Reign Of Judges: Title Of Liberty

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Some of you may have heard of an upcoming film by some of the Ephraim's Rescue film guys. It's called Reign of Judges: Title of Liberty. You can watch the "teaser" trailer (not much there yet, but you get a faint feel for the direction they are heading) and get more info here: http://www.reignofjudgesmovie.com/ .

 

While on one level I think it's great we may get a well acted and filmed epic style movie set in the world of the Book of Mormon, having read through the first 17 pages of the script (which are free at the their website), and looking on their Facebook, it becomes apparent that the movie will have some sort of hybrid Native American meets Rome flair. It ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials. Horses a plenty (not just a few), everyone has a steel sword (not a macuahuitl or anything along those lines), and form fitting armor based on the poster. 

 

It hasn't been announced, but I get the feeling it's not just a Heartland setting, but perhaps a general North America setting.

 

And this leads to the questions:

 

1) In my observation, most Book of Mormon films (even those not released) by bigger name people seem to follow the same simplistic NA centric model. This could lead to a great number of people getting a very wrong view of the Book of Mormon lands and people. I'm not talking about just a Heartland versus Meso-American model, but essentially Romanizing everything. I blame much of this on those Book of Mormon paintings with Captain Helaman dressed Roman, and Samuel up on an epic Old World style wall. Does this matter to you?

 

2) Is an epic AND box-office successful movie (ie, wider audience interest) viable in a Meso-American setting? The last big one I remember was Apocalypto, which was OK (I saw an edited version, but either way wasn't impressed), and that was a long time ago. Most successful films set in the Western Hemisphere tend to be set in NA.  

 

3) I am constantly considering message and distribution of ideas. Perhaps it's because my degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and I am now a successful business man heading a Marketing and Business Development department. I often observe (not the first one to do so of course) that you could have all the facts on your side, all the data, and solid argumentation, but if you can't package that up and deliver it to the key movers and shakers in an appealing format, your reach will be limited. It is amplified because (and bear with me, because I am going to loosely relate academic thought to products) if the movers and shakers don't know of or understand or accept your product and go with a competitor, they will influence all those in their company the same way. In film, that means that young members everywhere receive a very different version, which can have ramifications down the road. 

- Do you think it could have any impact on future testimonies and "shaken faith" syndrome down the road?

- What are some ways that academics, historians, and apologists in the church can better present their message that is more interesting and broad reaching for the youth, general membership, and those who make films? A committee? A "for the media" representing group that reaches out to these people offering free consultation (within limits)?

 

 

Just some thoughts on a busy work day.

 

Matt Tandy 

 

[tonie]

Steel swords are mentioned in the Book Of Mormon, so it a strel sword is not out place according to record. Isnt it the apologist who claim macuahuitl rather than the Church? What is the position of the Church (not the apologist opinion) concerning steel in the Book Of Mormon

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Tonie,

 

Steel swords, when taking both the text and the archaeology (any archaeology in the Western Hemisphere) would have been a rarity, something that Captain Moroni may have had, but not most soldiers. 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare/Swords

 

This gets back to the point about attempts for historical accuracy. Not that other films like Noah sought such a thing, but that was made by an atheist anyway, so not comparable.

[strappinglad]

I agree with your concerns, but few if any ' historical' films get much correct. As the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth, the same goes for movies. Some movies have made great efforts to attain a high level of accuracy when it comes to period costumes etc. Unfortunately, there is little known about the minutia of the daily life of the Nephites so guessing is par for the course. Personally , I would prefer that no BoM movies were made. Talk about seeing through a glass darkly.

[The Nehor]

When World War II documentaries can't get their facts straight I have little hope for anyone getting the Nephites right.

[tonie]

Tonie,

Steel swords, when taking both the text and the archaeology (any archaeology in the Western Hemisphere) would have been a rarity, something that Captain Moroni may have had, but not most soldiers.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare/Swords

This gets back to the point about attempts for historical accuracy. Not that other films like Noah sought such a thing, but that was made by an atheist anyway, so not comparable.

What is the position of the Church (not Fairmormon) on steel swords?

[Scott Lloyd]

What is the position of the Church (not Fairmormon) on steel swords?

Why is it necessary that the Church take a position on that?

[Calm]

What is the position of the Church (not Fairmormon) on steel swords?

That they can be sharp and should be used with care....

Feel free to search for "steel swords" on lds.org for yourself. Undoubtedly there are endless conference talks dealing with the spiritual significance of them.

PS: actually there is pretty much only one cite and what it is you may find interesting, but I will let you find it yourself as that is more fun.

Edited August 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[ROJ]

Darin Southam here, writer of Reign of Judges: Title of Liberty, chiming in to clarify.

First off, the concept posters and images are NOT what will be portrayed the film... it was what we could do on a shoestring budget and I think they turned out pretty dang awesome-- kudos to Chad Keyes for donating his time to create them. This film will not have a Roman feel at all, although it is written much like and Native Gladiator. The armor will be custom of which has never been portrayed in film before. It will be new, fresh, as will the dialog, with most likely an unrecognizable accent so as to make it unique.

 

Where it will be portrayed will not be a main focus of the film (it is not a documentary-- it's an EPIC) although it is abundantly clear both by the record itself, and WHERE the record was buried, that much of it (especially Captain Moroni's time frame) took place in what is now North America. That said, we do not exclude Canada or South America.

1 Nephi  22: 7 "And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a MIGHTY NATION among the Gentiles (America), yea, even UPON THE FACE OF THIS LAND (where the Nephites currently were in Nephi's time 550 B.C.); and by them shall our seed (the AMERICAN Indians) be scattered."

 

But we cannot entirely exclude South America or Canada: (49–39 B.C.) Helaman 3:8 "And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."

BOM Intro: “all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the AMERICAN Indians.”

 

Alma 46:4 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some SEASONS of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate— NOT A TROPICAL CLIMATE among the Nephites in Moroni's time.

 

Regarding horses... are we all reading the same book??

Enos 1:21 "And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also MANY HORSES." (among the Nephites)

 

Here's another whopper "The Lamanites were small, as portrayed in Apocolypto."

 

Mosiah 10:11 "Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. Yet they were a strong people, as to the strength of men.

 

For reference (the Jaradites were even larger than the Nephites/Lamanites and this same language was used to describe them): Ether 7:8 "And it came to pass that Shule was angry with his brother; and Shule waxed strong, and became mighty as to the strength of a man; and he was also mighty in judgment."

 

The Lamanites had nearly 1000 years of degeneration from the time the Nephite nation fell to the time the Lamanites were discovered. As many in Central and South America are smaller in stature, which size is a consequence of diseases, parasites and the like which stunt growth (brought about by disobedience), rather than when people follow God and "wax strong".

 

It would be erroneous to base what the Lamanites (and especially the Nephites) looked like based on the degenerate state of the Lamanites over 1000 years after their fall.

 

As far as the Nephites, I know this may shock people (especially those of "progressive" thinking), but they looked like Europeans, if you believe what Nephi said when he saw them that is: 1 Nephi 13:15 "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles (Europeans), and they did prosper and obtain the land (America) for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and BEAUTIFUL, like unto my people before they were slain." Not much room to argue there.

 

ALL creative decisions regarding this film have been taken from the record itself or have been INFORMED creative liberties based on the record itself. Laban's sword was STEEL and Nephi replicated it in the Americas. We have not based our creative decisions on science and archaeology, while not completely ignoring them, we simply have chosen to put more focus on the record itself rather than relying on the arm of flesh (science and archaeology), which we feel the noble spirits of those within the Book of Mormon would want. Archaeology, for example, has "0" explanation for all of the indisputable evidence that has surfaced in the last 5-10 years in NORTH America of the Hopewell and Adena, which NOT incidentally, happen to have the exact same time frame as the Nephites. 

