Poll Shows 80% Of Unmarried Evangelicals (18 To 29) Are Sexually Active

[smac97]

Here:

I’m coming a bit late to this piece, but the October 2011 issue of Relevant magazine contains a must-read article for those who see the need for a rather profound cultural course correction. It turns out that 80 percent of unmarried evangelicals (18 to 29) are sexually active. Yes, 80 percent. For all unmarried young adults the total is 88 percent. Oh, and even as 80 percent of young unmarried evangelicals are sexually active, 76 percent of evangelicals still believe sex outside of marriage is wrong.

This is disturbing. We Latter-day Saints may disagree with Evangelicals on many doctrinal issues, but we are brothers-in-arms when it comes to this sort of thing.

And it gets worse:

Even worse, 65 percent of women who abort their children identify as Catholic or Protestant Christian — that’s 650,000 Christian abortions per year.

So Evangelicals seem to be doing very poorly on these two very important issues. I wonder where things stand with the Latter-day Saints.

More:

The article discusses the common causes. Of course our pop culture celebrates sex and porn is ubiquitous. ... Most insightful, however, is the observation that even as the evangelical church has held theologically – though not morally — to biblical sexual standards, it has fallen in lockstep behind the larger cultural trend of delayed marriage. It’s one kind of challenge to wait until you’re 18. It’s another challenge entirely to wait until you’re 28.

Again, I wonder where the LDS Church ends up on these points.

More:

Christians have long understood a basic truth that they are to be “in, but not of” the world, but what does it mean to remain “in” a world that lurches ever-further from core biblical standards? If the practical result is a church that forever remains only slightly countercultural, then the church’s standards will simply act as trailing-edge indicators of cultural change.

I think Mormons have something of an advantage here. We have a number of elements of our faith that are manifestly "countercultural." The Book or Mormon sets us apart, both from mainstream secular culture in general and also the rest of Christendom. We have a visible and acknowledged hierarchical leadership structure. A strong missionary culture. A strong emphasis on families and marriage as being "eternal." A clear, unequivocal doctrinal position on extramarital sex, as well as consistent messaging from the leadership on this point.

Nevertheless, we LDS struggle with this issue. I just wonder if that struggle is as huge as the numbers reflected amongst Evangelicals.

The blogger concludes well:

In a previous post I talked about reframing our marriage debate as a “marriage restoration” movement, but we can’t talk about marriage without linking it to the larger sexual/moral ethic of Christendom. Otherwise we will fast approach a point where the distinction between Christian and non-Christian conduct will be so vanishingly small that one could wonder if we maintained any distinct witness to our neighbors and our nation.

In other words, hypocrisy ("a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess") is doing tremendous damage, both to Christians (who are failing to live by the important virtues they espouse) and potential Christians (who will likely exhibit a Zoramite-like rejection of the message of Christianity when its adherents fail to abide by its most sacred tenets).

Thoughts?

-Smac

[Calm]

"Protestant Christian" is not equivalent to evangelical so the abortion stat doesn't deal with that subgroup and I don't see how one could estimate it given that not all Protestant view abortion the same way.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown year by year comparing first sexual experience, age when sexual experience became common behaviour (rather than viewing it as a mistake to be repented of), age at marriage and longevity of marriage to come up with the current cultural 'best' time to get married in order to avoid both premarital sex but boost the probability of marital success and avoidance of divorce.

Edited December 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I know many,many, LDS active or otherwise who were or are sexually active. Right before my mission our newly minted EQ PREs, recent RM got his active LDS girlfriend pregnant and not a blooming thing happened to him disciplinary wise. i could write all night about this subject!

[CQUIRK]

Sorry, but I find the irony of this to be hilarious.

[smac97]

What irony?

[altersteve]

I'm sure many members of the Church aren't much better.

[Sine Saw Square]

I'm shocked! Shocked to discover that religious people have sex drives!

Maybe the GAs could address sexuality once and a while in General Conference...

[kolipoki09]

I know many,many, LDS active or otherwise who were or are sexually active. Right before my mission our newly minted EQ PREs, recent RM got his active LDS girlfriend pregnant and not a blooming thing happened to him disciplinary wise. i could write all night about this subject!

