. They have done so because of pride.

Unfortunately, pride is a sin that effects us all. I believe it serves as the root of apostasy.

As one of my favorite theologians once said:

Most of us think of pride as self-centeredness, conceit, boastfulness, arrogance, or haughtiness. All of these are elements of the sin, but the heart, or core, is still missing.

The central feature of pride is enmity -- enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means "hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition." It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us. Pride is essentially competitive in nature.

[DonBradley]

Hi David,

I missed the discussion that this thread continues, so I don't have the full context of your comments. But how would you know the motives of apologists who turn into critics? And why would those motives have to be, or even have to tend to be, self-serving? Despite the usual apologetic whitewash, LDS truth claims certainly have problems, such that even many who would like to continue to believe lose faith.

In my experience, prominent ex-LDS "critics" became such precisely by taking Mormonism seriously. One doesn't spend much of one's time and effort--much of one's life digging into the faith without taking it quite seriously. The most prominent "critics" of the Book of Mormon--Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, and David P. Wright (whom you know quite personally) entered on their studies of Mormonism with devotional and apologetic intent.

While still very much a believer--and very much one who shared the common stereotype of the evil apostate, I encountered two documents that shocked me. One was a tract written by Brent Metcalfe in the early 80s--an apologetic tract on the 1978 revelation on priesthood. The other was a letter, in the Michael Marquardt Collection, from Dan Vogel to Wesley Walters, from around the late 70s or 1980 defending the truthfulness of the church in the face of Brigham Young's Adam-God mistake. I would not have guessed, at that time, that they had begun as apologists. Now, having traveled that same path, nothing could be less surprising.

Those Latter-day Saints (if they exist) who take their faith so lightly that they would throw it aside for the petty "accolades" of the ex-Mormon crowd would never bother to dig deeply enough to become "critics" of any significance. Serious "critics" of Mormonism become such by first taking Mormonism itself seriously.

Don

P. S. I've returned to the board after only a day's absence because things appear to have cooled down, and I don't expect to inadvertantly kick any hornets' nests.

[William Schryver]

David,

I read your initial post early this morning and thought about it as I drove from Virginia, through Maryland, and into the mountains of West Virginia today. After pondering it during my drive, I concluded that, in my opinion, (and in addition to many of the comments that have been made on this thread) the primary casus belli in the â??hypotheticalâ? cases you cite is a deep-rooted predilection to contend.

This is, of course, very similar to your argument above that enmity is the root, but I think that a lust for contention often precedes actual enmity. The Book of Mormon dwells upon this concept repeatedly over the course of its account. When Alma formed the church after what was apparently a long period of apostasy, his first instructions to the new body of Saints were as follows:

Mosiah 18

19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

22 And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God.

Then, when the Savior appeared unto the Nephites, one of the very first things he taught them was:

3 Nephi 11

28 â?¦ there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

Then, in one of the first revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith (in September 1828), the Lord (after referring to the Nephites) gave this pointed commandment:

D&C 10

62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

Now, I am probably as inclined as the next guy to want to argue and â??contendâ? with my bretheren over â??points of doctrine,â? but I have begun to catch myself on such occasions, and to start to do as Benjamin Franklin endeavored to do, as described in his autobiography, wherein he made a plan to arrive at â??moral perfection.â?

My list of virtues contain'd at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride show'd itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of which he convinc'd me by mentioning several instances; I determined endeavouring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest, and I added Humility to my list, giving an extensive meaning to the word.

I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fix'd opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.

And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to natural inclination, became at length so easy, and so habitual to me, that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of integrity) I think it principally owing that I had early so much weight with my fellow-citizens when I proposed new institutions, or alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member; for I was but a bad speaker, never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my choice of words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried my points

In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this history; for, even if I could conceive that I had compleatly overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility.

Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, chapter 8

Pride, contention, enmity â?? they are all related vices. They are at root of what we have seen in these two â??hypotheticalâ? cases. They were the casus belli in Heaven. Here on earth they continue to be planted in the hearts of men by he who is the father of these things. I fear they shall yet claim many more in the days to come. I can only hope that neither you nor I ever fall victim to their savage appeal.

[Jersey Girl]

Unfortunately, pride is a sin that effects us all. I believe it serves as the root of apostasy.

Hello David,

I understand why you characterize pride as a sin however, do you recognize a type of pride that might be considered admirable and at least one motivation for those who engage in apologetics?

If that's off topic to your purpose, just ignore.

Jersey Girl