We invite you all to support this movement. We need the Title of Liberty to come out of obscurity now. What we don't need is to all think we are experts or scholars on Ancient America and know somehow exactly how everything was. We are making the best informed decisions that we can. What a shame if we divide ourselves, squabbling over such seemingly trivial things, when such an epic story could potentially dawn upon the world.

[Calm]

What do you mean by "North America" given that Canada is part of it?

[tonie]

Why is it necessary that the Church take a position on that?

It should be self evident, in the present discussion, why the posistion of the Church is necessary. An opinion offered in a Fairmormon article is the opinion(s) of the author(s) of the article. To rest the accuracy of swords in the film on an opinion published by Fairmormon is building on a shaky foundation.

[Scott Lloyd]

It should be self evident, in the present discussion, why the posistion of the Church is necessary. An opinion offered in a Fairmormon article is the opinion(s) of the author(s) of the article. To rest the accuracy of swords in the film on an opinion published by Fairmormon is building on a shaky foundation.

It's not self-evident to me that it's necessary the Church take a position on the the make-up of swords in the Book of Mormon. That's the question I asked, and you have not responded to it.

 

The Church can maintain its position on the book's historicity and authenticity without binding the members to any particular belief on the composition of the swords, leaving them to entertain any theory they like or no theory at all.

[Zakuska]

I agree with your concerns, but few if any ' historical' films get much correct. As the saying goes, the first casualty of war is the truth, the same goes for movies. Some movies have made great efforts to attain a high level of accuracy when it comes to period costumes etc. Unfortunately, there is little known about the minutia of the daily life of the Nephites so guessing is par for the course. Personally , I would prefer that no BoM movies were made. Talk about seeing through a glass darkly.

After being raised on Charlton Heston playing Moses then reading the book, I have to say i was really let down. The book was way better!

People are so used to holly woods creative licenses and unfaithful portrayals of books by now and with the general denigration of religion as a whole in the media, Im all for any positive potrayals of religiously based themes as possible.

It might get them intrested in getting a book, even if unfaithfully executed.

[ERayR]

Steel swords are mentioned in the Book Of Mormon, so it a strel sword is not out place according to record. Isnt it the apologist who claim macuahuitl rather than the Church? What is the position of the Church (not the apologist opinion) concerning steel in the Book Of Mormon

 

As far as I know the Churches position is that the Book of Mormon really happened and is another testament of Jesus Christ.

[ERayR]

It should be self evident, in the present discussion, why the posistion of the Church is necessary. An opinion offered in a Fairmormon article is the opinion(s) of the author(s) of the article. To rest the accuracy of swords in the film on an opinion published by Fairmormon is building on a shaky foundation.

 

What is self evident is that it is not relevant whether there were steel swords.  What is relevant is the message.

[tonie]

It's not self-evident to me that it's necessary the Church take a position on the the make-up of swords in the Book of Mormon. That's the question I asked, and you have not responded to it.

The Church can maintain its position on the book's historicity and authenticity without binding the members to any particular belief on the composition of the swords, leaving them to entertain any theory they like or no theory at all.

I agree a person may entertain theories. I do not get the impress the op agrees though. The op appears to take the position that an opinion or theory about steel swords is inaccurate if that theory does not match the opinion or theory offered in a Fairmormon article.

[ERayR]

I do not get the impress the op agrees though. The op appears to take the position that an opinion or theory about steel swords is inaccurate if that theory does not match the opinion or theory offered in a Fairmormon article.

 

This is a discussion board after all.

Edited August 5, 2014 by ERayR

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I agree a person may entertain theories. I do not get the impress the op agrees though. The op appears to take the position that an opinion or theory about steel swords is inaccurate if that theory does not match the opinion or theory offered in a Fairmormon article. 

 

Incorrect. I said " It ignores pretty much all current scholarship even in the church in terms of settings and materials" and "Steel swords, when taking both the text and the archaeology (any archaeology in the Western Hemisphere) would have been a rarity, something that Captain Moroni may have had, but not most soldiers" then pointed to a general article that links to more articles and actual literature in the realm of academia.

