Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[SmileyMcGee]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

Edited November 19, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[CV75]

I think that my SP would only send a letter in response to a specific situation that had been pushed up from the ward level and pushed by the member (which is what happened with the medical marijuana example I cited).  I am not aware of any such situation in my ward so I don't see him sending a letter at this time.

Ok--thank you,

[Zakuska]

Does the new Policy even pass legal scrutiny?

There is a foundational doctrine in the LDS church which states we must abide by the laws of the land. You can read about it in D&C 134.

This is doubly reinforced by the New Testament: Romans 13: 1-14

So the LDS church is doubly bound to abide by the laws of the land. It's a contractual relationship between heaven and earth and both sides must abide by the contract for the relationship to work. Therefore any policy that grants or denies membership based on laws that are legally binding on the other side cannot stand. Based on this fundamental principle, the new church Policy as it stands now, doesn't pass legal muster.

Since the law of the land recognizes SSM as legal the church must also recognize it to abide by its contractual obligations and cannot use that as grounds for excommunication. This same principle is what allows and actually requires the church to excommunicate for polygamy.

This makes the definition of SMM in the new policy as apostasy and grounds for excommunication, illegal, because it breaks the contractual obligation of the church to recognize that marriage civilly.

To maintain the structural integrity of this contract between heaven and earth, all religious rights associated with initiation of a membership record must be decoupled from heavenly rights. This would include Baby Blessings and Baptism.

By doing this both sides of the contract are maintained.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Maestrophil]

None of us are 100% righteous.

 

We believe divorce is wrong but we still let divorced people keep their membership.

 

Call me crazy, but I think there would be a lot less pushback from members on a policy allowing gay married members to retain their membership (though not qualify for temple recommends) than there was for the Nov 5 additions to the handbook.

 

Interesting approach to think about...  It would require the brethren and membership to redefine the seriousness of homosexual sex.  I do wonder how much pushback that would get.  I would struggle with the decision - but I would do as always and soul search and pray for verification and follow what the Spirit whispers to me.  I appreciate the tone of your posts, Rockpond

[JLHPROF]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

 

This has been done repeatedly, and is always rejected out of hand.

[Maestrophil]

Does the new Policy even pass legal scrutiny?

There is a foundational doctrine in the LDS church which states we must abide by the laws of the land. You can read about it in D&C 98.

This is doubly reinforced by the New Testament: Romans 13: 1-14

So the LDS church is doubly bound to abide by the laws of the land. It's a contractual relationship between heaven and earth and both sides must abide by the contract for the relationship to work. Therefore any policy that grants or denies membership based on laws that are legally binding on the other side cannot stand. Based on this fundamental principle, the new church Policy as it stands now, doesn't pass legal muster.

Since the law of the land recognizes SSM as legal the church must also recognize it to abide by its contractual obligations and cannot use that as grounds for excommunication. This same principle is what allows and actually requires the church to excommunicate for polygamy.

This makes the definition of SMM in the new policy as apostasy and grounds for excommunication, illegal, because it breaks the contractual obligation of the church to recognize that marriage civilly.

To maintain the structural integrity of this contract between heaven and earth, all religious rights associated with initiation of a membership record must be decoupled from heavenly rights. This would include Baby Blessings and Baptism.

By doing this both sides of the contract are maintained.

 

Wouldn't such a view require the Church to disqualify an action that was legal as grounds for discipline?  In other words - legal to drink, smoke pot, fornicate, look at porn, lie to a friend, etc - then the church would not be following the law of the land for disciplining such behaviors?  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Maestrophil

[Scott Lloyd]

Minds and attitudes change.  This happens all the time including within the church.  Polygamy is a good example.  This core practice was jettisoned.  I'm sure you are aware of  BY, WW and others stating that would never happen.

Plural marriage illustrates the exact opposite of what you here claim it does. It remained in place, and the Latter-day Saints practiced civil disobedience and resisted government and public oppression until God revealed to the prophet, seer and revelator, that it was to be discontinued:

 

On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was “under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church.” He stated, “After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued … [a] Proclamation.”¹⁶ This proclamation, now published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1, was released to the public on September 25 and became known as the Manifesto.¹⁷

Regarding sin being declared unsinful because "minds and attitudes change," I refer you to two quotations in my sig line, the first one from Elder (now President) Russell M. Nelson and the second one from Elder Neil L. Andersen.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

I listened to the granddaughter of Elder Ballard on a podcast last evening and she is resigning and mentioned the gay baptism thing, she seems ambivalent and unsure so we'll see what happens next.

