Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[saemo]

Not sure what that has to do with the Catholic Church.

LDS have a distinct lack of trust in God?

[pogi]

*sigh*

 

I didn't say that is how you understand the Person of God, I said that is how you understand the substance of God.

 

What are you saying then?  That we understand the substance of God to be like the color white?  That is still wrong. 

[Vance]

Eye candy is what you believe, not me. I could say the same thing, don't be deceived by angels of darkness masquerading as angels of light. LDS never put Smith to the test.

WOW!!!

Now THAT is a falsehood.

What is canonized is the Apostolic teaching. What is tested is does a vision align to Apostolic teaching.

Yes, and JS passes with flying colors!!

A vision should neither add or remove the faith handed on by the Apostles.

I would say that is not completely accurate. A vision should not conflict with the correct understanding of prior revelation.

If it does, it is FALSE. Jesus Christ is THE WORD OF GOD, fully and perfectly revealed.

To the prophets and apostles, correct.

Galatians 8:1 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Good thing JS taught the same gospel, and he acquired it in the same manner.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ.

[Vance]

LDS have a distinct lack of trust in God?

Nope, it is not God in whom we lack trust.

[pogi]

deleted 

Edited May 15, 2014 by pogi

[cdowis]

Eye candy is what you believe, not me. I could say the same thing, don't be deceived by angels of darkness masquerading as angels of light. LDS never put Smith to the test.

 

Yes we do.  Have you heard of Moroni 10:4-5, and Alma chapter 32.

 

What is canonized is the Apostolic teaching. What is tested is does a vision align to Apostolic teaching. A vision should neither add or remove the faith handed on by the Apostles. If it does, it is FALSE. Jesus Christ is THE WORD OF GOD, fully and perfectly revealed. What do you imagine He left out?

 

Acts 1 [2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

 

What did Christ teach during those 40 days, "pertaining to the kingdom of God."   Baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29),  the three kingdoms of heaven (1 Cor 15:40-41), the temple ordinances, etc  Or did He simply repeat the Sermon on the Mount 500 times?

 

Galatians 8:1 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

OK, and did Paul have an angel from heaven teaching him "another gospel"?  Read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is His Gospel.

Edited May 15, 2014 by cdowis

[Ran]

He thinks like a German philosopher giving a nod to tradition because he has to.  THAT is my impression.

 

Benedict repeatedly makes the distinction between the early church and what happened after Greek philosophy came in.  I could very well use his very arguments in an apologetic piece in favor of the apostasy as we see it.  That's why I find it so startling.  You could use most of that piece to show how the Godhead became misunderstood and grew into the Trinity- he provides all the ammo, and the AK47 in pieces next to it.  All you would have to do is pick up the pieces and put them together and open fire.

 

He is obviously brilliant, and I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Of course he does!  He is making Catholic dogma compatible with contemporary thinking.  I think that is a good thing.

 

We all have more in common seeing it that way.

 

Thanks a bunch. While I'm not ready to endorse your assessment, I'll further think about the role continental philosophy plays into Ratzinger's presentation.

 

With regards to "he provides all the ammo," Ratzinger offers a similar image:

 

Every one of the main basic concepts in the doctrine of the Trinity was condemned at one time or another; they were all adopted only after the frustration of a condemnation; they are accepted only inasmuch as they are at the same time branded as unusable and admitted simply as poor stammering utterances - and no more. The concept of persona (or prosopon) was once condemned, as we have seen; the crucial word that in the fourth century became the standard of orthodoxy, homoousios (= of one substance with the Father), had been condemned in the third century; the concept of “proceeding” has a condemnation behind it - and so one could go on. One must say, I think, that these condemnations of the later formulas of faith form an intimate part of them: it is only through the negation, and the infinite indirectness implicit in it, that they are usable. The doctrine of the Trinity is only possible as a piece of baffled theology, so to speak

 

When one looks at the history of the dogma of the Trinity as it is reflected in a present-day manual of theology, it looks like a graveyard of heresies, whose emblems theology still carries around with it like the trophies from battles fought and won. But such a view does not represent a proper understanding of the matter, for all the attempted solutions that in the course of a long struggle were finally thrown out as dead ends and, hence, heresies are not just mere gravestones to the vanity of human endeavor, monuments that confirm how often thinking has come to grief and at which we can now look back in retrospective - and, in the last analysis, fruitless - curiosity. On the contrary, every heresy is at the same time the cipher for an abiding truth, a cipher we must now preserve with other simultaneously valid statements, separated from which it produces a false impression. In other words, all these statements are not so much gravestones as the bricks of a cathedral, which are, of course, only useful when they do not remain alone but are inserted into something bigger, just as even the positively accepted formulas are valid only if they are at the same time aware of their own inadequacy.