 

That the FAIR article happens to align with the evidence is nice. I am happy about that, and would be concerned otherwise. If you would like to debate archaeological evidence of steel swords in the proposed Heartland and/or MesoAmerica and/or the Western Hemisphere pre-Columbus, then please open a different thread or participate in the many previous ones on this very topic. 

 

The point that was being made wasn't about steel swords, but about how one particular view of a larger grouping of historical, textual, and archaeological topics that tend to run together one way or another is more prevalent among a certain group of people. This is also something you are welcome to debate, and would even be appropriate on this thread. 

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I'll note tonie that your taking my intent out of context and focusing on one myopic part, then assigning intent to me is one of the reasons I largely gave up posting to message boards, engaging in far more productive conversation elsewhere. I noticed you didn't really address the questions I asked. Participate if you will, but focus on the thrust of the topic. 

 

Edited August 5, 2014 by Matthew J. Tandy

[VideoGameJunkie]

As long as it's more accurate than Noah.

[strappinglad]

I have been to the museums in Central America where are shown the outfits found in tombs from prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. The stature portrayed is of a man about 5 ft. 7 in tall. In other words, about the same size as a typical Spaniard of the 1500s. I have seen no evidence of health or stature deterioration in the 1000 years prior to the coming of the Spanish. In the centuries AFTER the Spanish arrival there  was famine and slavery and disease among the natives which did shrink the natives considerably. As to strength, however, I personally have seen 3 strong gringos struggle to place a basket of fruit on the head on a Guatemalan woman who then carried it away with little effort. I have also seen an old man pick up a rack of pottery that weighed about 200 lbs with his neck using a forehead strap. For those who think strength is always tied to height, take a look at the suits of armor used by knights.

 

And for those who are used to 6ft+ 250 lb Hollywood Vikings , here is the reality.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vikheight.shtml

Edited August 5, 2014 by strappinglad

[tonie]

I'll note tonie that your taking my intent out of context and focusing on one myopic part, then assigning intent to me is one of the reasons I largely gave up posting to message boards, engaging in far more productive conversation elsewhere. I noticed you didn't really address the questions I asked. Participate if you will, but focus on the thrust of the topic.

You seemed to link the swords, uniforms, and horses to "shaken faith"; in my opinion you made the swords a topic of discussion. You also cited Fairmormon in an apparent attempt to demonstrate the inaccuarcy of the film, which would seem to go back to your shaken faith concern. Given all this, and as the Church does not have an opinion on the steel swords and the lack of authority of the Fairmormon article, I can not foresee a Book Of Mormon themed movie, which is not produced by the Church, which portrays steel swords causing shaken faith.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Darin Southam here, writer of Reign of Judges: Title of Liberty, chiming in to clarify.

 

Darin, I appreciate you jumping on and sharing your views.

 

First off, the concept posters and images are NOT what will be portrayed the film... it was what we could do on a shoestring budget 

 

 

I like the poster. I like the planned style and feel. I think it has good potential. As a historian, my only concern is with things like clothing and weapon style, as well as geography. I think the actual story shows great promise. I hope you take my critique with that in mind. 

 

...although it is abundantly clear both by the record itself, and WHERE the record was buried, that much of it (especially Captain Moroni's time frame) took place in what is now North America. That said, we do not exclude Canada or South America.

 

1 Nephi  22: 7 "And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a MIGHTY NATION among the Gentiles (America), yea, even UPON THE FACE OF THIS LAND (where the Nephites currently were in Nephi's time 550 B.C.); and by them shall our seed (the AMERICAN Indians) be scattered."

 

 

You are reading into the text preconceived ideas that the text does not contain. Further, to say it is "abundantly clear" tells me that you have engaged little if at all with the actual discussion about such things. It may or may not surprise you that the vast majority of those who have engaged in the topic deeply disagree with your statement, and this group is mainly conservatives and very devout LDS members, as well as liberal members. It's universal in that sense. I am not aware of a single scholar in the church today that supports the Heartland model. Does this mean they are right? Of course not. But it does mean it's not "abundantly clear".

 

While I could dissect your actual statement, I simply ask if you are willing to engage in a straightforward discussion on the topics in other threads on this board as time permits, or in private discussion with a small group of people. I don't expect you to change your mind (although it would not surprise me on some level), but it would perhaps inform you of more depth and understanding of the "why" others come to different conclusions, and this at least can add more depth to your film even if you don't make any major changes, and would allow you to increase your appeal.

 

BOM Intro: “all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the AMERICAN Indians.”

 

 

No one disagrees. Whether one believes the events took place in Mesoamerica or Heartland or elsewhere, everyone agrees on this point.

 

Alma 46:4 And there were some who died with fevers, which at some SEASONS of the year were very frequent in the land—but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate— NOT A TROPICAL CLIMATE among the Nephites in Moroni's time.

 

You are incorrect. Seasons and seasonal fevers both exist in tropical climates. Note also that the climate in Mesoamerica ranges wildly and in very very short distances from coastal lowland to mountains, from desert and arid lands to sub-tropic to tropical. Refer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Mesoamerica . 

 

 

Regarding horses... are we all reading the same book??

Enos 1:21 "And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also MANY HORSES." (among the Nephites)

 

 

Again, I suspect you may only be familiar with these topics as proposed by Meldrum and as Medlrum and company portray what others say, versus what is actually said. It's like asking a Democrat what Republican think on different topics. I suggest engaging with a few of us for a short time to get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

 

Here's another whopper "The Lamanites were small, as portrayed in Apocolypto."

 

Mosiah 10:11 "Now, the Lamanites knew nothing concerning the Lord, nor the strength of the Lord, therefore they depended upon their own strength. Yet they were a strong people, as to the strength of men.

 

 

 

Who said "The Lamanites were small, as portrayed in Apocolypto"? Not me. I tried a quick internet search, couldn't find it. While one may discuss bow many there were, we can get an idea of Nephite populations, and it wasn't small. As you pointed out, there were even more Lamanites. No one is disagreeing with that.

 

The Lamanites had nearly 1000 years of degeneration from the time the Nephite nation fell to the time the Lamanites were discovered. As many in Central and South America are smaller in stature, which size is a consequence of diseases, parasites and the like which stunt growth (brought about by disobedience), rather than when people follow God and "wax strong".

 

It would be erroneous to base what the Lamanites (and especially the Nephites) looked like based on the degenerate state of the Lamanites over 1000 years after their fall.

 

 

Health, diet, genetics, and climate, etc affect all of this. You can be short and strong. Ask King David. Christ, arguably a very obedient person (ok, not arguably, he was the most obedient person), was likely very short. I'm 5'5", and likely taller than he was by a small margin, based on the biblical texts. And that's fine, because he was a good height for his time. I suspect though he was much stronger, what with his carpentry skills, and if he was so inclined could whoop me (or whip me!). 

Regardless, I am not sure of your point there. Heights varied throughout the western hemisphere. Height is certainly an area where creative license should have full reign in the majority of cases. Make the Nephites all 6' tall or 5'2", and I see no problem with it. I support you. The only conversation about appearances was in terms of clothing, weapons, armor, transportation, and perhaps housing based on what we know from different areas and archaeology, regardless of Heartland or Mesoamerican or other models. There are some things that can be ruled out of all models, thus removing needless controversy and confusion.

 

As far as the Nephites, I know this may shock people (especially those of "progressive" thinking)...

 

No insults needed. As a conservative, like most here (though I embrace my liberal friends in the Gospel!), denigration by calling us progressive in quotation marks seems to be waxing slightly political. Let me shed some light on something: not only are the majority of LDS conservative in the US, but most who hold to models outside of Hemispheric or Heartland models are also conservative. Just like those who hold to all models. And those who hold to a limited geographic view and base it in areas outside the heartlands do so because they are literalist/conservatives, weeding out traditions built up since the restoration and seeking clarity on what the text itself says. Some then see this fitting mainly in one model or another, and many happen to think of a specific one. From a US Constitutional analogy, it's the difference between judges and congressman who view it as "living" and who cares about the original intent, versus those (like me) who care deeply about understanding original context, setting, intent, etc. I love all in the church, even those who view the Book of Mormon as non-historical, but my intent here is to help you understand what lays at the heart of the approach of those who reject the Heartland model.

 

but they looked like Europeans, if you believe what Nephi said when he saw them that is: 1 Nephi 13:15 "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles (Europeans), and they did prosper and obtain the land (America) for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were WHITE, and exceedingly FAIR and BEAUTIFUL, like unto my people before they were slain." Not much room to argue there.

 

 

As a historian of the Ancient Near East, I can firmly say you are... somewhat right. There were very lightskinned, even ref haired Israelites at the time of Nephi. It was likely pretty diverse to a point. Were they white like European fair maiden white? No. But historically, white had a lot of connotations, including for skin color. It's a great discussion. However, if you want to make them white, go for it. I would personally prefer someone more tan. Can you get Dwayne Johnson? Because that would be awesome. ;-) 

 

Laban's sword was STEEL and Nephi replicated it in the Americas. We have not based our creative decisions on science and archaeology, while not completely ignoring them, we simply have chosen to put more focus on the record itself rather than relying on the arm of flesh (science and archaeology), which we feel the noble spirits of those within the Book of Mormon would want. 

 

The concern is that you appear to be reading things into the text based on cultural bias and tradition, not the text itself. Further, Nephi clearly taught that some things could not be understood without historical context, and Mormon was a Historian who thought it important to give interesting cultural details. 

 

Archaeology, for example, has "0" explanation for all of the indisputable evidence that has surfaced in the last 5-10 years in NORTH America of the Hopewell and Adena, which NOT incidentally, happen to have the exact same time frame as the Nephites. 

 

Both the text of the Book of Mormon and Archeology disagree with you. I am well aware of Meldrum's materials, videos, literature, etc. You appear once again to have only engaged this topic from one side.

 

We invite you all to support this movement. We need the Title of Liberty to come out of obscurity now. What we don't need is to all think we are experts or scholars on Ancient America and know somehow exactly how everything was. We are making the best informed decisions that we can. What a shame if we divide ourselves, squabbling over such seemingly trivial things, when such an epic story could potentially dawn upon the world.

 

 

Darin, morally, societally, and politcally, I agree of the importance of films like The Title of Liberty. Unfortunately, when I created a post about why the majority academic and historical view within the church is still unsuccessful at packaging AND distributing the last century+ of scholarship in a way that is easily digested for today's world and needs to ensure truth and accuracy are maintained, you came in and used divisive language, showed a stark lack of understanding of the historical and textual issues, and then ask support so you can make a movie that appeals to a limited group within a limited group. I support you in doing as you wish. I support that your intent at heart is to make a movie with wide appeal that inspires both religiously and in terms of freedom and society. I struggle to support the direction you are taking though, as consulting a range of historians and scriptorians on a movie based on a scriptural text that I hold to be true, sacred, and historical seems prudent and yet you are not. Placing certain questionable elements in the film only serve to add fuel to the those who would make a mockery of the Book of Mormon. I support creative license in the life of Captain Moroni, in characters and events and battles.

 

What I ask is that you engage in dialog to see if some areas can be refined to at least reduce qualms on all sides, and thus ensure broader support for your film. 

[ERayR]

As long as it's more accurate than Noah.

 

Going from the authors post, #9, maybe not so much.

Edited August 5, 2014 by ERayR

[nosmelone]

Going from the authors post, #9, maybe not so much.

 I watched 15 minutes of Noah and took it back to redbox, it sounds like your right this may be right down that same alley according to post #9.  What a mess. lol