Are Modern Day Prophets Redundant?

[Duncan]

I don't know if it was revelation or not. Here is what he SAID:

"We—the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve—have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings.”"

Does it really get much more official than this? The First Presidency, the Twelve and at least one of the Marriotts signed off on this one. Add in a member of the John Birch Society and this would be in the D&C (or at least, the Ensign).

Seriously, I don't think that the earring issue is one that rises to the pay grade of the Holy Spirit. If I kneeled to pray on this issue, I would fully expect the Spirit to either ignore me outright or very clearly state, "Grow up!" Because this is exactly what I would do if my ADULT son came to me for guidance as to whether to get a tattoo across his face. I would just shake my head and say, "Grow up!" If a full grown MAN can't make such a simple decision, then there really isn't much chance for him when the real decisions in life start.

However, in our church, it seems that we don't need to go to HF with this question because someone has already beat us to Him and asked the question for us. So I guess I should have named the thread, "Is the Holy Spirit redundant?" Because if prophets are already asking the questions and they have the final word, why are the rest of us even bothering with personal revelation?

 

it can be read over the pulpit and sustained as binding on the entire Church like they did with the 1978 revelation and canonizing what we now know as Sections 137 and 138 in 1976, so yeah it can get more official

 

the prophet will never tell you what to wear, this isn't communism or what job to take or where to live, those decisions are left for us to make

[mormonnewb]

Believe it or not, I actually appreciate all of the scriptural references. It helps me to understand that JS was assuming a mantel established by Peter, Paul and others to teach and preach. In short, I now have confidence that JS didn't just make up the role of a Latter-day prophet.

Now, I just need scriptural evidence that Peter and Paul didn't make it up, specifically in regards to the prophet "trump card." In other words, does Christ ever say that, in the event of conflicting revelation, we should opt for the promptings of the Prophet over those of the Holy Spirit?

[mormonnewb]

it can be read over the pulpit and sustained as binding on the entire Church like they did with the 1978 revelation and canonizing what we now know as Sections 137 and 138 in 1976, so yeah it can get more official

the prophet will never tell you what to wear, this isn't communism or what job to take or where to live, those decisions are left for us to make

Yes, I agree that I'm exaggerating about the extent of control but let's be honest ... millions of saints are currently wearing the same undergarments. That isn't a coincidence. We are commanded what to wear.

[Duncan]

Yes, I agree that I'm exaggerating about the extent of control but let's be honest ... millions of saints are currently wearing the same undergarments. That isn't a coincidence. We are commanded what to wear.

 

 

but you aren't forced to wear them, when you get a recommend they don't ask you to prove you wear your garments

[Calm]

Now, I just need scriptural evidence that Peter and Paul didn't make it up, specifically in regards to the prophet "trump card." In other words, does Christ ever say that, in the event of conflicting revelation, we should opt for the promptings of the Prophet over those of the Holy Spirit?

You've asked what you needed personal revelation for....the above seems a pretty good reason.

[mormonnewb]

You've asked what you needed personal revelation for....the above seems a pretty good reason.

I've asked about this issue repeatedly and have always come to the opposite answer of most of you. However, in my hierarchy of truth, scripture trumps personal revelation (because, on occasion, my personal desires creep into my "promptings of the Spirit"). So it is entirely possible that my own pride is creeping into my "revelations" on this matter.

On the other hand, if I had scripture that established "tie goes to the Prophet," then I would (begrudgingly and with great sarcasm and blasphemy) eventually accept it.

Edited May 19, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mfbukowski]

You've asked what you needed personal revelation for....the above seems a pretty good reason.

If I were an anti-mormon, and wanted to criticize the church, I would pose as a new member with questions.

 

Everyone wants to help new members, so they get sucked into these discussions.  At least I did for a while until I figured it out.  Why would anyone join a church and stay a member if they had so many doubts?

 

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.  And around and around we go.  There is no possible way I would join a church I had so many doubts about.

