My Letter To Mormon Research Ministry

[orion88]

In your malicious zeal to manufacture a false accusation, you have simply outdone yourself. The book Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith was not compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, and has no 1938 edition.

I have the physical copy of the book. I could photocopy the inside cover for you and then

email the image to you or anyone who wishes. Or if you tell me how to post it in this forum,

I could do so. My mistake. The book is called "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -

compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith" (by the Deseret News Press).

Please advise.

[Pahoran]

I have the physical copy of the book. I could photocopy the inside cover for you and then email the image to you or anyone who wishes. Or if you tell me how to post it in this forum, I could do so. My mistake. The book is called "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith - compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith" (by the Deseret News Press).

Please advise.

So I was right.

In your tendentious haste, you simply conflated the Melchizedek Priesthood/Relief Society manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith with Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I would be naturally inclined to treat your mistake with some degree of charity, were it not that the source of that mistake was found in your unadulterated (and evidently boundless) malice.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

I have the physical copy of the book. I could photocopy the inside cover for you and then

email the image to you or anyone who wishes. Or if you tell me how to post it in this forum,

I could do so. My mistake. The book is called "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith -

compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith" (by the Deseret News Press).

Please advise.

That's not the book you cited, though. Read your citation again.

[altersteve]

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and

take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith,

1938, pp. 345-346, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). It is also found in the 2002 version but

was removed from the 2008 version.

Way to take my statement out of context, by the way.

[Vookman]

Rob,

It is precisely how people behave around those they deem to be "enemies" which defines their character. Ask Bill. There have been dozens of witnesses over the years hear him launch on me.

In any event, Bill's "honest" discourse is to show a set of 120-200 pounds of weights and challenge people to lift them, and then visualize that as the weight of the plates, based on a solid block of gold and the dimensions approximated by Joseph Smith.

We have one second hand account who quoted father Smith saying the plates weighed 30 pounds because, the source quotes, he weighed them.

We also have William Smith late in his life stating that the plates were made of a copper and gold alloy. He does not provide a source for how he knew this. Since this is some 70 years before Tumbaga was ever discussed as a possible material, it is extremely enlightening.

Bill never quotes anyone who held the plates, by the way. One need just watch him at work in part 2 of a youtube video at 1:06 into the video where he quotes John Widtsoe, citing him as "an apostle", as if that made him a witness who handled the plates. A second or two before that you can freeze the video and see he is hauling around a stack of at least 100 pounds of barbell weights (I believe the total stack is like 110 or 120 pounds), which he claims actually represent "only half" the actual weight of the plates. No witness, not one, claims a weight that high. He dutifully goes through the "solid block of gold" thesis to tell people present that is what the logical, reasonable weight of the plates must have been, based on history.

I can only say that if a person really does love people, he does not take a position based solely on personal assumptions and NEVER mention eyewitness accounts for the sole purpose of portraying that "the holy ghost is not going to tell me that this story is true". His approach is to attack the reasonableness of the listeners, attempting to portray the story's details as so inconsistent and outlandish that a thinking person could not accept it, even on faith. It is an attempt to try to corrupt the listeners faith by "facts" which are actually not facts. Is this the meaning of "come, let us reason together"?

I don't know Bill personally, as in I have not had dinner with him. I have, however, witnessed to him, and jointly presented to audiences with him. I know what it means to love people who don't love you. There are some really good examples in the books I regularly read. The example of the Bible is to preach only Jesus, and him crucified. The Good News. Hauling around a wagon with weights specifically to challenge the beliefs of other people is not promoting Jesus. That is OK. There is liberty in Christ. Paul notes different ways the Gospel is preached. But attacking another religion is never one of the methods. Hard to see how it can be construed as "giving an answer" for why someone believes when their approach is to tear down another person's belief system. No one asked the question "why are the gold plates false and how does that promote your faith in Christ?" Non sequitur.

