A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[Mystery Meat]

Well if Elder Oaks gets his wish, then you might also get what you want.  Even if it means no Mormon will be allowed to work for any major company in California.  The church has ticked off a lot of people in this state that just don't believe anyone should discriminate against gays or blacks.

 

I think that should be their right.

[stemelbow]

So in California, there are a lot of hard feelings towards Mormons.  I take it that you would not have a problem if every major business in California decided that all Mormons are bigots and have no place in their companies.  Simply by being a Mormon, you would get fired from your job.  It would effectively prevent you from working for any major company in the state.  And what if they all decided to put this practice in place throughout the United States?  No problem????  

 

The church could be setting up it's members for a world of hurt if it continues to push the idea that it is ok to discriminate on religious grounds.  Many religions don't believe or support bigots.  And whether they are or not, many people think Mormons are bigots.  You do the math.

There are hard feelings towards Mormons in places outside California. I think I'm on your side in this though. I've been advocating what you describe.

[Mystery Meat]

I was discussing with a co-worker about how I believe the fight over supposed bigotry will be what eventually leads the Church to relocate to Jackson County. Large amounts of members won't be able to find work or place in society for following the Holy Spirit and belief in principals revealed to us by God's holy prophets. Out of necessity and to lighten the membership's load, the Lord will reveal that it is time to cut ourselves off from the evil that abounds in the world and move to Jackson County. Those members who have strong enough testimonies will make the move back to Missouri. Those who stay behind will watch as the world crumbles around them.Some of them will then want to come to zion and share in the prosperity and abundance of the Spirit that is present there. Ironically, this will make the rest of the country angry that we Mormons were able to find a work around and still be largely successful in what we do and will try to tear us down further.

 

I don't know how long it will take for us to get to that point, but I do envision this scenario taking place if california boy is right and companies around the country hate us as much as he says. 

[california boy]

And yet, if a state by an overwhelming majority votes against a gay person's right to marry and the courts interfere, who rights were infringed? The voters right to decide? Democracatic rights? What we then have is a clash of rights. And the voters because they represented a clear majority would have the right for denial regardless of the courts decision. Right?

 

Should people have the right to marry more than one woman or man and live in such relationships?

 

Should brother and sister have the right to marry if they are in love?

 

Do all these people have rights according to individual rights or religious rights as long as they are adults and it is consenual?

 

Where does it end when it comes to group indentity rights?

 

 

Surely you know that the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all Americans that can not be voted away by a state election.  The judicial part of the government is a part of our government whose job is to specifically protect those rights guaranteed all citizens.  

 

In answer to your other questions, Yes.  Who others choose to marry does not have one bit of effect on my marriage or my constitutional rights.  I don't get to control someone else's life simply because I disagree with them and those beliefs don't harm me.  .  That is a principle of the gospel as well as our government.  Worry about your own salvation and your own marriage.  I am certainly not going to allow the actions of others to determine my own salvation.  We have the responsibility to teach correct principles and to work out our salvation.  We are not commissioned with the responsibility to FORCE others to do what is right.  That was the other guys plan.  I personally rejected that plan.  

[california boy]

There are hard feelings towards Mormons in places outside California. I think I'm on your side in this though. I've been advocating what you describe.

 

 

Just to be clear.  The anti-discrimination laws protect Mormons just as much as they protect blacks, Jews, gays and any other minority group.  I am only stating that discrimination against Mormons by every major company in California and other parts of the country could occur IF Elder Oaks and the church succeeds in repealing those laws and allow individuals to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  I personally hope the church does not succeed in repealing anti-discrimination laws and no Mormon will be discriminated against because of others religious beliefs That is the side I am standing with.  I stand against discrimination of any kind in the businesses of America.  I will serve all who walk in the door no matter what their sins are.  I will show charity and kindness to every person I wait on no matter what their color, religion or personal beliefs are.  And in fact I will proactively reach out to extend a hand of fellowship to those who other choose to discriminate against because of their religious beliefs.  That is the side I am standing with.  Let Elder Oaks fight for religious based discrimination if he must.  But I will stand against him and others no matter who they are.  My religion tells me that is the right thing to do.  I will be blessed for offering my services to all, no matter what their sins.  