I suspect these statistics as applied to Evangelicals are probably just as prevalent among Latter-day Saints, though I lack the statistical data to back it up.

I'm sure there are several who waited and were happy. Then again, I've known seemingly faithful Latter-day Saints have sex before marriage and (contrary to cultural stigmas associated with it) the whole world didn't come crumbling down around them.

Ultimately, what goes on disciplinary-wise is dictated by local leaders who (generally speaking) know only what they're told. That doesn't rule out inspiration, but I think in most cases, Church leaders simply give people the benefit of the doubt - unless it has the potential to damage the image or reputation of the Church as a whole.

[Storm Rider]

It appears that reporting on the morals of EVs is frowned upon here. I think LDS have a visceral distaste of anyone that is perceived as attacking another religion on a single facet or a small focus. We readily understand and remember how often such attacks are leveled at our own church/membership and we reject all such attacks.

However, on another level it would be of interest to posit why this may be an issue within the EV movement as a whole. If I had to guess I would first look to doctrines on God's grace; once saved always saved, etc. It may be much easier to fall to temptation if we also believed that nothing we did affected our eternal position because we were "saved".

All people suffer from their carnal natures and learning to subjugate the desires fo the flesh in order to allow the spirit to strengthen and become more like our Savior. LDS certainly are sinners and many of our brothers and sisters have fallen short of obeying the law of chastity. However, it would not surprise me to know that LDS have a lower incidence of sexual immorality than groups that teach a doctrine of being saved by grace. We teach a law of chastity and we acknowledge that living unrighteously distances us from our Father in Heaven, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. It may be that this type of teaching aids those who seek to be disciples of Christ to be more disciplined.

I wonder if there really are differences or this degree of immorality is found among all Christian groups?

[kolipoki09]

However, it would not surprise me to know that LDS have a lower incidence of sexual immorality than groups that teach a doctrine of being saved by grace. We teach a law of chastity and we acknowledge that living unrighteously distances us from our Father in Heaven, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. It may be that this type of teaching aids those who seek to be disciples of Christ to be more disciplined.

We are saved by grace, through faith, not by our own righteousness, but by our faith in His righteousness.

We teach the law of chastity so as to not make a mockery of Christ's atonement and as an outward reflection of an inward commitment to live Christlike lives.

When we fail to allow divine grace to work us into new beings - that is, beings capable of partaking of His divine nature, we damn ourselves.

I think that by and large, Evangelicals have many of the same moral standards for very similar reasons. However, the "once saved, always saved" minority advocating what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" is profoundly unfortunate. It's the preaching of forgiveness without true repentance, claimed salvation with no baptism, and communion without confession. It is the idea that "of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness."

That is, opposed to Bonhoeffer's views on "costly grace."

"[Costly Grace] is one that includes a call to discipleship and a lifetime of commitment, dedication, and a willingness to follow Him and His commandments through faith."

Were Latter-day Saints given the opportunity to examine mainstream Evangelical Christianity (i.e. the faith of Blomberg, McDermott, and Mouw), I have a strong feeling that they might not view the "divide" to be so wide after all.

[cinepro]

I'm shocked! Shocked to discover that religious people have sex drives!

Maybe the GAs could address sexuality once and a while in General Conference...

Or at least update the manuals...

This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth.

- "Chapter 6: Mature Intimacy: Courtship and Marriage," A Parent’s Guide, (1985)

Edited December 13, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

I know many,many, LDS active or otherwise who were or are sexually active. Right before my mission our newly minted EQ PREs, recent RM got his active LDS girlfriend pregnant and not a blooming thing happened to him disciplinary wise. i could write all night about this subject!

I have a good friend who became the Bishop to a single's ward in Los Angeles. Not soon after, he shared his shock with me over the things he was being told in interviews. Obviously, he would only speak in general terms, but it seems the young single adults in his ward were very comfortable with each other and had rationalized all sorts of behavior that most LDS would consider unchaste.