[Calm]

In your malicious zeal to manufacture a false accusation, you have simply outdone yourself. The book Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith was not compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, and has no 1938 edition......

No doubt, in your tendentious haste, you simply conflated this manual with Joseph Fielding Smith's book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I would be naturally inclined to treat your mistake with some degree of charity, were it not that the source of that mistake was found in your unadulterated malice.

That's what happens when you carelessly plagiarized (anyone interested enough can see how he rewrote the material on LDS learning.org....rather a misnomer.)

If I am mistaken, my apologies, but the similarities are striking to me.

Edited November 3, 2011 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

That's what happens when you carelessly plagiarized (anyone interested enough can see how he rewrote the material on LDS learning.org....rather a misnomer.)

If I am mistaken, my apologies, but the similarities are striking to me.

Fascinating!

Whether Orion88 or someone else is responsible for that pile of Dreck, it was clearly prepared by someone who has no concept of ethical behaviour.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jesterss]

If you came to my house and said, "Hi, I am Bill McKeever, and I want to present my message about Christ", I'd take a moment. If I felt that the Lord guided you to my door, then I would listen further. Mormon Missionaries did not ONCE ask me what religion I was, or what theology I had once... They asked if they could share their message, and I listened. No bashing, no comparisons. Just a presentation of that which they believe.

That is the difference I see. You would NEVER see a Mormon Mission to Catholics, or the Mormon Mission to Scientologists (and I despise that religion). We just present our message and let the chips fall where they may.

Jehovah Witnesses came to my door. They did the same thing you do. They specifically targeted my religion and started a bash session in my home. When I asked if we could have a prayer, they said only if they could say the prayer. I promptly tossed them out. They lost me because they wanted to push the idea that their religion was right and mine was wrong in a very non-Christian way.

JSKAINS:

I actually was ok with your post until I re-read this part and actually thought about the most recent time some Mormon Missionaries actually came to my house about 3 months ago. You say you would never see a mormon mission to catholics or scientologists. But what about other christians? The missionaries who came to my house felt that I was wrong. They acknowledged that I knew the bible, but told me that I needed to pray that the BOM was true and find my answer. Ok, well that was just the beginning. Because I actually find that offensive but it's trivial. Anyway, what was most offensive is that I am married to a woman who was raised as a Mormon, and although she doesn't have the answers (one of the many reasons I come to these boards) she still insists she is a Mormon and the Missionaries did indeed ask both of our religions. So although you or the missionaries you know may claim to not ask anyone their religion, these did. Well once my wife explained she was Mormon, the attention of the missionaries immediately turned to my wife (whom we had already discussed the focus of the mission was not to be about her, but focused on me). One of the missionaries pushed an extremely offensive guilt trip upon my wife and it actually upset her. Instead of fighting back (she's not the fighting type) she just left the room. I think the other 2 missionaries noticed what the one did but neither of them spoke up against him, in fact, one of them did add that it would help her to go back to church more, but didn't express the opinions that the other did. Anyway, with my experience I would have to strongly disagree with your statements, because although my wife may be the same religion, they attacked her for not being as active as they think she should be. An extreme guilt trip. And on top of that, tell me that I need to pray their way in order to find out that it's true. Someone telling me how I should pray is indeed forcing their theology down my throat. So it does go both ways.

[diglot]

JSKAINS:

I actually was ok with your post until I re-read this part and actually thought about the most recent time some Mormon Missionaries actually came to my house about 3 months ago. You say you would never see a mormon mission to catholics or scientologists. But what about other christians? The missionaries who came to my house felt that I was wrong. They acknowledged that I knew the bible, but told me that I needed to pray that the BOM was true and find my answer. Ok, well that was just the beginning. Because I actually find that offensive but it's trivial. Anyway, what was most offensive is that I am married to a woman who was raised as a Mormon, and although she doesn't have the answers (one of the many reasons I come to these boards) she still insists she is a Mormon and the Missionaries did indeed ask both of our religions. So although you or the missionaries you know may claim to not ask anyone their religion, these did. Well once my wife explained she was Mormon, the attention of the missionaries immediately turned to my wife (whom we had already discussed the focus of the mission was not to be about her, but focused on me). One of the missionaries pushed an extremely offensive guilt trip upon my wife and it actually upset her. Instead of fighting back (she's not the fighting type) she just left the room. I think the other 2 missionaries noticed what the one did but neither of them spoke up against him, in fact, one of them did add that it would help her to go back to church more, but didn't express the opinions that the other did. Anyway, with my experience I would have to strongly disagree with your statements, because although my wife may be the same religion, they attacked her for not being as active as they think she should be. An extreme guilt trip. And on top of that, tell me that I need to pray their way in order to find out that it's true. Someone telling me how I should pray is indeed forcing their theology down my throat. So it does go both ways.

All the missionaries I have talked to had no qualms in telling me I was wrong in my beliefs, that Christianity has been in apostasy since the apostolic period, etc. When we opened and close the sessions in prayer, they had no qualms telling me that they wanted me to pray a specific way. I would label these things as them trying to tell me that they were right, and I was wrong.

The only thing separating the Mormon missionaries I have met, from the Jehovah Witnesses etc., is that the Mormons were nice in telling me I was wrong and they were right. They also seem happy to find common ground between us and build up off of that (instead of trying to tear everything down that we have in common which is what some JW's and EV's do).

I would say, on the whole, all my experiences with the LDS missionaries and non-missionary LDS have been quite nice, but like practically all religious missionaries, they were undoubtedly trying to push the idea that their particular religion was true. They were just nicer in how they did so.

Edited November 3, 2011 by diglot

[thesometimesaint]

diglot:

Such is the case in all discussions, be they religious or not. When you have two competeing ideas both can be wrong, but only one can be right.

[Jesterss]

All the missionaries I have talked to had no qualms in telling me I was wrong in my beliefs, that Christianity has been in apostasy since the apostolic period, etc. When we opened and close the sessions in prayer, they had no qualms telling me that they wanted me to pray a specific way. I would label these things as them trying to tell me that they were right, and I was wrong.

The only thing separating the Mormon missionaries I have met, from the Jehovah Witnesses etc., is that the Mormons were nice in telling me I was wrong and they were right. They also seem happy to find common ground between us and build up off of that (instead of trying to tear everything down that we have in common which is what some JW's and EV's do).

I would say, on the whole, all my experiences with the LDS missionaries and non-missionary LDS have been quite nice, but like practically all religious missionaries, they were undoubtedly trying to push the idea that their particular religion was true. They were just nicer in how they did so.

Exactly my sentiment! I had forgotten in the end when I said the prayer that one of them thought the way I said it was peculiar. He couldn't pin point what was wrong but he said "something was just different" about that. Maybe he actually liked it, I dunno, but to call it strange or peculiar doesn't seem like that's what he meant.

But I do agree. Mormons preach their gospel in such the same pattern, except try to make it in a nicer manner. I go by context, not emotion though, so it comes off as pretty much the same to me.

[Jesterss]

ERayR,

What do you think about this scriptural quote:

²¹Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

²²Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

²³And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In regards to our earlier discussion about who can be considered Christian. Just because you profess his name, does it really make you a Christian? Edited November 3, 2011 by Jesterss

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

Don't forget the rest of the Scripture.

;but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[LeSellers]

In regards to our earlier discussion about who can be considered Christian. Just because you profess his name, does it really make you a Christian?

We now get to the nexus of the issue: What does it mean to be a "Christian"? The Bilbe, sadly lacking in this regard, does not tell us what it means, and we are left to decide for ourselves.

Dictionaries do not tell us what a word means; they only tell us what the majority of people mean when they use a word: they are "descriptive", not "proscriptive". With that in mind, we turn to a rather ordinary example and find this.