 

3 The history of the homoousios will suffice to illustrate the point; see the summary by A. Grillmeier, in LThK, 2nd ed., 5:467f.; and also the survey of the history of trinitarian dogma in A. Adam, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. i (Gütersloh, 1965), pp. 115 - 254 (p. 349, n. 13). On the subject of man’s stammering before God, cf. the beautiful story “Das Stammein” from the Chassidic stories in M. Buber, Werke, vol. 3 (Munich, 1963), p. 334.

 

Introduction to Christianity, p.171-173 (Ignatius Press 2004, emphasis added)

 

 

With regards to Ratzinger's opinion on Greek thought and the movements that call for the dehellenization of Christianity, you may also be interested in reading his so-called Regensburg Lecture. You may remember that this is the same lecture that infurated many in the Muslim world several years back.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks a bunch. While I'm not ready to endorse your assessment, I'll further think about the role continental philosophy plays into Ratzinger's presentation.

 

With regards to "he provides all the ammo," Ratzinger offers a similar image:

 

Every one of the main basic concepts in the doctrine of the Trinity was condemned at one time or another; they were all adopted only after the frustration of a condemnation; they are accepted only inasmuch as they are at the same time branded as unusable and admitted simply as poor stammering utterances - and no more. The concept of persona (or prosopon) was once condemned, as we have seen; the crucial word that in the fourth century became the standard of orthodoxy, homoousios (= of one substance with the Father), had been condemned in the third century; the concept of “proceeding” has a condemnation behind it - and so one could go on. One must say, I think, that these condemnations of the later formulas of faith form an intimate part of them: it is only through the negation, and the infinite indirectness implicit in it, that they are usable. The doctrine of the Trinity is only possible as a piece of baffled theology, so to speak

 

When one looks at the history of the dogma of the Trinity as it is reflected in a present-day manual of theology, it looks like a graveyard of heresies, whose emblems theology still carries around with it like the trophies from battles fought and won. But such a view does not represent a proper understanding of the matter, for all the attempted solutions that in the course of a long struggle were finally thrown out as dead ends and, hence, heresies are not just mere gravestones to the vanity of human endeavor, monuments that confirm how often thinking has come to grief and at which we can now look back in retrospective - and, in the last analysis, fruitless - curiosity. On the contrary, every heresy is at the same time the cipher for an abiding truth, a cipher we must now preserve with other simultaneously valid statements, separated from which it produces a false impression. In other words, all these statements are not so much gravestones as the bricks of a cathedral, which are, of course, only useful when they do not remain alone but are inserted into something bigger, just as even the positively accepted formulas are valid only if they are at the same time aware of their own inadequacy.

 

3 The history of the homoousios will suffice to illustrate the point; see the summary by A. Grillmeier, in LThK, 2nd ed., 5:467f.; and also the survey of the history of trinitarian dogma in A. Adam, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. i (Gütersloh, 1965), pp. 115 - 254 (p. 349, n. 13). On the subject of man’s stammering before God, cf. the beautiful story “Das Stammein” from the Chassidic stories in M. Buber, Werke, vol. 3 (Munich, 1963), p. 334.

 

Introduction to Christianity, p.171-173 (Ignatius Press 2004, emphasis added)

 

 

With regards to Ratzinger's opinion on Greek thought and the movements that call for the dehellenization of Christianity, you may also be interested in reading his so-called Regensburg Lecture. You may remember that this is the same lecture that infurated many in the Muslim world several years back.

Yes that exactly it.  I have tried to convey those ideas here but of course not as well as he does.  To me, that makes our case quite well,  I am glad you posted in instead of me

 

Of course I would disagree that if one gathers together enough errors, one gets "the bricks of a cathedral".

Edited May 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

…and?

 

I see no reason to drop Aristotle in favor of Benedict. I, personally, prefer Pope Benedict, but if a person is going to ask a basic question about philosophy in relation to Trinitarian theology, begin with a basic answer.

 

Certainly, Aristotle was not dropped in my college philosophy course. My understanding is that philosophy is a discipline that is built over time, one on top of the other. It isn't  a science, where a hypothesis is disproven via experimentation and observation.

Disagree.