[SmileyMcGee]

This has been done repeatedly, and is always rejected out of hand.

Hm...there have been a number of attempts, but none are ultimately arguing intrinsic evil...unless you define intrinsic evil as "what I think God thinks." On a related note, is it really possible for anyone to know that something is intrinsically evil? Or to know the intrinsic nature of anything? If a catholic body of leaders or some message board participants are going to claim that something is intrinsically evil it seems that they are claiming to possess the ability to know the intrinsic nature of something...so, let them explain the method they use. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Mystery Meat]

What the heck, I will respond:

 

Murder is Murder Mystery Meat. Even if it was justified as being an execution.

 

Murder is murder, but not all killings are murder. The very definition you used refutes your point. Your definition says that a murder is an unlawful killing. Phinehas's killing was not unlawful. In other words, every murder involves a killing act. Not every killing is a murder.
 
Just because some one is justified in executing some one else under the law, doesn't mean some one hasn't been murdered by some one else in the execution. All it means is the executioner is justified or aloud to do it with the blessing of the Magistrate. He would be held accountable by the law for not carrying out the execution. Just like Ms. Davis and the marriage license debacle.

 

Execution CAN be a synonym of murder, but it isn't always, depending on the context. For example, you could say "John executed his victims in cold blood." This is obviously a synonym for murder. Saying, however, "The man was executed for his crimes" does not trigger murder. 

In the case of Phinehas God didn't hold him accoutable for the murder because he was required by the law to carry it out. But it doesn't mean blood wasn't spilled. Two souls were murdered that day, justified by Law of course.

 

Phinehas did not commit murder. The killing was not unlawful.

There are even times when executioners are considered murderers. Auschwitz ring any bells?

 

Agreed. But what Phinehas did was not comparable to Auschwitz in any way or fashion. Phinehas executed two individuals who were worthy of death under divine law. 
 
So let me get this straight... because the man was a "dirty slave driver and was beating a Hebrew" that justified the cold blooded murder, concealment of homicidal death, and fleeing the scene of a crime?

 

No, not necessarily. But you are also using modern terminology to describe something that happened thousands of years ago. I doubt they had a concept of fleeing the scene in Moses's day. Nor am I saying that Moses was not guilty of murder. I brought up the slave driver nuance because I am an attorney and I am trained to identify mitigating circumstances. 

How exactly is that supposed to work when the exact scenario shows up in the Law God gives Moses just a few years later?

Exodus 21: 20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Both Egyptian law and the Law of God convicted Moses he was a dead man both in heaven and earth.

 

I don't disagree, and that is even my point. Murder was wrong before, during and after the Law of Moses. I am not sure why you keep making points for me.

Here's the earthly mandate for his death for murder.
Ex 2
15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

All Pharoah was trying to do at this point was bring him to Justice. And just so you know, Pharoah's not the bad guy in the story at this momment. Moses just turned to the dark side.

 

Moses certainly wasn't the good guy...

And to answer your CFR...

Moses was wanted dead or alive by both heavenly and earthly Laws. Just imagine how much weight was lifted off his shoulders when Heaven forgave his sins and God asked him to remove his sandals from his feet and let him enter the temple so to speak. God must have forgiven him or he'd of been dead. (Just sayin)

 

Agreed. And that's a key distinction. Moses was forgiven. We have no record of him continuing to murder have he repented. He abandoned his sin. But it was (probably) still sin.

One other thing. If God mandated slavery as a divine institution in heavenly law in Exodus 21 above. What changed his mind and aloud our Modern Prophets to ignore his mandate and drop the curse of Cain doctrine and declare slavery wrong. They basically just slapped God in the face and called him a dirty slave runner. (Excuse me? This is an abhorrent and totally ignorant thing to say. They did no such thing.) Is that no Blasphemy to tell God he was wrong? If they can ignore a mandate about something as abominable as slavery. Why cant our 15 ignore the Abominability of Homosexual relations? Slavery is a thousand times more reprehensible than SSM.

 

God does not "change his mind." That is a false and blatant mischaracterization of what we are talking about. Laws are fulfilled. That is a lot different than changing minds. No one has ever told God he was wrong in our Church leadership. We are not ignoring any mandates about slavery. That mandate does not apply to our dispensation, because the law was fulfilled (i disagree with your interpretation of their ever being a mandate by the way). And AGAIN, FOR THE 1,000th time, just because part of the Law of Moses was fulfilled, does not mean that many of its commandments are not still binding; like murder, for example (and homosexuality). Is this really that hard of a concept to grasp? Because you are not getting it.