Edited December 13, 2011 by cinepro

[why me]

The key is in defining 'sexually active'. Sexually active usually means that they are having sex often which would be different from just having sex one time with a partner than with being sexually active with several partners overtime. It would be interesting to know just how many mormons in this case are sexually active and yet, still haven't been disfellowship or excommunicated. And I think that this is the key. With the evangelicals, I don't think they are excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Mormons can be after they have repented to the bishop. And of course, once they have repented and are still sexually active, excommunication will probably follow.

Edited December 13, 2011 by why me

[why me]

It appears that reporting on the morals of EVs is frowned upon here. I think LDS have a visceral distaste of anyone that is perceived as attacking another religion on a single facet or a small focus. We readily understand and remember how often such attacks are leveled at our own church/membership and we reject all such attacks.

This is true which cannot be said of other religious boards that regularly attack the lds faith. However, to have a discussion about EV unmarrieds being sexually active that is not condecending or negative toward a their faith is possible.

[Rivers]

Or at least update the manuals...

How the heck did that ridiculous statement make it into a manual? That's not that long ago.

I was reading about the law of chastity in the new Gospel Principles book recently and I noticed that there was no mentioning of sex as way of expressing love between a husband and wife. It only talks about sex as a way of bringing children into the world.

[why me]

I have a good friend who became the Bishop to a single's ward in Los Angeles. Not soon after, he shared his shock with me over the things he was being told in interviews. Obviously, he would only speak in general terms, but it seems the young single adults in his ward were very comfortable with each other and had rationalized all sorts of behavior that most LDS would consider unchaste.

This would be the case with a society focused on sexual behavior. The media is full of imaging in this regard. Something that wasn't the case in the past. If one watches old american TV series one can see lucy and ricky sleeping in separate beds and I don't believe june and cleaver slept in the same bed either even though they are married. America was rather prudish in the past. But now...it is just the opposite. Sexual imaging and temptation is within the fabric of society. This has much to do with the pornofication of society. And the church, I believe, is aware of this when dealing with repentance. Excommunication is not the immediate response because times have become more sexually tempting.

[why me]

I was reading about the law of chastity in the new Gospel Principles book recently and I noticed that there was no mentioning of sex as way of expressing love between a husband and wife. It only talks about sex as a way of bringing children into the world.

It should be mentioned but perhaps expressions of love is a given while bringing children into the world isn't. In the past, the adage was: multiply and replenish the earth. I don't see this nowadays as lds families are getting smaller. I also remember members speaking about bringing spirit children into the world, to give them physical bodies. But all this was long ago. I don't hear this that much these days.

[Storm Rider]

We are saved by grace, through faith, not by our own righteousness, but by our faith in His righteousness.

We teach the law of chastity so as to not make a mockery of Christ's atonement and as an outward reflection of an inward commitment to live Christlike lives.

When we fail to allow divine grace to work us into new beings - that is, beings capable of partaking of His divine nature, we damn ourselves.

I think that by and large, Evangelicals have many of the same moral standards for very similar reasons. However, the "once saved, always saved" minority advocating what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" is profoundly unfortunate. It's the preaching of forgiveness without true repentance, claimed salvation with no baptism, and communion without confession. It is the idea that "of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness."

That is, opposed to Bonhoeffer's views on "costly grace."

"[Costly Grace] is one that includes a call to discipleship and a lifetime of commitment, dedication, and a willingness to follow Him and His commandments through faith."

Were Latter-day Saints given the opportunity to examine mainstream Evangelical Christianity (i.e. the faith of Blomberg, McDermott, and Mouw), I have a strong feeling that they might not view the "divide" to be so wide after all.

First, Bonhoeffer could hardly be considered an Evangelist and his teachings and understanding of discipleship would not, could not, be accepted by most Evangelicals, IMHO.

Second, please do not think I misunderstand the concept or teaching of being saved by Grace; we teach this as LDS. However, the focus of comments were on those Evangelicals that preach incessantly a form of Grace that more ressembles "eat, drink, and be merry" because we are saved and nothing we do matters, it has not affect on our eternal salvation because we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.

This position is at odds with any degree of understanding that "if ye love me, keep my commandments", the reason for a judgment of our actions, discipleship, etc. Their teachings are too easily misconstrued and twisted by the typical EV.