[why me]

Surely you know that the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all Americans that can not be voted away by a state election.  The judicial part of the government is a part of our government whose job is to specifically protect those rights guaranteed all citizens.  

 

 

But you must know that those rights guaranteed to all citizens is a farce. Like I said, would you support polygamy as a right for all citizens who wish to practice it? Would you guarantee the right for a brother and sister to marry as a right for all? When marriage is taken out of the man/woman paradigm, much can happen to guarantee the rights of all to marry whom they wish. And why not?

 

Also, identity rights are different from collective rights. For example, the right to a job and decent work should be a right for all. And yet is it? And the right to a roof over one's head should be a right for all. And yet is it? No. Where is he judicial part of the government in all this?

 

And what happens to movie stars who speak out against gay marriage? I see no guarantee of freedom of speech there. Most likely they would be put on a hollywood blacklist and be called a homophobe. Thus, overwhelming silence. Or a professor who speaks out against gay marriage in class? Doe this professor have the right to speak freely? Maybe. But the consequences may be severe. Such are rights in a postmodern world and yet, where are the courts that you have mentioned?

Edited January 29, 2015 by why me

[california boy]

But you must know that those rights guaranteed to all citizens is a farce. Like I said, would you support polygamy as a right for all citizens who wish to practice it? Would you guarantee the right for a brother and sister to marry as a right for all? When marriage is taken out of the man/woman paradigm, much can happen to guarantee the rights of all to marry whom they wish. And why not?

 

Also, identity rights are different from collective rights. For example, the right to a job and decent work should be a right for all. And yet is it? And the right to a roof over one's head should be a right for all. And yet is it? No. Where is he judicial part of the government in all this?

 

And what happens to movie stars who speak out against gay marriage? I see no guarantee of freedom of speech there. Most likely they would be put on a hollywood blacklist and be called a homophobe. Thus, overwhelming silence. Or a professor who speaks out against gay marriage in class? Doe this professor have  right to speak freely? Maybe. But the consequences may be severe. Such are right in a postmodern world.

 

 

Did you not bother to read the second half of my answer?  Here is what I said.

 

In answer to your other questions, Yes.  Who others choose to marry does not have one bit of effect on my marriage or my constitutional rights.  I don't get to control someone else's life simply because I disagree with them and those beliefs don't harm me.  .  That is a principle of the gospel as well as our government.  Worry about your own salvation and your own marriage.  I am certainly not going to allow the actions of others to determine my own salvation.  We have the responsibility to teach correct principles and to work out our salvation.  We are not commissioned with the responsibility to FORCE others to do what is right.  That was the other guys plan.  I personally rejected that plan.  

 

 

 

Could I not be more clear? Yes means Yes.  I don't even have a religious objection to polygamy or marrying your sister.  There are certainly plenty of examples in the Bible that condone both practices.  Who am I to fight against what God has sanctioned.  How bad can it be?  And I don't "know" that those rights are a farce.  I believe in the Constitution and the rights granted each and every citizen.  And I choose to fight for those rights for ALL Americans.  Let them worship how where or what they may.  It certainly does not effect my marriage or my religious beliefs or my Constitutional rights.  

 

So who is with me?  Who is willing to stand up for all American's Constitutional rights?  Even when they choose to do something I personally would not do.

[Kenngo1969]

Just to be clear.  The anti-discrimination laws protect Mormons just as much as they protect blacks, Jews, gays and any other minority group.  I am only stating that discrimination against Mormons by every major company in California and other parts of the country could occur IF Elder Oaks and the church succeeds in repealing those laws and allow individuals to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. ... [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969].

Churches and their leaders don't repeal laws.  They do, however, get a voice in the public square along with everyone else (no matter who thinks that they shouldn't).

Edited January 29, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I was discussing with a co-worker about how I believe the fight over supposed bigotry will be what eventually leads the Church to relocate to Jackson County. Large amounts of members won't be able to find work or place in society for following the Holy Spirit and belief in principals revealed to us by God's holy prophets. Out of necessity and to lighten the membership's load, the Lord will reveal that it is time to cut ourselves off from the evil that abounds in the world and move to Jackson County. Those members who have strong enough testimonies will make the move back to Missouri. Those who stay behind will watch as the world crumbles around them.Some of them will then want to come to zion and share in the prosperity and abundance of the Spirit that is present there. Ironically, this will make the rest of the country angry that we Mormons were able to find a work around and still be largely successful in what we do and will try to tear us down further.

 

I don't know how long it will take for us to get to that point, but I do envision this scenario taking place if california boy is right and companies around the country hate us as much as he says. 

I'm not sure I would go that far, although I think there may well come a time when the only place members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be able safely to worship will be within the walls of their own homes.  I think there will still be pockets of Church membership scattered in other places even after a good number of members relocate to Jackson County.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure I would go that far, although I think there may well come a time when the only place members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be able safely to worship will be within the walls of their own homes.  I think there will still be pockets of Church membership scattered in other places even after a good number of members relocate to Jackson County.

Yes.

 

Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built on the American continent, as declared in the 10th Article of Faith, and there are prophecies that this will transpire in Missouri.

 

But the notion of the entire Church moving en masse to Jackson County is an old-time myth that has been debunked, as reflected in this April 1979 Ensign magazine article.

[Robert F. Smith]

Surely you know that the Constitution guarantees certain rights to all Americans that can not be voted away by a state election.  The judicial part of the government is a part of our government whose job is to specifically protect those rights guaranteed all citizens.  

 

In answer to your other questions, Yes.  Who others choose to marry does not have one bit of effect on my marriage or my constitutional rights.  I don't get to control someone else's life simply because I disagree with them and those beliefs don't harm me.  .  That is a principle of the gospel as well as our government.  Worry about your own salvation and your own marriage.  I am certainly not going to allow the actions of others to determine my own salvation.  We have the responsibility to teach correct principles and to work out our salvation.  We are not commissioned with the responsibility to FORCE others to do what is right.  That was the other guys plan.  I personally rejected that plan.  

Well said.

 

I am often amazed at how unready people are to accept the consequences of real democracy under a Constitution.

[Scott Lloyd]

The day of the announcement I was standing at work and there was a big announcement on the radio. It was at a mall and it was like there was an earthquake. There was this huge reaction and people were hugging and the guy standing next to me decided to go back to church because the blacks received the priesthood and he did. There was a big reaction at church the next Sunday (if I remember it was two days later) and they mentioned in the prayers how grateful the church was for the change in the policy. When I went on a mission to the South two years later, there was nothing but positive things said about the policy. Every ward I served in had black members and investigators. I lived in the south for six years after my mission. I can`t even tell you how well we were integrated in my last ward. In my present ward there are several whites married to blacks, hawaiians to blacks, asian to blacks. There is about every interracial combination you can think of and from what I can see in the Church we are all grateful that it is that way. I don`t have some clipping from a newspaper to prove my point, but I was there. I am glad that blacks are in the priesthood, I think we (the Church) are better for it, the members are grateful for it. One of my best friends drove to church with us, I went fishing with him and I helped him get back on the path when he got mixed up with cocaine again. I had to pull him out of this horrible crack house and take him back to his wife (who wasn`t a member) and go with him and sign him into rehab.

I feel like we Mormons and our society have come so far until I hear you on this board or Al Sharpton going on about things on MSNBC. I`m not black and I won`t presume to know what it is like to be you, but I am me. I was eight years old when my dad brought a black man home to eat dinner with us. He was in the military with him. It became very clear to me that day, that blacks were important people to my dad.

What mormonnewb doesn't realize (or, more likely, he does but is not letting on) is that what he is demanding would take some substantial, old-fashioned library research. The Internet did not come into wide use until the latter 1990s. The newspaper I work for did not begin to digitize its content until 1988, and thus, it has no digital or digitally indexed or searchable archives prior to that year. I suspect nearly all newspapers are in a similar situation. So, to research "contemporary accounts" from 1978 would require poring over microfilmed images, even if such could be found at a public library or elsewhere.

 

I might undertake that, but if I do, it won't be because I have any hope of convincing mormonnewb. In short, I disbelieve him when he says he would "love to be proven wrong on this." I think he is so jaundiced and cherishes his false conclusions and toxic attitudes to the point he would refuse to admit error no matter how convincing a case could be presented.