The Q15 are picking and choosing which laws of God they want to uphold.

 

No, they are not.
 
Ummm... "where there is no law there is no sin". (Romans 5:13) And Murder didn't become a sin until God punished Cain for Abels death. Then Murder became a sin because God made the law that said murder was defined as sin at that point.

 

Okay...
 
Exactly. So the levitical law was fulfilled with all its jots and tittles. All things have become new. And as we see with the Abominable shrimp. Shrimp is no longer "Abominable" under the new law. Which would mean all the other "Abominables" in Leviticus are no longer Aboninable any more either. So You can't quote Lev 11 in support of the "Abominableness" of Homosexuality without also bringing in all the other "Abominables" with it. If the Law is fulfilled then Levitcus 11 is out of the picture for support for the sinfulness of Homosexuality during our current dispensation.

 

What is it about your fixation with Shrimp? And no, fulfilling the Law of Moses, does not mean that all other abominables in Leviticus are no longer Abominable any more. Can you really be taking this position? If this were true, murder, adultery, and fornication would all be perfectly acceptable (again, PLEASE NOTE THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT). I can and do quote Lev. 11 in supporting the premise the homosexuality is an abomination (and I don't have to bring all other listed abominables with it) precisely because many of those other abominables were explicitly and individually done away with, such as your weird fascination with shrimp. I repeat, JUST AS MURDER AND ADULTERY ARE STILL SIN (THEY WERE LISTED AS ABOMINATIONS AND SINS UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES), SO TOO IS HOMOSEXUALITY STILL A SIN. I would agree with you, that if our only reference to homosexuality being sinful was in Leviticus chapter 11, the case against it would be weakened. But it is not. There is a principal called "wresting the scriptures" which basically means we read one verse on a particular subject, and we ignore everything else that is on point. That is what you are doing. There are numerous scriptures on homosexuality that define it as sin, including modern scripture. BUT ADULTERY, MURDER, STEALING, FORNICATION, AND YES HOMOSEXUALITY ARE MENTIONED AS SINS ACROSS MULTIPLE DISPENSATIONS. 

God has wiped the slate clean and is starting with a new set of instruction just like he has done time and time again. He started with a New set of Instructions for Israel and got mad at them when they diviated from those instruction in the least little bit.

 

Even if I accept this premise as true (I do not), the New Testament has verses of scripture (after the slate was "wiped clean") that list homosexuality as a sin. So at the very least homosexuality as a sin was part of the new, clean slate.
 
You're adding to the words of the Lord again you keep trying to slip in your favorite Abomination thinking I wont notice. Be careful because God pronounces terrible curses on those who try and do that. (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:19)

 

No, I am not. I am merely quoting his prophets and apostles, both modern and ancient (I also find it very ironic that you are quoting out of Deut. when you say that Law was fulfilled and is no longer binding. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth).

Lets let Peter tell us what our New Covenant instructions are.

Acts 15
6 ¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 ¶Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 ¶And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

What a simple Law!

 

You really think that is all that it is? You are going to ignore every other verse of scripture that we have?

- Don't participate in idol Worship and all that goes along with it
- Don't fornicate
- Don't eat strangled things
- Don't eat blood

I see none of the Leviticus 11 minutia on sex or marriage in this new law. Not a single word. Do you?

 

I see plenty of verses on homosexuality being described as a sin in the New Testament. What version are you using? Now who is guilty of picking and choosing?

The only thing about sex and marriage is to not fornicate and What's that definition?
 
That's pretty simple.

Fornication pretty much covers all sexual sins outlined in Leviticus in one swoop even Adultery.

However this does cause a huge legal headache for all churches in the USA in regards to same sex marriage, especially because of the doctrines contained in the New testament of obeying the Governments and laws of the lands we live in. Judges and courts could easily use our own doctrine against us to force the issue. Even more so with us because of the Doctrine and Covenants. We have a double divine mandate to obey and follow the civil laws. We've already lost once on the marriage issue, I can see it happening again with precedence.

 

You are just getting further and further off the rails. We do obey civil laws. But civil laws do not control divine law. We render unto Ceasar what is his. We give to God (eternal marriage) what is His.