 

Errors are proven and progress is made.  They teach Aristotle because he is so important to the history of philosophy- since its history is largely about proving the errors of previous generations,  I am glad you had A college philosophy course,

[mfbukowski]

Hey Mark, I think you're talking about this part of the Pope's writing brought up earlier, right:

 

" God is a being in three persons. In this context, theologians argued, person must be understood as relation. According to Augustine and late patristic theology, the three persons that exist in God are in their nature relations. They are, therefore, not substances that stand next to each other, but they are real existing relations, and nothing besides. "

 

If so, I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying as far as the three Persons not being "substances".  The unity of the Persons is believed to be one of "substance" (or "essence" or "nature" or whatever), however the Persons are not substances, but are relations (simply, there is a difference between what makes them one, and what makes them three).  It is because they are relations that the Trinity belief is different from Modalism, which denies the relations amongst the Persons.  Saying that they are "not substances" is not denying the oneness of substance, since two different ideas are being conveyed in those phrases. 

 

The importance of "relation" in the Trinity is standard (Pope Benedict XVI isn't saying anything novel), and is found right in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

 

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

 

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."⁸⁶ "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."⁸⁷ They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."⁸⁸ The divine Unity is Triune.

 

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."⁸⁹ Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."⁹⁰ "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."⁹¹

Sorry.  I don't understand this.

[Storm Rider]

It is LDS members who have explained that "God" is a title. People who participate on this forum.

 

Saemo, you do this repeatedly and when corrected you ignore that you have been corrected and continue with the stupidity. Stop it!  It is not reflective of the reality that you are a Christian.  

 

God is used as a title in the same context as father is used as a title. Do not then continue traipsing along babbling about Mormons believe God is only a title. If you don't know already that Latter-day Saints believe God is so much more than a title, then it would be best to stop talking and go to any LDS oriented site and within in five minutes of brief perusal you will know the Church of Jesus Christ and its members teach a great deal more about God the Father. 

 

You can condemn LDS for many things, but thinking that God is only a title is just plain ignorant of reality. 

[teddyaware]

Sorry.  I don't understand this.

I think because the description of the traditional Christian Trinity is so arcane, abstruse and mind-bogglingly mystifying there is a presumption on the part of non-LDS Christians that their understanding of how the personages of the Godhead are one God is somehow superior to the "simplistic" LDS doctrine on the oneness of God. But just because a principle of religion is so complex that it is ultimately impossible to understand doesn't mean that that the principle so described is a true one. Just because learned doctors of religion can go on and on for hours pontificating about an immaterial, unknowable and "totally other" God does not mean that that God is real. And just because someone's description of a particular principle is intimidatingly convoluted and complex does not automatically mean that it is the best way to explain that principle.

Edited May 16, 2014 by teddyaware

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1*1*1=1

That really does not work very well. Multiplication is when you have sets of something. You would say I have 1 group of one orange. That would never be 3 parts that are fully something. 1+1+1 is really what the God head is. Since we are now going out side of a certain belief this part is open to debate.

[saemo]

That really does not work very well. Multiplication is when you have sets of something. You would say I have 1 group of one orange. That would never be 3 parts that are fully something. 1+1+1 is really what the God head is. Since we are now going out side of a certain belief this part is open to debate.

Well, using math to describe the Trinity is one of several analogies. Analogies work to convey an idea but they never accurately convey the idea entirely.

 

I've seen the 1+1+1 sooooo many times coming from LDS that I wonder if it is taught in Sunday school or something. :-)

[MiserereNobis]

Yes, there are many witnesses to visions and miracles, but read carefully what I said -- "claimants to a prophetic calling".

 

I was thinking that you might go there, so here's my response.  Joseph Smith was the founder of the LDS church.  The founder of the Catholic Church, according to Catholicism, is Jesus Christ (many witnesses of miracles in the Bible).  One could also argue for St. Peter, as he was the first Pope.  There are also accounts of his miracles with witnesses in the Bible.

 

If you wanted witnessed miracles surrounding current Popes, that would be equivalent of me asking for witnessed miracles by current LDS presidents.

 

So, the parallel is:  Joseph Smith's miracles + witnesses = Jesus's or St. Peter's miracles + witnesses  and  Pope Francis's miracles + witnesses = President Monson's miracles + witnesses.

 

Also, in the Catholic Church, we do not use the term "prophet" though our Pope and the College of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council act, in a practical manner, exactly like the LDS president and quorum of the 12.  I hashed this out on another thread.  If we ignore terminology (because we have different definitions for different words) and look at Joseph Smith as an exception, then the prophets of the LDS church and the Popes of Catholicism act in a very similar manner.  They both claim guidance from God.  They both expand and clarify doctrine.  They both have the power to declare a new doctrine/dogma.  They both claim the keys of sealing in heaven and earth.  Etc, etc.