 

If I do it, it will be for the sake of unseen lurkers or others here.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

Churches and their leaders don't repeal laws.  They do, however, get a voice in the public square along with everyone else (no matter who thinks that they shouldn't).

Exactly.  And people should not be bullied simply because they have a well-known point of view which is out of favor with the majority.  What goes around comes around.

[california boy]

Churches and their leaders don't repeal laws.  They do, however, get a voice in the public square along with everyone else (no matter who thinks that they shouldn't).

That is correct.  They also get public disapproval in the public square for standing against the civil rights of others.

[Robert F. Smith]

Stone holm, on 28 Jan 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

This is a self created problem, when we drew the political sword and inter meddled politically in the Prop 8 fight we drew a huge target on the Church and tainted every Mormon. Plenty of Christian denominations do not condone SSM, but they do not try to force their standards on others. We did, we lost, and now we are screaming for protection from the consequences. .........

You didn't address which part of his statement was false. Would you please point out the alleged falsehood(s)?

I'm very surprised that these lies are not obvious to you.

 

Indeed, many more churches and many more people than Mormons supported Prop 8, and yet the entire focus of hate and vilification has been placed upon the small minority of Mormons.  It is much easier to scapegoat that very small group than to target the huge number of Roman Catholics, evangelicals, and members of the Black Church in California who supported Prop 8.

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh yes, we won that battle. But, I believe most analysts agree that Prop 8 was the game changer, it was after Prop 8 that the tide changed and there isn't much doubt at this point that we lost the war. And there is truth in what was said if one group wants its rights protected, then it needs to stand up against discrimination against other groups. We forgot that truth, and now we are paying the piper for it.

So, the law of the jungle fully applies, and justly so.  No ethical or moral considerations are necessary.  Politics is just another cage-fighting event.  We meet in the Octagon, show no mercy,   Spectators reign supreme.  To Hell with Gentleman Jim Corbett.

 

The more blood, the better.  Only vengeance and total humiliation can satisfy the mob?  Is this really what we want in America?

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think anyone is saying that the church did not have a right to get politically involved in Prop 8.  I certainly have never made such a statement.  Is all I and others are saying is that the church clearly fought to take away the civil rights of gays to marry by becoming the major financial and manpower for Prop 8.  It is largely through those efforts that most people believe that Prop 8 passed.  

 

So the church is now looked upon as a church that believes in taking away the civil rights of gays.  That is the reality of the political involvement of the church.  Now the church has to live with the reputation it created.  Some want to pretend the church members did nothing but cast their vote just like everyone else.  I think most reasonably informed people know the church did a whole lot more than just cast their vote on Prop 8.  If that were the case, it wouldn't have become known as "The Mormon Proposition"

I know of no one who claims that Mormons merely cast their votes for Prop 8 in California, so that is a red herring.  Everyone knows and admits that many Mormons in California worked hard to pass that Prop, and you admit that they had that political right.  Once the political process was over and the  courts had ruled on it, that should have been the end of the matter.

 

However, it is not true that Mormons were the major financial and manpower behind Prop 8.  There are only a half-million Mormons in California and only a minority of those became politically active in favor of Prop 8.  Moreover, Mormons were not allowed by the Brethren to conduct those political activities inside Church properties.  They worked out of private homes and donated their own private funds to that process, and demonstrated on the streets.  I was there and saw it firsthand.

 

Mormons are at about 2% of the California population.  Jews at 3%.  Protestants at 36% (Black Protestants at 4% of that), Roman Catholics at 31%, no religion at about 21%, and so on.  Unlike the Mormons, the evangelicals, the Black Church, and Roman Catholics preached in favor of Prop 8 from the pulpit -- which is perfectly legal.  They were out on the streets demonstrating.  I saw them.  To suggest that Mormons swung the whole state is nonsense, and is propaganda in search of a scapegoat.

 

I see the scapegoating of Mormons on that basis as no different than the scapegoating of Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s.  There is no basis for such cowardly and selective bullying.

[why me]

 

 

Could I not be more clear? Yes means Yes.  I don't even have a religious objection to polygamy or marrying your sister.  There are certainly plenty of examples in the Bible that condone both practices.  Who am I to fight against what God has sanctioned.  How bad can it be?  And I don't "know" that those rights are a farce.  I believe in the Constitution and the rights granted each and every citizen.  And I choose to fight for those rights for ALL Americans.  Let them worship how where or what they may.  It certainly does not effect my marriage or my religious beliefs or my Constitutional rights.  

 

So who is with me?  Who is willing to stand up for all American's Constitutional rights?  Even when they choose to do something I personally would not do.

 

You misunderstood the farce. To believe that we all have rights is a farce. We don't. We don't have the collective rights: to a job, to affordable health care, to a roof over out heads, to protest peacefully ( occupy wall street, oakland etc and the beating and gassing of demonstrators) and to live with a full stomach, the right to an education etc. These collective rights are overlooked. However on this forum, we have people fighting for black rights. others fighting for women's right, and we have other people fighting for LGBT rights. Not to mention animal rights etc. But the big picture which is found in the forest for the trees is missing from the rights agenda. Poverty is increasing, food banks are maxed out, jails are full, drugs addiction is rampant, job security is nonexistant, greed, narcissism, and self absorbtion is rather prevalent and with it social darwinism. Peoples collective rights are constantly being infringed upon and yet, the courts remain silent, except when it comes to gay marriage. And all the days, months and years focusing on gay marriage has allowed people to forget the lack of basic rights in the USA. And the courts are still silent.

Edited January 29, 2015 by why me

[readstoomuch]

What mormonnewb doesn't realize (or, more likely, he does but is not letting on) is that what he is demanding would take some substantial, old-fashioned library research. The Internet did not come into wide use until the latter 1990s. The newspaper I work for did not begin to digitize its content until 1988, and thus, it has no digital or digitally indexed or searchable archives prior to that year. I suspect nearly all newspapers are in a similar situation. So, to research "contemporary accounts" from 1978 would require poring over microfilmed images, even if such could be found at a public library or elsewhere.

 

I might undertake that, but if I do, it won't be because I have any hope of convincing mormonnewb. In short, I disbelieve him when he says he would "love to be proven wrong on this." I think he is so jaundiced and cherishes his false conclusions and toxic attitudes to the point he would refuse to admit error no matter how convincing a case could be presented.

 

If I do it, it will be for the sake of unseen lurkers or others here.

It is interesting to me that an eyewitness account in two different parts of the country is not reliable enough to him. It wouldn`t be the first time I have shaken my head about something Mormonnewbe has written. I really don`t feel like digging in the newspaper archives.

[why me]

It is interesting to me that an eyewitness account in two different parts of the country is not reliable enough to him. It wouldn`t be the first time I have shaken my head about something Mormonnewbe has written. I really don`t feel like digging in the newspaper archives.

Interesting indeed. I think that the poster knows the facts very well about the members and their reaction to it but doesn't let on. And certainly this is not the only forum that he reads. For a new member he does seem to be an expert of critic positions, somewhat overlooking the positions of apologists and active members of the lds church. It would be the same for blacks and the priesthood. He must have searched various sites reading up on the facts. I wouldn't get too wind up about it and his reactions to the church that he recently joined.

Edited January 29, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

It is interesting to me that an eyewitness account in two different parts of the country is not reliable enough to him. It wouldn`t be the first time I have shaken my head about something Mormonnewbe has written. I really don`t feel like digging in the newspaper archives.

The cost/benefit ratio does not seem very favorable.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting indeed. I think that the poster knows the facts very well about the members and their reaction to it but doesn't let on. And certainly this is not the only forum that he reads. For a new member he does seem to be an expert of critic positions, somewhat overlooking the positions of apologists and active members of the lds church. It would be the same for blacks and the priesthood. He must have searched various sites reading up on the facts. I wouldn't get too wind up about it and his reactions to the church that he recently joined.

And has more recently announced his decision to leave behind.

[mormonnewb]

 

Stone holm, on 28 Jan 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

I'm very surprised that these lies are not obvious to you.

 

Indeed, many more churches and many more people than Mormons supported Prop 8, and yet the entire focus of hate and vilification has been placed upon the small minority of Mormons.  It is much easier to scapegoat that very small group than to target the huge number of Roman Catholics, evangelicals, and members of the Black Church in California who supported Prop 8.

 

 

You're right, but that is price of being just about the last church to recognize racial equality.  It builds into an existing narrative.  "Oh, those Mormons are at it again!"

 

It's not accurate.  Certainly Mormons are no more homophobic than my beloved black Baptist brothers.  In fact, I'd guess that the language coming from black churches is far more incendiary.  However, black Baptists get an (undeserved) pass because they are associated with Dr. King, Diane Nash, Congressman Lewis, and even ... gasp ... Jesse Jackson.  Black Baptists have been on the front lines for labor groups, migrant workers, low-wage earners, etc.  In other words, they've built up a lot of "Liberal Cred."  So even if gays were rightly disappointed that the Black church didn't side with them on Prop 8, they had to acknowledge that the black church built the activism platforms that made their struggle possible in the first.  The same is true of the Catholics and a few others.

 

However, since the Mormon Church has no history in progressive struggles, the opposition to SSM only builds into an existing narrative.  As I've expressed in other threads, I'm often disappointed that the Church doesn't seem very concerned that it has such a negative image in certain quarters.  We seem to be perfectly content so long as the far right embraces us (for now).  I think we could learn something from Pastor Rick Warren, who is known to say, "I'm not interested in left-wing or right-wing.  I want the WHOLE bird."  

[mormonnewb]

It is interesting to me that an eyewitness account in two different parts of the country is not reliable enough to him. It wouldn`t be the first time I have shaken my head about something Mormonnewbe has written. I really don`t feel like digging in the newspaper archives.

 

I'm not saying that Mormons didn't party like it was 1978, but it seems strange that NO ONE took a selfie at the party.  EVERY year, the local Utah press reports on Pioneers Day celebrations.  How is it possible that the press completely missed this celebration?

 

And it's not just a matter of it being "old news."  The Google machine can point me to THOUSANDS of stories about celebrations at the end of World War II.  In fact, one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century is of the returning GI kissing the nurse.  That was not only before the Internet and smart phones, but before the Polaroid camera.  So if someone could have found the time to do whatever arcane process was necessary to document that celebration, certainly ONE person could have shaken a Polaroid picture for two minutes to mark Priesthoodpalooza.

 

Do you really think that it's more likely that NO ONE recorded the celebration or that Mormons (like EVERY other group of Americans) is remembering the past differently than it actually happened.

[mormonnewb]

What mormonnewb doesn't realize (or, more likely, he does but is not letting on) is that what he is demanding would take some substantial, old-fashioned library research. The Internet did not come into wide use until the latter 1990s. The newspaper I work for did not begin to digitize its content until 1988, and thus, it has no digital or digitally indexed or searchable archives prior to that year. I suspect nearly all newspapers are in a similar situation. So, to research "contemporary accounts" from 1978 would require poring over microfilmed images, even if such could be found at a public library or elsewhere.

 

I might undertake that, but if I do, it won't be because I have any hope of convincing mormonnewb. In short, I disbelieve him when he says he would "love to be proven wrong on this." I think he is so jaundiced and cherishes his false conclusions and toxic attitudes to the point he would refuse to admit error no matter how convincing a case could be presented.

 

If I do it, it will be for the sake of unseen lurkers or others here.

 

Nice try, but no dice.  Even an old school guy like you knows full well that the Internet isn't just limited to information compiled post-1990.  In fact, this very thread contains contemporaneous quotes from statements made by Church leaders in the 1949, 1969, 1978, etc.  In fact, people often directly quote BY and JS.  Do you think that they are typing these comments verbatim from their handwritten notes in high school seminary class?  Or do you think they are copying and pasting them from the Internet?

 

After all, I can find read articles written in the Nauvoo Expositor from almost 200 years ago.  So how is it that this "scandalous rag" is available to us in electronic form, yet no one bothered to record the most earth-shattering event in the last 100 years of Mormonism?

 

I understand if you can't find news stories that reflected the excitement about lifting the ban, because I couldn't find it either.  However, please don't claim that the Internet only goes back to Al Gore.

Edited January 29, 2015 by mormonnewb