[mfbukowski]

I've asked about this issue repeatedly and have always come to the opposite answer of most of you. However, in my hierarchy of truth, scripture trumps personal revelation (because, on occasion, my personal desires creep into my "promptings of the Spirit"). So it is entirely possible that my own pride creeping into my "revelations" on this matter.

On the other hand, if I had scripture that established "tie goes to the Prophet," then I would (begrudgingly and with great sarcasm and blasphemy) eventually accept it.

Unfortunately one cannot even know that scripture is scripture without personal revelation.

 

Why are you not a Zoroastrian?  They have tons of great scriptures.  Perhaps you should investigate becoming Parsi.  Arguably, much of the bible comes from the Avesta.

 

 

Avesta -- Zoroastrian Archives Updated Nov. 23, 2012

Today is day 60 of the holy year: month Ardwahisht, day Anagran, year AY 1383

Avestan Word of the Day:

yazamaide (verb. cl. 1.): We celebrate, honor, venerate, worship

  FEZANA published a Nawruz prayer book: Hama-Anjuman Prayers for Naurooz In English, Farsi and Gujarati. This is a humble effort to bring all our Zarathushti Groups together in a common prayer environment.

If you need a copy of the book, please contact: Soli P. Dastur at: dastur [at] comcast [dot] net. Donations for printing and postage are encouraged.

 

 

"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." - Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979, p. 1)

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence....” - Mary Boyce, Op. Cit. p. 29.

 

http://www.avesta.org/

 

Uh oh, they have funny underwear too.

 

Forgetabout it

Edited May 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

And around and around we go.

 

It is dizzying, but I find some solid ground by attempting to speak to the lurkers who may be here with genuine questions.

[mfbukowski]

It is dizzying, but I find some solid ground by attempting to speak to the lurkers who may be here with genuine questions.

That makes sense, but how many times do we need to cover the same stuff?  I don't know- we all make our own decisions about how much time to spend doing this obviously.  It has been a concern to me lately how much good any of this does.  Is it better than a video game?   I often wonder.

[Kenngo1969]

Yet, how do we stay in "shape" when we have so few opportunities to exercise our personal revelation because the Brethren have already done it for us? They've picked out our clothing for us, told us what we may not drink with breakfast, advised us what to read at the breakfast table (our scriptures), encouraged us as to who should leave the house for work (the man), and it's not even 8 o'clock yet. Aren't we really just all running on auto-prophet?

Yep.  The Prophets told me where (and what) to study, told me what job to take, told me whom to marry, told me where to live, told me what kind of living accommodations to opt for, told me what kind of car to buy and drive, told me what to do at work eight hours a day (or more), et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  You're right.  I don't have any opportunities to seek or to act on my own revelation ...

[mormonnewb]

If I were an anti-mormon, and wanted to criticize the church, I would pose as a new member with questions.

 

Everyone wants to help new members, so they get sucked into these discussions.  At least I did for a while until I figured it out.  Why would anyone join a church and stay a member if they had so many doubts?

 

Makes no sense to me whatsoever.  And around and around we go.  There is no possible way I would join a church I had so many doubts about.

You don't happen to drive a green van and have a talking dog, do you? Because I haven't encountered such fine detective work since those "pesky kids" in the Mystery Machine on Scooby Doo. Ruh-roh!

Now, that you've caught me, I should probably just reveal my diabolical plot. About two years ago, I hatched my plot to end all mankind by breaking its ties to God. It then occurred to me ... I'll attack the Mormons, who account for less than 1% of all Christians. But how? Message boards, of course. After I've broken the spirits of the 100 or so Mormons who regular post on this board, the other 14,999,900 should be a snap. And once I've broken the backbone of Christianity, I can launch my screen names of "MuslimNewb," "HinduNewb" and "KrishnaNewb" to achieve universal atheism. (insert evil laugh)

And I would have gotten away with it if not for that pesky mfbukowski!

[teddyaware]

You don't happen to drive a green van and have a talking dog, do you? Because I haven't encountered such fine detective work since those "pesky kids" in the Mystery Machine on Scooby Doo. Ruh-roh!

Now, that you've caught me, I should probably just reveal my diabolical plot. About two years ago, I hatched my plot to end all mankind by breaking its ties to God. It then occurred to me ... I'll attack the Mormons, who account for less than 1% of all Christians. But how? Message boards, of course. After I've broken the spirits of the 100 or so Mormons who regular post on this board, the other 14,999,900 should be a snap. And once I've broken the backbone of Christianity, I can launch my screen names of "MuslimNewb," "HinduNewb" and "KrishnaNewb" to achieve universal atheism. (insert evil laugh)

And I would have gotten away with it if not for that pesky mfbukowski!

Because I'm on limited status on this board, I have a limited number of posts I can make per day and I'm going to use the last I'm able to make today to answer you on this point.

I must admit there have been occasional moments when I have also entertained the possibility that you are actually an anti-Mormon masquerading as a new Church member; and this primarily because there are times when I just can't imagine why someone who thinks so negatively about so many of the most fundamental tenants of the LDS religion would want to remain in an organization about which they have so much doubt and disagreement. The more I pick up on the tenor of the thread topics you start, and the more I read your posted comments, the more perplexing and inscrutable a Latter-day Saint you seem to become. If you really are an LDS Church member, I just can't imagine someone voluntarily putting up with the constant angst and stress you must have to wade through in order to remain.

 

So don't be too hard on mfbukowsky, as I'm sure many feel the same sense of puzzlement about you. But with your no nonsense style and approach, I'm sure none of this comes as a surprise to you. But I want you to know that if you really are a member of the LDS Church, I wish you the best in your quest for truth and truly hope you will one day find the peace you seek.

 

All the best,

Ted

[halconero]

Topics covered by Paul: Diet, Marriage, Employment, Inter-faith feuds at the local level, moral living standards, etc.

[Calm]

I've asked about this issue repeatedly and have always come to the opposite answer of most of you. However, in my hierarchy of truth, scripture trumps personal revelation (because, on occasion, my personal desires creep into my "promptings of the Spirit"). So it is entirely possible that my own pride is creeping into my "revelations" on this matter.

On the other hand, if I had scripture that established "tie goes to the Prophet," then I would (begrudgingly and with great sarcasm and blasphemy) eventually accept it.

How did you come to your position of confidence in the scriptures in the first place? (not a rhetorical question, sincerely interested)

[mormonnewb]

How did you come to your position of confidence in the scriptures in the first place? (not a rhetorical question, sincerely interested)

Originally, it was just a leap of faith. You have to believe in SOMETHING. This Bible seemed to "work" for some people that I really respected. As I begun to study the history, I gained even more confidence in its truth. The Babylonian captivity actually happened. There was a Roman occupation of Judea. Some miracle worker named Jesus was crucified.

In the end, the narrative of the atonement and redemption still takes a leap of faith, but I find it easier to believe in the Book than in the passing flights of fancy that I can conjure up through my own "revelation." That being said, I still believe in revelation. I just like to check it against scripture ... just in case.

[Calm]

I think many LDS see "leaps of faith" as equivalent to personal revelation/inspiration as they would believe the Spirit is the one encouraging us to take that leap/risk.

Considering how leaps of faith can be based on desire and how once we set up a paradigm to look at the world through it is usually easier to confirm that paradigm than reject it (studies have shown that even being presented with contradicting data will strengthen a preset belief), I am not sure that a leap of faith isn't the same as your "flights of fancy".

Given that, I do believe we need to seriously look around us for "reality checks" as it is obvious to me that many around me believe their position is strong based on a desire for it to be strong rather than circumstances and if it is so for them, it is likely for myself as well...not that so-called reality checks actually allow us to look at "reality" but I think it keeps the mind and spirit more open to spiritual promptings in the long run. I don't personally find scripture that teaches doctrine etc. as much more 'solid' than personal revelation/modern prophetic teachings given that a historical setting for a story doesn't demonstrate the spiritual values, etc being taught within that historical setting. I would look instead for multiple avenues of confirmation, especially key being my life and the lives of others around me improves as I live a principle.

Edited May 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Coreyb]

I've asked about this issue repeatedly and have always come to the opposite answer of most of you. However, in my hierarchy of truth, scripture trumps personal revelation (because, on occasion, my personal desires creep into my "promptings of the Spirit"). So it is entirely possible that my own pride is creeping into my "revelations" on this matter.

On the other hand, if I had scripture that established "tie goes to the Prophet," then I would (begrudgingly and with great sarcasm and blasphemy) eventually accept it.

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for in the way of scriptural establishment of the necessity of prophets. From the Bible you wont find much better than Amos 3:7, and honestly, I have often wondered why such an important doctrine is only clearly enunciated once in an obscure passage of a little used book. The Old Testament is filled with teachings and stories of prophets however. As I have read about their roles I have made a few observations...

 

1. Prophets are generally not the most morally scrupulous individuals in the religious community

 

2. They never want to be prophets

 

3. Their commandments from the Lord usually involve warning against extreme wickedness or less extreme apathy and religious laziness.

 

4. They can, but rarely do come from within the established religious hierarchy

 

5. Age doesn't seem to matter at all

 

6. Neither does education

 

7. Neither does socioeconomic status

 

8. They all seem to have supernatural experiences or powers (visions, hearing the voice of God, meeting angels, pronouncing prophecies, working miracles)

 

9. They seem to be mediators between God and the people, usually stressing to the people their neglect of the covenant they have made with God. 

 

10. Their message, and even their presence, is rarely appreciated, even by the most pious 

 

As I reflect upon my understanding of what prophets historically are, I must admit that some of the prophets (I include more than just the presidents of the church) in this dispensation fit readily into my prophet mold, while many don't at all. I will admit that my mold is probably not the best, but still . I feel like most of our generally authorities today fit in the role of a High Priest better than the role of a Prophet, which is fine with me. Israel usually was led by councils of priests, with great prophets only coming onto the scene every now and then. After all, D&C 107 says...

 

 21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.

 22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

 

Sounds a lot more like a council of priests than of prophets. It also says...

 

 23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

 24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

..and...

 

 25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

 26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

 

Sounds a lot more like councils of preachers than prophets. Now that's not to say that the men in these quorums aren't prophets, after all we sustain them (except the seventies) as prophets, seers, and revelators. To me, my sustaining vote means I have confidence that God has given these men the means necessary to prophecy, see, and reveal things. That doesn't mean that they do these things all the time, in fact I would bet that some never have. Whether they do these things or not I suppose is based on whether God wants them to, or whether they listen and do when God tells them to. I do believe that they all have testimonies of Jesus, which both John and Joseph Smith seemed to think was necessary to be a prophet, and they were both great prophets. Yes mormonewb, I too find many sermons by the Lords anointed to be redundant, but I still keep disregarding much of their counsel, so I'm not justified in complaining, it's probably my own fault

Edited May 20, 2014 by Coreyb

[mfbukowski]

How did you come to your position of confidence in the scriptures in the first place? (not a rhetorical question, sincerely interested)

THAT is the issue, smoke and mirrors aside.

 

You don't happen to drive a green van and have a talking dog, do you? Because I haven't encountered such fine detective work since those "pesky kids" in the Mystery Machine on Scooby Doo. Ruh-roh!

Now, that you've caught me, I should probably just reveal my diabolical plot. About two years ago, I hatched my plot to end all mankind by breaking its ties to God. It then occurred to me ... I'll attack the Mormons, who account for less than 1% of all Christians. But how? Message boards, of course. After I've broken the spirits of the 100 or so Mormons who regular post on this board, the other 14,999,900 should be a snap. And once I've broken the backbone of Christianity, I can launch my screen names of "MuslimNewb," "HinduNewb" and "KrishnaNewb" to achieve universal atheism. (insert evil laugh)

And I would have gotten away with it if not for that pesky mfbukowski!

Cute, but of course you have avoided the hard questions.

[mfbukowski]

I think accepting the Bible because it is the only thing out there you are familiar with is incompatible with being a skeptical person.  A skeptical person does what is done here- questions everything and seeks out the truth.

 

But that's just me.  To base your beliefs on a "leap of faith" but then to actually join a church in which you are unwilling to make the same leap of faith just doesn't add up.  Why not just stay with the church you actually had faith in?

 

I just don't understand.  It's none of my business really.

 

And it certainly isn't as if the arguments will do any damage- we see this stuff daily here said much better and more convincingly.  I just honestly don't get it,

[mfbukowski]

I think many LDS see "leaps of faith" as equivalent to personal revelation/inspiration as they would believe the Spirit is the one encouraging us to take that leap/risk.

Considering how leaps of faith can be based on desire and how once we set up a paradigm to look at the world through it is usually easier to confirm that paradigm than reject it (studies have shown that even being presented with contradicting data will strengthen a preset belief), I am not sure that a leap of faith isn't the same as your "flights of fancy".

Given that, I do believe we need to seriously look around us for "reality checks" as it is obvious to me that many around me believe their position is strong based on a desire for it to be strong rather than circumstances and if it is so for them, it is likely for myself as well...not that so-called reality checks actually allow us to look at "reality" but I think it keeps the mind and spirit more open to spiritual promptings in the long run. I don't personally find scripture that teaches doctrine etc. as much more 'solid' than personal revelation/modern prophetic teachings given that a historical setting for a story doesn't demonstrate the spiritual values, etc being taught within that historical setting. I would look instead for multiple avenues of confirmation, especially key being my life and the lives of others around me improves as I live a principle.

Completely agree.

 

And if one likes history Zoroastrianism goes back much farther than Christianity, and actually I think makes more sense in that it does not require "unreasonable" beliefs like believing that the death of one person can forgive the personal sins of all mankind.

 

Zoroastrianism is about general principles and forces in the universe- light and darkness, good and evil, life and death.  It is really quite an interesting religion.

 

But God did not tell me that it was "true" as he did with our church.

 

The bible on its own is a compendium of legends and stories and most of them are really quite hard to believe.  I find it much easier to believe that we have prophets today than believing in talking donkeys or whales which swallow people and then spit them up unharmed.

 

If I were to base my choice of religions on reason alone, I would probably be Zoroastrian, or remain a Buddhist, as I was for a while. 

 

But when God tells you where you belong, there can be no doubt.

[Calm]

 

But when God tells you where you belong, there can be no doubt.

Perhaps this happened to mormonewb as well but he is still trying to make the pieces fit. He has explained his conversion experience, iirc, but I don't remember the details.

[mormonnewb]

I think accepting the Bible because it is the only thing out there you are familiar with is incompatible with being a skeptical person.  A skeptical person does what is done here- questions everything and seeks out the truth.

 

But that's just me.  To base your beliefs on a "leap of faith" but then to actually join a church in which you are unwilling to make the same leap of faith just doesn't add up.  Why not just stay with the church you actually had faith in?

 

I just don't understand.  It's none of my business really.

 

And it certainly isn't as if the arguments will do any damage- we see this stuff daily here said much better and more convincingly.  I just honestly don't get it,

 

No, it really isn't your business, really.  But since you (and other "faithful" saints) can only have fruitful discussions with fellow tribe members, I will answer your query.  Otherwise, I run the risk of being labeled an "anti-Mormon" -- that strange (and mostly mythical) creature with the power to distort truth and ruin testimonies.  So let me bare my soul to the saints to prove that my questions might merit an answer:

 

How could I join a church about which I have so many doubts?  Because otherwise, I would never belong to ANY church or ANY group or have ANY relationships.  Unlike you KNOWERS OF TRUTH, I've been wrong before -- very wrong.  At various times, I've been sure that there was no god and have been equally sure that I was He.  And since I've been wrong before, I actually take the amazing stance that it could possibly happen again.  As a result, I am slow to come to absolute conclusions about things that I have been wrong about before.  O me of little faith!

 

However, I can't live in limbo, so I must act ... despite imperfect knowledge.  I wasn't absolutely sure that my wife was "the one" when I married her 22 years ago.  Truth be told, I still have a few doubts (trust me, she has countless more doubts about her choice).  When we decided to have a child two years later, I wasn't sure that I was ready to be a good father.  Two decades later, the jury is still out on that score.  And I could go on and on.  I have to make choices all of the time without KNOWING that it is the right choice.

 

The decision to join this Church was one of those choices.  I had some serious doubts about our truth claims.  Yet, at the same time, I had clear evidence that there was something this Church is doing right; and that was in the lives of the saints.  As Christ told us to judge teachers of new doctrine by the fruit they bear and to ascertain true Christians by their love for one another, I had enough evidence to "take the leap."

 

However, you might ask, "But there are some choices better than others?  Why stay in THIS church when you have so many doubts?  Why not go where you would be more comfortable?"  It's a question that I've asked myself many times.  I even went so far as to visit the Sacred Grove ... in August ... without mosquito repellant.  I asked HF for a confirmation that the Church was true or failing that, permission to leave.  I received neither.  So, until I receive further notice, I live as a Mormon.  I serve in my callings.  I keep the commandments (at least, the 14 important ones).  And I attend the temple.  I do this on blind faith that there must be something in Mormonism that is essential to reaching the fullness of what the Father has for me.

 

However, that is for now.  When, and if, I am "paroled" from Mormonism, I will happily return to whence I came (or go to where I'm called next).  And while I can't tell you what the future holds for me, here is one thing that I do know ... upon my release, I will not spend time on this board trying to hash out Mormon doctrine/practices/history.  Just as I do not spend time on ex-girlfriend.com, arguing the finer points of my relationship with my high school sweetheart.  Just as I do not spend time on mylastjob.com, arguing about whether I should have received my full quarterly bonus for the fall of 2002.

 

So, don't worry, fellow saints.  I will not troll this board as anti-Mormon.  I will simply be a FORMER Mormon.  Fair enough?

Edited May 20, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

Newby, I can understand the confusion of others by some of your comments. This is such an imperfect medium for truly effective conversations about topics of eternal value and importance. I also think that we create our own hell.  At times I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic (something that I do too often) or something else.  Regardless, some of your questions strike an disharmonious tone and when repeatedly sounded they can respond poorly.

 

I see no problems with being a skeptic and questioning; however, when confronting the question of God you must someday choose to be in with both feet or out.  Continuing to equivocate over one's beliefs is not helpful to oneself or to others.  

 

To run the good race and fight the good fight is revealing.  Being a disciple of Jesus Christ is not for the lukewarm or uncommitted.  At times it is as if we forget completely about the reality of the evil one. I am not attempting to create the idea of running from the boogey man, but I honestly believe that there is a force of darkness whose sole objective is to destroy our spiritual progress and growth in our relationship with God.  

 

I personally cannot counsel you or anyone else on their membership in Church or in any other church or religion.  I can easily bear a witness to the truths I know.  I do not believe that truth is relative, but I do believe that some places of worship "today" are better for some and not so good for others.  We are responsible for the truths we know; running from those truths does not negate our responsibility and leads to unhappiness and dissatisfaction. 

 

This Board is for no other purpose than discussion among those who frequent the site. It should not, must not, replace sincere pursuit and expression of truth in our daily communication with God, with our families, our fellow saints, and our community at large.  

 

I would hope that we each are sources of eternal peace that is found only through the holy pursuit and obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ, his teachings, and his commandments.  

[Tacenda]

Good advice Storm! And mormonnewb, you're not alone in that "Sacred Grove" experience, I did that too, and continue to persue. But like Storm has advised, you jump in with both feet, but that takes alot of faith when odds are stacked against it, so who knows, it might be a test to see if we can make the leap. I'm right there with you. And it's he**!