—n

1. a. a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ

b. a member of a Christian Church or denomination

2. informal a person who possesses Christian virtues, esp practical ones

—adj

3. of, relating to, or derived from Jesus Christ, his teachings, example, or his followers

4. (sometimes not capital) exhibiting kindness or goodness

Here's another one.

A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.

A follower of Jesus and his teachings. Christian is also a descriptive term for the institutions and practices of Christianity.

There is nothing in this that precludes anyone from calling himself a "Christian", as long as he "Follows Jesus". I submit that we Saints do, and that, therefore, we are Christians.

Here's one more that makes a point I have been working with for many years.

the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

As I have said many times, you all faithfully call us "Saints", and I'll gladly stop calling myself a "Christian" (which, if my studies are correct, was more than a mere "reproach": it was completely derogatory—it simultaneously labeled the Saint "idiots" and Christ a "failure", but that's not the issue here).

Lehi

[Jesterss]

We now get to the nexus of the issue: What does it mean to be a "Christian"? The Bilbe, sadly lacking in this regard, does not tell us what it means, and we are left to decide for ourselves.

It does tell us what it is, just as thesometimesaint pointed it, a Christian is "he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

But as far as the actual word Christian being defined in the bible, of course not. But we do have it explained to us as to what it means to be one.

Dictionaries do not tell us what a word means; they only tell us what the majority of people mean when they use a word: they are "descriptive", not "proscriptive". With that in mind, we turn to a rather ordinary example and find this.

I would agree. It's all a descriptive nature of a word being as brief as possible, without the actual context of what is meant by it in the bible.

There is nothing in this that precludes anyone from calling himself a "Christian", as long as he "Follows Jesus". I submit that we Saints do, and that, therefore, we are Christians.

Of course not, but as equals in our seeking to understand our path of righteousness, I think we can agree that not anyone can be considered a christian by definition or self-proclaimed definition alone. But it doesn't make it so in the eyes of the Lord.

Here's one more that makes a point I have been working with for many years.

As I have said many times, you all faithfully call us "Saints", and I'll gladly stop calling myself a "Christian" (which, if my studies are correct, was more than a mere "reproach": it was completely derogatory—it simultaneously labeled the Saint "idiots" and Christ a "failure", but that's not the issue here).

I don't call you anything or label you as anything because I refuse to judge what I don't know. That statement would stand for even my wife. I wouldn't judge her because I don't know how Jesus will judge any of us. So I won't label you as anything. Just as I don't expect you to label me as anything. (all labels regarding faith of course) Edited November 3, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

With the above statements of mine in mind, I only make the statements I make here based on my understanding of biblical scripture and the conflicting nature of yours with mine. It doesn't mean I judge you, rather that I just provide my rebuttle or reasoning to see where it stands with yours.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

As a follower of Christ I accept the title of Christian, and don't regard any other follower of Christ as a nonChristian. To me it is the same with being called a Mormon. I don't follow Mormon, any more than I follow Peter, James, John, or Paul. I don't really object to be being called a Mormon, but I personally prefer Saint.

[T-Shirt]

When a court's ruling, based upon its understanding of the Constitution, is overturned by a higher court's ruling, based upon it's understanding of the constitution, would it be reasonable for the lower court to then declare that the higher court is not truly American? Or would it it be reasonable for the higher court to declare the same thing about the lower court?

When these two groups of people come to different conclusions, based on the same documents, should we conclude that at least one of these groups cannot be American?

T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

When these two groups of people come to different conclusions, based on the same documents, should we conclude that at least one of these groups cannot be American?

Based on the way the american system works of course not. But this isn't a fair comparison, because we do not make the judgement on who is right and wrong heaven. And just because we believe we are christian, doesn't mean that we truly are. Because, as we know, Jesus is the ultimate judge. The american system is set up in such a way that these different rulings can take place and it's part of the system because as humans we are erroneous in some of our thinking. Jesus and God are not. To compare people who are full of errors and sins with entities who are perfect is a completely erroneous comparison.. They do not make mistakes in their judgement and therefore do not need our assistance in such judgements. So when Jesus tells us that just because we proclaim his name and profess in his name, doesn't mean we are truly following the path he set for us..

[LeSellers]

we do not make the judgement on who is right and wrong heaven. And just because we believe we are christian, doesn't mean that we truly are. Because, as we know, Jesus is the ultimate judge.

The issue of what a "Christian" is ,is not one Christ cares about. He's never called His people "Christians" in any period. He called us "Saints", He called us "friends", etc.,but not "Christians"

You are using a definition of "Christian" that equates to "saved" (or, in LDS terminology, "exalted"), but, as we saw earlier, "Christian", as an English word, is not about salvation, but about the label itself.

LAbels are not bad things. Labels are tools. We use them to make decisions easier, to forgo trying to identify a thing afresh every time we see it (or one like it). We go to the grocery store to buy "bread", not a kind of food made of flour or meal mixed with water or milk kneaded into a dough or mixed into a batter, with or without a leavening agent (often yeast), and baked and typically with a crust of caramelized sugars on the surface, and checking the ingredients on every package in the store (which, by the way, is organized by labels) to ascertain whether this item is such a kind of food.

Calling someone a Christian is like buying bread: we know quite a bit more about him with the label than without it. It may be that the bread (Christian) is "stale", or "moldy", but it started out with flour and yeast (or a belief in Jesus Christ as Savior); it might even be mislabeled (either innocently or maliciously), but we still have a standard to judge it by. If it does not meet the standard, we toss it out (or feed it to the worms). But, in the case of Christ and the Apostles who will judge the world, they do not need such labels: they already know. That's a significant advantage over us.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

I'm not particularly interested in disputing your account of your encounters with Bill McKeever. That's an issue between the two of you.

Regarding the gold plates, Bill does not need to cite the witnesses who handled the plates because he's not disputing their accounts concerning the wight of the plates. That is, he's not arguing that the plates were much heavier than the witnesses claimed. Quite the opposite. He's arguing that because the witnesses testified that they have no trouble lifting the plates, they could not have been solid gold in composition. Of course, where one goes in the argument following that conclusion is another question, but the point remains that your complaint about Bill not citing the witnesses regarding the weight of the plates really isn't pertinent to his argument.

You wrote:

Paul notes different ways the Gospel is preached. But attacking another religion is never one of the methods.

Perhaps you missed Paul's speech in Athens (Acts 17:22-31). Most of the speech is a critique of Athenian religion.

[Vance]

Bob,

I'm not particularly interested in disputing your account of your encounters with Bill McKeever. That's an issue between the two of you.

Regarding the gold plates, Bill does not need to cite the witnesses who handled the plates because he's not disputing their accounts concerning the wight of the plates. That is, he's not arguing that the plates were much heavier than the witnesses claimed. Quite the opposite. He's arguing that because the witnesses testified that they have no trouble lifting the plates, they could not have been solid gold in composition.

So, he created a strawman to flog for his sycophantic crowds.

I am glad you can admit that it is a strawman. We all know that it was NEVER claimed to "have been solid gold in composition".

Of course, where one goes in the argument following that conclusion is another question, but the point remains that your complaint about Bill not citing the witnesses regarding the weight of the plates really isn't pertinent to his argument.

But it is pertinent to the truth. Which, OBVIOUSLY, Bill isn't interested in.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Vance

[Pahoran]

Perhaps you missed Paul's speech in Athens (Acts 17:22-31). Most of the speech is a critique of Athenian religion.

Perhaps you missed Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Despite his previous run-in with the first century Institute for Religious Research, a.k.a. Demetrius the Silversmith and his buddies, no part of it is devoted to "exposing" the errors of the cult of Diana (Artemis) which was the respectable "mainstream" form of religious expression in Ephesus.

But having read Acts 17:22-31 a number of times, I find little or nothing there that looks like the result of any "research" into the particular forms or beliefs of Greek religion. Idolatry gets denounced in fairly general terms; the shrine "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD" is actually mentioned as a point of contact rather than as a matter of reproach.

But it is true that Paul, always a combative person, seems to have dwelt overmuch on what was wrong with the Athenian religion and not enough on what was right with the Gospel. Perhaps that explains why he seems to have abandoned that approach after that occasion.

Wherefore go, and do thou likewise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jesterss]

The issue of what a "Christian" is ,is not one Christ cares about. He's never called His people "Christians" in any period. He called us "Saints", He called us "friends", etc.,but not "Christians"

You are using a definition of "Christian" that equates to "saved" (or, in LDS terminology, "exalted"), but, as we saw earlier, "Christian", as an English word, is not about salvation, but about the label itself.

So what you said earlier about the calling you saints, is 1. Jesus never used the word Christian so the word Christian only carries the meaning of someone who follows christ. 2. You want to be called Saints because that's what Jesus did use. Is that a better understanding of your meaning? If so, I can agree to point 1, but not necessarily point 2. Point 2 is contingent on me believing your belief of Jesus is right or in the least trying to be, which, I am willing to accept on your behalf, but not to follow your ideology or profess it as right. I will continue to rebuke your ideology that doesn't mesh with mine, but I'm willing to accept your path of being of a similar course as mine. Just as I would suspect the same from you.

LAbels are not bad things. Labels are tools. We use them to make decisions easier, to forgo trying to identify a thing afresh every time we see it (or one like it). We go to the grocery store to buy "bread", not a kind of food made of flour or meal mixed with water or milk kneaded into a dough or mixed into a batter, with or without a leavening agent (often yeast), and baked and typically with a crust of caramelized sugars on the surface, and checking the ingredients on every package in the store (which, by the way, is organized by labels) to ascertain whether this item is such a kind of food.

Never said they were bad, just said I refuse to label someone whom I don't know or have the ability to Judge. But by your doctrine I know that your ideology conflicts with mine, therefore, I refuse to still label you as anything other than what you want. I'll call you what you want, but it doesn't make you or me any more or less right. But I do at least get what you meant now.

Calling someone a Christian is like buying bread: we know quite a bit more about him with the label than without it. It may be that the bread (Christian) is "stale", or "moldy", but it started out with flour and yeast (or a belief in Jesus Christ as Savior); it might even be mislabeled (either innocently or maliciously), but we still have a standard to judge it by. If it does not meet the standard, we toss it out (or feed it to the worms). But, in the case of Christ and the Apostles who will judge the world, they do not need such labels: they already know. That's a significant advantage over us.

Just as the bolded statement implies, we as humans, cannot fully understand or know anyones full intent. We do not know what they do in the time they aren't around us or what they truly believe in. We only know by what they tell us. But if Christ and his Apostles don't need labels, why does anyone else? Edit: this can just be taken as rhetorical as obviously you already stated people need labels because it helps to distinguish, but it still serves as something to think about Edited November 3, 2011 by Jesterss

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

The fact is that Joseph had some kind of metal plates in his possession that were between 40 and 60 pounds. This is consistent with the proposed Mesoamerican model of the Book of Mormon's setting, as you said yourself.

How is a limited Mesoamerican context problematic for you?

Well, a full answer would require a book; consider what I say here to be a highly simplified, short answer. The idea that the Book of Mormon, written on a set of plates weighing by your own estimate around 50 pounds, was buried over 3,000 miles away from the place where the writing was supposedly completed, in a culture lacking the wheel, is an obvious problem. The fact that Joseph Smith clearly taught that the North American Indians were direct descendants of Israelites who had migrated to the Americas is another problem. These two points would support either a limited North American model or a hemispheric model. However, in my judgment the most likely understanding of Book of Mormon "geography" is the hemispheric model, despite the fact that such a model won't work in many of the details. That is I don't assume that the Book of Mormon presents a successful and true geographical description, but what description we have, in the context of Joseph Smith's own understanding of the book, seems to me to support a hemispheric model.