In my hometown a good friend of mine from my high school days stopped attending the First Baptist church because it was too "uncomfortable" looking around the congregation and looking at all the exchanging of marriage partners that had occurred over time. It too closely, for him, resembled wife swapping. This was on top of the widespread immorality among the membership at large. Souther Baptists, as members, too easily feel no need to live a Godly life because they think they are saved regardless of their actions. This teaching is difficult for most of their members to understand fully and result in a widespread ignorance of obeying God.

[Sine Saw Square]

Or at least update the manuals...

Read thru that whole chapter. I didn't find any concepts that were out of date. The manual's use of the term "sex drive" was different than what I meant. In it's vocabulary I would have written "sexual passions" or "desires". I think what the manual terms as "sex drive" is the idea that one would have no control to put off sexual behavior. That goes against the doctrine of personal agency. What did you find out-dated there Cinepro?

[kolipoki09]

First, Bonhoeffer could hardly be considered an Evangelist and his teachings and understanding of discipleship would not, could not, be accepted by most Evangelicals, IMHO.

Well, he's only required reading for the overwhelming majority of mainline Protestant theological seminaries and has been for well over fifty years. He's widely respected and considered one of the premier thinkers in the development of "discipleship" among mainline Protestant faiths, particularly Lutheranism.

Second, please do not think I misunderstand the concept or teaching of being saved by Grace; we teach this as LDS. However, the focus of comments were on those Evangelicals that preach incessantly a form of Grace that more ressembles "eat, drink, and be merry" because we are saved and nothing we do matters, it has not affect on our eternal salvation because we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.

I'm unaware of any mainstream Evangelicals teaching this. The idea is certainly prevalent among the rising generation of mega-church fundamentalism, but historically, it has very little foundation in Evangelical Protestantism.

This position is at odds with any degree of understanding that "if ye love me, keep my commandments", the reason for a judgment of our actions, discipleship, etc. Their teachings are too easily misconstrued and twisted by the typical EV.

In my hometown a good friend of mine from my high school days stopped attending the First Baptist church because it was too "uncomfortable" looking around the congregation and looking at all the exchanging of marriage partners that had occurred over time. It too closely, for him, resembled wife swapping. This was on top of the widespread immorality among the membership at large. Souther Baptists, as members, too easily feel no need to live a Godly life because they think they are saved regardless of their actions. This teaching is difficult for most of their members to understand fully and result in a widespread ignorance of obeying God.

The failure of certain Southern Baptists to live up to a biblical moral precedent is not to disprove the validity of Evangelicalism, but rather illustrates a problem prevalent in nearly all churches - the struggle of reconciling carnal desires of the flesh with the desire to live a Christlike life. It's a constant battle, waged in chapels and homes around the country. Perhaps Rob Bowman might be able to weigh in here, but I don't think Bob believes he can "sin on more that grace may increase" (see Romans 6). To the contrary, many Southern Baptists follow the commandments as they best understand them, while simultaneously "working out their salvation with fear and trembling."

I served as a missionary in a region dominated by Evangelicals, particularly Southern Baptists. I met some who wanted to spit in my face and attack me, as well as my faith. Others would've given me the shirts off their backs. Now, I'm aware of Evangelical missionaries here in Idaho (several of whom I consider friends) who have experienced precisely the same thing with Latter-day Saints. They see active LDS teens smoking, drinking, and having sex Monday through Saturday, and sitting behind the table blessing the sacrament on Sundays. They see LDS neighbors ostracize them for not having an eternal smile under their white shirts, or a host of other cultural cliches. To them, the "typical Mormon" isn't much different from the "typical EV" you've described. It's an unfortunate stereotype and one I've been reluctant to use.

I grant that there are some who preach an "eat, drink, and be merry" type of grace. I have a close family member who in the last few years has removed his name from the records of the Church and has since openly embraced Protestant fundamentalism. He's even gone so far as to write an expose of the Church and of our family, while simultaneously living in a bisexual polygamous relationship. It would be easy for me to want to stereotype all EV's as advocating a similar lifestyle, yet I give the Evangelicals the benefit of the doubt, allow them to speak for themselves (i.e. Mouw, Zacharias, McDermott, Johnson, Blomberg, Mosser, Owen), and expect the same from them.

[Storm Rider]

Well, he's only required reading for the overwhelming majority of mainline Protestant theological seminaries and has been for well over fifty years. He's widely respected and considered one of the premier thinkers in the development of "discipleship" among mainline Protestant faiths, particularly Lutheranism.

I'm unaware of any mainstream Evangelicals teaching this. The idea is certainly prevalent among the rising generation of mega-church fundamentalism, but historically, it has very little foundation in Evangelical Protestantism.

The failure of certain Southern Baptists to live up to a biblical moral precedent is not to disprove the validity of Evangelicalism, but rather illustrates a problem prevalent in nearly all churches - the struggle of reconciling carnal desires of the flesh with the desire to live a Christlike life. It's a constant battle, waged in chapels and homes around the country. Perhaps Rob Bowman might be able to weigh in here, but I don't think Bob believes he can "sin on more that grace may increase" (see Romans 6). To the contrary, many Southern Baptists follow the commandments as they best understand them, while simultaneously "working out their salvation with fear and trembling."

I served as a missionary in a region dominated by Evangelicals, particularly Southern Baptists. I met some who wanted to spit in my face and attack me, as well as my faith. Others would've given me the shirts off their backs. Now, I'm aware of Evangelical missionaries here in Idaho (several of whom I consider friends) who have experienced precisely the same thing with Latter-day Saints. They see active LDS teens smoking, drinking, and having sex Monday through Saturday, and sitting behind the table blessing the sacrament on Sundays. They see LDS neighbors ostracize them for not having an eternal smile under their white shirts, or a host of other cultural cliches. To them, the "typical Mormon" isn't much different from the "typical EV" you've described. It's an unfortunate stereotype and one I've been reluctant to use.

I grant that there are some who preach an "eat, drink, and be merry" type of grace. I have a close family member who in the last few years has removed his name from the records of the Church and has since openly embraced Protestant fundamentalism. He's even gone so far as to write an expose of the Church and of our family, while simultaneously living in a bisexual polygamous relationship. It would be easy for me to want to stereotype all EV's as advocating a similar lifestyle, yet I give the Evangelicals the benefit of the doubt, allow them to speak for themselves (i.e. Mouw, Zacharias, McDermott, Johnson, Blomberg, Mosser, Owen), and expect the same from them.

I am communicating very badly. To teach saved by grace to such a degree that members think they can live any way they please is my issue. I grew up in the Northwest Florida. The SB control every town in the panhandle both politically and spiritually (i.e. they always have biggest churches and following at the FBC).

Bonhoeffer may be read, but I find no similarity between his teachings and that of the SBC. He is one of my favorites and I enjoy him immensely.

Finally, sterotypes abound among all people about "those" other people. They exist among the LDS people as they do all peoples. I speak form first hand experience and from my friends who have shared their views of their own churches and beliefs. I know of no membership that has a complete understanding of their respective church's doctrines or beliefs, not one. They all have to one degree or another a misunderstanding of teaching. My entire point is that the manner in which EVs teach their doctrine often causes a feeling of spiritual invulneribility; they are saved and that is all that there is to it, end of story.

I am not aware of any EV that feels they need to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Who teaches that within the EV ranks?

[Duncan]

I have a good friend who became the Bishop to a single's ward in Los Angeles. Not soon after, he shared his shock with me over the things he was being told in interviews. Obviously, he would only speak in general terms, but it seems the young single adults in his ward were very comfortable with each other and had rationalized all sorts of behavior that most LDS would consider unchaste.

the whole sex and the Church thing...so many of my friends have done something they felt was wrong and have just walked away and a few others have been disciplined and also have walked away and one said to me that they feel like they are being punished for something that is totally normal-having a sex drive-not whatever they did. Plus it is easy for a married Bishop or whoever to say "don't do xyz" to an unmarried single all the while they can go home and do it and never have to live with their own advice

[bluebell]

the whole sex and the Church thing...so many of my friends have done something they felt was wrong and have just walked away and a few others have been disciplined and also have walked away and one said to me that they feel like they are being punished for something that is totally normal-having a sex drive-not whatever they did. Plus it is easy for a married Bishop or whoever to say "don't do xyz" to an unmarried single all the while they can go home and do it and never have to live with their own advice

All bishops were single at one point so they should know exactly what they advocating. Hopefully they kept their own advice then.

However, when people start to believe that it's the bishop setting the boundaries for sexual activity and not God, then it's going to be easy to justify not staying within them regardless of what the bishop is doing at home.

It's too bad that some feel that sexual sin can't be repented of. I would hope that all bishops strive very diligently to give people hope in such a regard so they don't feel walking away from teh church is their only option. Now, if they walked away because they didn't want to keep the standards anymore or didn't feel they needed to, then that's a completely different issue, but otherwise, that's a sad thing.

[Nofear]

The article is citing a December 2009 study conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy but I am having trouble finding the study on the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy's website? If you find it, please link.

Edit: Found the study: The Fog Zone: How Misperceptions, Magical Thinking, and Ambivalence Put Young Adults at Risk for Unplanned Pregnancy

The Relevant's article apparently comes from some further analysis of the data not done by the initial study and the report. Access to the full data set requires a data agreement form sent to a member of the study's publishers. Relevant's claims are in no way obvious from a quick perusal of the study's published data. Though I have little reason to doubt the accuracy of their analysis I do have to take their claims, or at least the extent of their claims, with a grain of salt. I wonder if Kayleen Kaye endorses Relevant's findings.

PS: LDS identity was not on their questionnaire (and even if it had been, the number of respondents identifying as LDS would probably have been too small of statistically significant claims).

Edited December 13, 2011 by Nofear

[LeSellers]

Once again we see the results of delaying marriage.

As I recall, the average age at first marriage in USmerica is fast approaching 30 for men and not too far behind for women. But age for the menarche and puberty, in general, has fallen so that it not uncommon for girls to have babies by age 13, and one had a child last month(?) before her 11^th birthday. (Still not the record, as a 1930s Peruvian had her son a few weeks following her 5^th.) The spread between the onset of hormones and legitimate sexual expression is now so wide (nearly twenty years) that "waiting" is a severe trial.

The answer is not to lower the standard. The answer is to recognize that marriage is good, and that waiting to marry is ridiculous. Brigham Young and many others of the prophets told the Saints that any man who was eighteen and unmarried was a menace to society (the age varies, but not by much). This remains true.

Our LDS neighbor's RM son tried to date one of the Saints here, but she wouldn't even acquiesce to his (or anyone's) writing her while she was away at school, much less his courting her (which he was more than prepared to do): she did not want to get "entangled" because she feared she'd be unable to finish her schooling (obviously more important to her than marriage) and getting established in her profession. It's not just the boys who are delaying growing up.

I hear that women consider their secular professions to be interesting and important, yet raising their own children so tedious and trivial that they don't even want children, many want none at all, and most want to hire someone else to raise them (day care and nannies, etc.). But we hear the (hollow) pious statements that children are the most important thing in life, that they are our future, and we must "invest" in them (meaning, of course, more taxes for government-controlled, tax-funded welfare schools, including "pre-school"). Investing in our children could not possibly mean that mothers and father spend time with their children, teaching them the important things in life (love, the life cycles of flowers and butterflies, that they are safe and secure with Mom'n'Dad and Grandma'n'Grandpa, their siblings love 'em, too; and that the sun comes up even when it's cloudy), No woman is competent to raise a child unless she is paid to do so—that seems to be the gist of today's world.

The fact is that we do not like children, we do not respect, nor even love, them, and we do not want them around. They're a nuisance, an impediment to finding ourselves, to exploring the "real me". So, with no reason to marry (sex being as inconsequential as a handshake, and children being an afterthought, at best), people do not marry, and their sexual urges are met by illicit sexual encounters with whomever happens to be sitting across the armrest in the theatre.

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

Evangelicals and Saints alike have come under the woeful influence of the wicked one and his eternal fight against all that is good, and especially, because it is the best, the Family.

Lehi

Nothing will take you out of a thread faster than sermonizing and testifying.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Minos