This also causes issues in defining sex between Married same Sex partners a sin and excommunicating them for it. Our own doctrine makes it easy for any person to force the issue legally by simple appealing to the D&C.

 

If you think you have proven this, you have not.

I think the new policy could find itself legally challenged.

 

Sure it can be legally challenged, but it would dismissed in a heartbeat. Any attorney worth his salt would know this.
 
Our own doctrine invalidates defining sex between Married homosexuals a sin. I think our new policy is legally challenged see above.

 

What?? No, it doesn't. I think you think you have shown this, but you have not. Just because we follow the law of the land, does not mean that somehow we are bound to accept SSM within the Church and Kingdom of God as having divine sanction. Adultery is also legal, but we do not support that.

As to the rest we both kind of repeated our self.

And to set the record straight, I'm not advocating my favorite sin. I'm a straight married card carrying member too.

And me asking about your sins... sorry for prying... aren't we taught in scripture to confess our sins one to another publicly? Paul wasn't ashamed to do it on quite a few occasions. Calling oneself a murderer publicly is a pretty bold move. And I have plenty of sins myself.

If you feel I put words in your mouth I apologize. Thank you for your patients with putting up with cranky old me

Edited November 19, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened to the granddaughter of Elder Ballard on a podcast last evening and she is resigning and mentioned the gay baptism thing, she seems ambivalent and unsure so we'll see what happens next.

That is indeed disappointing if true.

 

It would be more accurately stated that she is a granddaughter, not the granddaughter. I'm quite certain he has more than one.

 

Progeny increases in number the further removed one is from a progenitor, so statistically speaking, I suppose it can be expected that even some in the posterity of Church leaders would fall away. If the above is true, that she would be thus exploiting her familial relationship with a Church leader to publicly discredit the Church is deplorable.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

That is indeed disappointing if true.

 

It would be more accurately stated that she is a granddaughter, not the granddaughter. I'm quite certain he has more than one.

 

Progeny increases in number the further removed one is from a progenitor, so statistically speaking, I suppose it can be expected that even some in the posterity of Church leaders would fall away. If the above is true, that she would be thus trading on her familial relationship with a Church leader to discredit the Church is deplorable.

 

ooooooooooooooh,  what is this an english class now? when you hear the bell head to English!!!!   it's on John Dehlin's site. In my mission we had A granddaughter of Pres. Monson out serving and she was inactive as of a few years back, that could have changed but who knows.

[JLHPROF]

Hm...there have been a number of attempts, but none are ultimately arguing intrinsic evil...unless you define intrinsic evil as "what I think God thinks." On a related note, is it really possible for anyone to know that something is intrinsically evil? Or to know the intrinsic nature of anything? If a catholic body of leaders or some message board participants are going to claim that something is intrinsically evil it seems that they are claiming to possess the ability to know the intrinsic nature of something...so, let them explain the method they use. 

 

Anything that goes against the work of God or the nature of eternity is intrinsically evil in nature and sinful in that it violates a law. 

 

It doesn't have to result in observably bad results to be in that category.  The adversary is quite capable of creating some "good fruits" to distract from a violation of Gods law.

And once again the intrinsic (natural or eternal law) reasons against SSM have been discussed repeatedly and rejected by SSM supporters.

[The Nehor]

Why should we care what those who think we are bigots say of us? Why should we listen to the advice of those who want us destroyed?

[ERMD]

In the case of the second Official Declaration (Race and Priesthood) there never was doctrine, only speculation and false tradition that crept into the church from Protestant practices, and when the brethren prayed about it (a decade after the heaviest social pressures had passed) the practice was immediately stopped.

 

 

You need to review the history of OD 2.

Edited November 19, 2015 by ERMD

[bu11fr0g]

These children are inelligible to be baptized, to receive the priesthood (as young men) and inelligible to go into the temple for baptisms for the dead.

[Gray]

Anything that goes against the work of God or the nature of eternity is intrinsically evil in nature and sinful in that it violates a law. 

 

It doesn't have to result in observably bad results to be in that category.  The adversary is quite capable of creating some "good fruits" to distract from a violation of Gods law.

And once again the intrinsic (natural or eternal law) reasons against SSM have been discussed repeatedly and rejected by SSM supporters.

 

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."  Matt 7:18

[Buckeye]

Apparently the U.S. Catholic bishops can't be outdone by the LDS church.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/us_bishops_are_rewriting_voter_guide_to_include_same_sex_marriage_as_intrinsic_evil

This is depressing and annoying.