 

 

I think because the description of the traditional Christian Trinity is so arcane, abstruse and mind-bogglingly mystifying there is a presumption on the part of non-LDS Christians that their understanding of how the personages of the Godhead are one God is somehow superior to the "simplistic" LDS doctrine on the oneness of God. But just because a principle of religion is so complex that it is ultimately impossible to understand doesn't mean that that the principle so described is a true one. Just because learned doctors of religion can go on and on for hours pontificating about an immaterial, unknowable and "totally other" God does not mean that that God is real. And just because someone's description of a particular principle is intimidatingly convoluted and complex does not automatically mean that it is the best way to explain that principle.

 

True.  Likewise, a simplistic formulation is no more true than a complex one.  Saying that a child can understand something makes it no more true than saying there is no way a child could understand it.  Truth is truth (yes, I know mfbukowski, but... )

 

I guess for me, it seems something like God would, by definition, be difficult to understand, which is why I like to use quantum mechanics as an example.  QM is so complex and counter-intuitive and beyond discourse that the only true way to get it is to really understand the mathematics behind.  The physicists themselves say that words are only approximations to what the math says.  Yet the words are important for us to try to conceptually grasp it.  That's my analogy for God.  He is an infinite being and so my finite mind is going to have a well-nigh impossible time trying to conceptually grasp Him.  Direct experience is the way to go.

[saemo]

 

Eye candy is what you believe, not me. I could say the same thing, don't be deceived by angels of darkness masquerading as angels of light. LDS never put Smith to the test.

 

Yes we do.  Have you heard of Moroni 10:4-5, and Alma chapter 32.

 

What is canonized is the Apostolic teaching. What is tested is does a vision align to Apostolic teaching. A vision should neither add or remove the faith handed on by the Apostles. If it does, it is FALSE. Jesus Christ is THE WORD OF GOD, fully and perfectly revealed. What do you imagine He left out?

 

Acts 1 [2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

 

What did Christ teach during those 40 days, "pertaining to the kingdom of God."   Baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29),  the three kingdoms of heaven (1 Cor 15:40-41), the temple ordinances, etc  Or did He simply repeat the Sermon on the Mount 500 times?

 

Galatians 8:1 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

OK, and did Paul have an angel from heaven teaching him "another gospel"?  Read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is His Gospel.

 

You should read the Quran, the Baghdad Vita, the Popul Vuh and ask God if it His Gospel.

 

REASON.

 

Reason says to me, God is not found in a book, in and of itself. There is something that must go with the book. That something for me, is Jesus Christ, and the Church who teaches what His Apostles taught. I don't find a 19th century innovation of questionable provence to be compelling.

Edited May 16, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

What are you saying then?  That we understand the substance of God to be like the color white?  That is still wrong. 

White is not a substance.

 

I was thinking on our conversation, and what I think it is can be described via analogy.

 

We're taking a hike through nature and come upon a beautiful vista of a mountain range. We are stopped in our tracks, in complete awe of the beauty around us, and you say, "Doesn't that just take your breath away." I respond, "It is a nice example of a geological formation."

 

Both expressions are about the same thing. Neither is wrong. What I'm saying is, LDS rarely step outside of marveling at the beauty to investigate what the things is.  And call it mumbo jumbo to use the words of a discipline to do so. "Geological formation" is the mumbo jumbo of geoscience. "Substance" is the mumbo jumbo of philosophy. If something is mumbo jumbo to me, I study and figure it out. Mormons just throw their hands in the air and say, "mumbo jumbo!". I don't understand why.

 

White=the beauty that we see

Substance=what the thing is

 

One does not exclude the other.

Edited May 16, 2014 by saemo

[MiserereNobis]

I've never been a fan of using math to explain the Trinity.  It's too simplistic and barely advances conceptual knowledge of what the Trinity means, while being open to so many misconceptions that lead into heresy.

Edited May 16, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

I think because the description of the traditional Christian Trinity is so arcane, abstruse and mind-bogglingly mystifying there is a presumption on the part of non-LDS Christians that their understanding of how the personages of the Godhead are one God is somehow superior to the "simplistic" LDS doctrine on the oneness of God. But just because a principle of religion is so complex that it is ultimately impossible to understand doesn't mean that that the principle so described is a true one. Just because learned doctors of religion can go on and on for hours pontificating about an immaterial, unknowable and "totally other" God does not mean that that God is real. And just because someone's description of a particular principle is intimidatingly convoluted and complex does not automatically mean that it is the best way to explain that principle.

I agree, and I have made that view known.  I did not quite finish my masters in philosophy 40 years ago, but I have been studying continuously since then, so perhaps it will eventually make sense, but clearly it remains beyond me.   Funny, I seem to do well with other philosophies some find obtuse, but not this stuff.

[mfbukowski]

I was thinking that you might go there, so here's my response.  Joseph Smith was the founder of the LDS church.  The founder of the Catholic Church, according to Catholicism, is Jesus Christ (many witnesses of miracles in the Bible).  One could also argue for St. Peter, as he was the first Pope.  There are also accounts of his miracles with witnesses in the Bible.

 

If you wanted witnessed miracles surrounding current Popes, that would be equivalent of me asking for witnessed miracles by current LDS presidents.

 

So, the parallel is:  Joseph Smith's miracles + witnesses = Jesus's or St. Peter's miracles + witnesses  and  Pope Francis's miracles + witnesses = President Monson's miracles + witnesses.

 

Also, in the Catholic Church, we do not use the term "prophet" though our Pope and the College of Bishops in an Ecumenical Council act, in a practical manner, exactly like the LDS president and quorum of the 12.  I hashed this out on another thread.  If we ignore terminology (because we have different definitions for different words) and look at Joseph Smith as an exception, then the prophets of the LDS church and the Popes of Catholicism act in a very similar manner.  They both claim guidance from God.  They both expand and clarify doctrine.  They both have the power to declare a new doctrine/dogma.  They both claim the keys of sealing in heaven and earth.  Etc, etc.

 

 

 

True.  Likewise, a simplistic formulation is no more true than a complex one.  Saying that a child can understand something makes it no more true than saying there is no way a child could understand it.  Truth is truth (yes, I know mfbukowski, but... )

 

I guess for me, it seems something like God would, by definition, be difficult to understand, which is why I like to use quantum mechanics as an example.  QM is so complex and counter-intuitive and beyond discourse that the only true way to get it is to really understand the mathematics behind.  The physicists themselves say that words are only approximations to what the math says.  Yet the words are important for us to try to conceptually grasp it.  That's my analogy for God.  He is an infinite being and so my finite mind is going to have a well-nigh impossible time trying to conceptually grasp Him.  Direct experience is the way to go.

That is a very big but.  

And where is the math that proves it?

All I see is ambiguity.

[mfbukowski]

I have never heard a physicist say "It's a mystery!"  

[MiserereNobis]

That is a very big but.  

And where is the math that proves it?

All I see is ambiguity.

 

 

The math that proves it is my last sentence:  Direct experience is the way to go.

 

I think we both agree that direct mystical experience of God is the surest way to know Him.  The rest is just words, words, words, or, as St. Thomas Aquinas said about the Summa after having a mystical experience:  I can write no more, because all I have written is straw.

 

(now, I don't think he was saying that it was all garbage in and of itself, but that in comparison to his experience the words were utterly inadequate)

 

You know, it's too bad that these great minds aren't around now.  It would be interesting to see what Plato or Aristotle or Aquinas would be doing in philosophy...

[MiserereNobis]

I have never heard a physicist say "It's a mystery!"  

 

Louis DeBroglie, one of the founders of quantum physics and the Nobel prize winner in 1929, famously said: the mechanism [quantum physics] demands a mysticism!

Edited May 16, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[saemo]

I've never been a fan of using math to explain the Trinity.  It's too simplistic and barely advances conceptual knowledge of what the Trinity means, while being open to so many misconceptions that lead into heresy.

Yes, Tacenda brought out the analogy of fire, which is my favorite. A flame lit from another flame is of the same substance, and if/when the flames are brought together again, it is one fire.

 

1 flame + 1 flame + 1 flame = 1 flame

 

Oh snap! Of course, being an analogy it has its problems, but it is still my favorite. And used by Justin Martyr to boot!

[mfbukowski]

 

The math that proves it is my last sentence:  Direct experience is the way to go.

 

I think we both agree that direct mystical experience of God is the surest way to know Him.  The rest is just words, words, words, or, as St. Thomas Aquinas said about the Summa after having a mystical experience:  I can write no more, because all I have written is straw.

 

(now, I don't think he was saying that it was all garbage in and of itself, but that in comparison to his experience the words were utterly inadequate)

 

You know, it's too bad that these great minds aren't around now.  It would be interesting to see what Plato or Aristotle or Aquinas would be doing in philosophy...

Agreed!