 

Fortunately for the Catholics, SSM as a voting issue is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Most republicans don't want to discuss it anymore. And even those who do are not making serious proposals for undoing Obergefell. So if I were a Catholic voter I wouldn't expect this to be a decision point for my voting.

[Robert F. Smith]

Apparently the U.S. Catholic bishops can't be outdone by the LDS church.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/us_bishops_are_rewriting_voter_guide_to_include_same_sex_marriage_as_intrinsic_evil

This is depressing and annoying.

Does that mean that the new, lesbian Mayor of Salt Lake City will not be welcome at the Cathedral of the Madeleine?  Or that those who voted for her are in need of confession?

[SmileyMcGee]

Apparently the U.S. Catholic bishops can't be outdone by the LDS church.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/us_bishops_are_rewriting_voter_guide_to_include_same_sex_marriage_as_intrinsic_evil

This is depressing and annoying.

I had no idea that a voter's guide was published by the catholic church...interesting stuff...makes you wonder what an LDS voter's guide would be like....

Edited November 19, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Maestrophil]

Hm...there have been a number of attempts, but none are ultimately arguing intrinsic evil...unless you define intrinsic evil as "what I think God thinks." On a related note, is it really possible for anyone to know that something is intrinsically evil? Or to know the intrinsic nature of anything? If a catholic body of leaders or some message board participants are going to claim that something is intrinsically evil it seems that they are claiming to possess the ability to know the intrinsic nature of something...so, let them explain the method they use. 

 

Right.  As I stated on another thread.  It all boils down to if you think the LDS church is led by prophets of God - all of whom have decried homosexual sex as against God's plan or not.  If you don't, then I agree, there is no real moral argument against SSM, or any other form of marriage or behavior.  

 

I believe absolutely in a living prophet and a restored church, or I would not remain in the faith - so I believe SSM is morally opposed to God.  If you don't feel the same you will not.  All other discussion is just an appendage to that IMO

 

Edited to add:  I suppose the Catholics would say the same thing about belief in an inspired pope

Edited November 19, 2015 by Maestrophil

[Ahab]

The definition of chastity wouldn't need revising. The definition of marriage would need to be changed. The Proclamation on the Family would need revising.

Says you. I say it depends on how chastity is defined.

I've heard some people define chastity as sexual relations being exclusively between people who are legally and lawfully married. We could revise/clarify for them that we define chastity as sexual relations being exclusively between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. Making it officially known that is how we define what chastity means to us so we don't have to Argus over which definition we use.

OR we could do as you suggest and revise/clarify how we define marriage as exclusively between people of the opposite sex.

OR we could do as you suggest and revise/clarify The Proclamation On The Family to make it more clear that our idea of a Family includes both a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married as husband and wife whether or not they have any children.

OR we could do all 3 of those things.

OR we could define chastity and marriage as they do and officially declare that Hell has now frozen over and we now approve of whatever they want to do, whatever they want to call it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd love to see if any catholics (or LDS) can prove that SSM (or any behavior) is intrinsically evil...or at least give their reasoning for why SSM is intrinsically evil...

The concept of "proof" may be no more meaningful here than in discussion of Scripture.  However, experts within both orthodox Judaism and within Catholicism have long since shown systematically that the Bible condemns same gender sexual relations.  That is the source of the claimed "instrinsic evil."  For those who do not give religion any credence, that may not matter at all.

 

As to secular discussion of same gender sexual relations, there have been detailed claims that it is harmful to society.  Is that what you mean by "intrinsic evil"?

[Damien the Leper]

I think it's interesting how the author of the article implies that "voting to support your beliefs" is an "attack on those you disagree with."

It is similar to those who would cry that Christianity is somehow under attack because members of SCOTUS voted to affirm SSM in all States.

And lets not get into the "rogue" judge nonsense. I'm stopping that before it happens and violators who wish to whine about the evil gay juggernaut will be reported.

[Scott Lloyd]

You need to review the history of OD 2.

Actually, let everyone just review the Gospel Topics essay on this subject.

 

It is inaccurate to state or imply that the leaders of the Church did not get around to praying to ascertain God's will in this matter until 1978. There had been ongoing efforts by the leaders of the Church to do so long before then.

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

 

That they prayed and asked the question and did not receive an answer is clear indication to me that the answer was no up until 1978.

 

Isn't that the pattern? The proverbial "stupor of thought" is to be interpreted as a negative response.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd