Rasband Promises

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God's promises, given thru HIs prophets, are kept.

Your life experiences must be very different from mine because I've never witnessed a promise being kept, only broken. And that's when I had full expectation and faith that promises would be kept. I feel like I was naïve to believe those promises despite the evidence against their validity.

The thing about these kinds of promises is that they are verifiably false. Rasband's promise can be disproven time and again by individual's personal experiences.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Rasband made some promises during his talk on Sunday. He essentially said that if a person faithfully reads the Book of Mormon and keeps their covenants their testimony will be protected.

I have a couple of questions:

1- Do prophets and apostles have the right to make these kinds of promises? Do they have power to keep their promises or do they have the right to promise things for God?

2- How should I view an apostle who makes a "promise" that in my experience isn't valid? Should I give him a pass for good intentions even though he is promising something to people I know doesn't hold up? (I "know" because I was faithfully living the gospel, serving faithfully, attending the temple, studying the scriptures, saying prayers etc etc)

3- Should I dismiss his promise as empty rhetoric of a man or empty rhetoric of a prophet?

 

 

1 - Yes, they absolutely have the right to make these promises.  The authority to seal a blessing upon our heads is an Apostolic right.
It is no different than someone with sealing keys promising a couple being married all the blessings of temple marriage.
And that promise will be fulfilled.  But not if they choose to reject it.

2 - No promise, even one by Apostolic authority, can remove the results of our actions, choices, and agency.  I didn't read him saying that if a person faithfully reads the Book of Mormon and keeps their covenants AND listens to skeptic podcasts/reads Snuffer books/spends more time studying the CES letter than scripture/marches with OW or whatever that your testimony will be protected.
God isn't going to protect our testimonies when we expose ourselves intentionally to materials and situations purposely created to damage our testimonies.

3- No, you should put it into real life context in order to see the truth of the statement.
When someone receives their Calling and Election made sure they are promised by Christ himself that they cannot fall.
But oh yeah, there is still the agency left that creates sons of perdition. 
Does that mean Christ lied or was naïve or used empty rhetoric?
Nope.
It means our actions can set the promises of God to naught.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your life experiences must be very different from mine because I've never witnessed a promise being kept, only broken. And that's when I had full expectation and faith that promises would be kept. I feel like I was naïve to believe those promises despite the evidence against their validity.

I suppose so.  It does make it a lot easier to have faith after you've done so and received the witness.

Quote

The thing about these kinds of promises is that they are verifiably false. Rasband's promise can be disproven time and again by individual's personal experiences.

Someone's unverifiable interpretation of events does not equate to something being verifiable true or false for those who didn't experience it.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I suppose you're right, in a sense.  If I doubted that anyone on the earth has authority to speak for God, I would respond in much the same way you, Tacenda, hope_for_things, and stemelbow have to someone purporting to do so.  Elder Rasband hasn't said anything new, though.  Christ said essentially the same thing: "If any man will do His will, he will know of the doctrine: whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17). On occasion, I have made what some (indeed, what many, perhaps) would consider to be rather audacious (if contingent) promises to people.

In many cases, I haven't known whether those promises actually have been fulfilled. What I do know is that I wasn't the one making those promises: I was simply a conduit, an instrument.  Did they actually get Specific Blessing [Y] for doing Specific Thing [X]?  I dunno. Sometimes, all I can say is, "Well, God and Santa Claus are different." Were they any worse off, even if they didn't happen (or haven't yet happened) to get Blessing [Y] even after doing Thing [X]?  Is Thing [X] a "bad" thing?  Nope.  

Taking offense at Elder Rasband's statement strikes me as roughly the equivalent of worrying, "What if it's all simply a fraud?" Yeah, ergo, what?  Even if it's all a fraud, I did a lot of good in the name of that fraud: Loved my neighbor, tried to love myself and to love my enemy, tried to reach out and succor people according to their spiritual and temporal needs and wants, tried to be a shepherd, tried to look after the sheep, tried my best to discern what I thought God wanted me to to and then tried my best to do it, and so on, ad infinitum.  

Conversely, while your mileage probably varies, one could, instead say, "I'm not a sucker!  I don't want to be taken in!  I'm not gonna fall for something just because somebody claims authority to make an audacious promise I don't think he has any right to make!"  OK.  As Dr. Phil says (he may be something of a quack, if not a publicity hound, but that doesn't mean he isn't absolutely right here), "How's that workin' for ya?"  Mother Theresa has a lot of those same doubts, but she didn't let them stop her from doing an enormous amount of good in the world.  If the worst thing someone can say about me is that I'm a sucker who fell for a fraud, I'll take that.

So your sayin' the church is a fraud...   Just kidding, I like where you went with this analogy. Since who knows what is true or not, if the outcome is good, I guess there is no harm or foul.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I suppose so.  It does make it a lot easier to have faith after you've done so and received the witness.

Someone's unverifiable interpretation of events does not equate to something being verifiable true or false for those who didn't experience it.  

I agree. My experience does not necessarily translate to you. But that also means Elder Rasband's experience doesn't necessarily translate to me.

But if a promise like this is verifiably false to me, based on my personal experience, why would/should I trust the person making the verifiably false claim?

That's the problem (one of them) with this kind of blanket pronouncement of promise. It is verifiably false to many people. Not all, but many. Why would a rational person trust someone who makes false claims/promises?

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. My experience does not necessarily translate to you. But that also means Elder Rasband's experience doesn't necessarily translate to me.

But if a promise like this is verifiably false to me, based on my personal experience, why would/should I trust the person making the verifiably false claim?

That's the problem (one of them) with this kind of blanket pronouncement of promise. It is verifiably false to many people. Not all, but many. Why would a rational person trust someone who makes false claims/promises?

 

You keep saying his promise is "verifiably false."  How can you know that?  How can anyone really know that they have done everything to meet the conditions of a promise?  How can they know when or in exactly what manner God will keep the promise, especially in light of the agency He has given us? 

 

Also, please note that Elder Rasband did not say that a testimony, even if protected by an apostolic, would not be tried or tested. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by ksfisher

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You keep saying his promise is "verifiably false."  How can you know that?  How can anyone really know that they have done everything to meet the conditions of a promise?  How can they know when or in exactly what manner God will keep the promise, especially in light of the agency He has given us? 

 

Also, please note that Elder Rasband did not say that a testimony, even if protected by an apostolic, would not be tried or tested. 

It's verifiably false based on the conditions he placed on the promise. If he was dishonest and low-balled those conditions then maybe you're right. Even so, I was extremely devout. It's hard to fathom any way in which I could have been more faithful. I don't say that to sound prideful but to illustrate the reality that I was ALL IN. Big time. FHE, daily scripture study (family and individual), daily prayers (family, spouse, individual, meals), church and temple attendance, continually magnifying all callings and assignments, Keep the commandments, covenants, service, yada, yada, yada. I've done it all, faithfully. And yet, despite my very best efforts my testimony was not protected. To me, Rasband's promise is empty. And worse, it blames me for my decimated testimony.

I'm not talking about a challenged testimony. I'm talking about a nuked testimony. And what led me down the road to having my testimony destroyed? Serving faithfully in my calling. Studying so I could help counsel others who were struggling. Blaming me, which is what the empty promise does, is cowardly because it represents a failure and unwillingness to consider that there are real problems in the church, both historically and currently.

Empty promises push the very people away who are grasping for any reason to stay. 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Elder Rasband made some promises during his talk on Sunday. He essentially said that if a person faithfully reads the Book of Mormon and keeps their covenants their testimony will be protected.

I have a couple of questions:

1- Do prophets and apostles have the right to make these kinds of promises? Do they have power to keep their promises or do they have the right to promise things for God?

2- How should I view an apostle who makes a "promise" that in my experience isn't valid? Should I give him a pass for good intentions even though he is promising something to people I know doesn't hold up? (I "know" because I was faithfully living the gospel, serving faithfully, attending the temple, studying the scriptures, saying prayers etc etc)

3- Should I dismiss his promise as empty rhetoric of a man or empty rhetoric of a prophet?

 

 

I think that priesthood leaders are often too timid in prophesying, because they fear criticism, being wrong, or hurting others' faith. President Packer, at a stake conference several years ago, said that we should prophesy when we feel to, and leave it up to God to fulfill it. He related an instance where he gave a blessing and "played it safe," giving a bland, generic blessing. After he left, the Holy Ghost chastised him, and he went back. The parents were surprised, because he had just been there. He told them that he had given their child a blessing, and he had come back to give the child the blessing that God had for it. "Go ahead and prophesy!" he exhorted in priesthood meeting, "and leave it up to God to fulfill it." 

From that perspective, I say "Hallejujah!" that Elder Rasband made an apostolic promise, without worrying about whether it might be found lacking in individual cases. If we worried about that, nobody would ever say anything for fear that it might fall short. 

It is also possible for God's purposes to be fulfilled when we are flat wrong in our prophesying, too. I don't think it gets any more extreme than something that happened to me when I was a counselor in a bishopric. A non-member in our ward called and asked if we could give her niece a blessing. She was in the ICU in a coma, and they couldn't figure out what was wrong. She had a lot of faith, and I asked her to explain to the family so that they knew we were coming. We (the other counselor and I) had issues getting into the ICU ("Are you family?" "We'll check with the family and see if they want you to come"), and when we came in, we found a terrified, grief-stricken mother, father, and brother. They hadn't left her bedside for at least a day. A nurse was working on transfusion equipment. We introduced ourselves and explained what a blessing is. The first thing the father said was, "You're not going to say that she's going to die, are you?" This struck me, because I remembered my father releasing a sister we home taught when I was a boy from life, and she passed away shortly after. I told him that I hoped not, and didn't come here intending to do that, but that we tried to feel what God wanted us to say to her. We anointed her, and it was difficult to put our hands on her with the tubes and equipment. The nurse stepped aside as we blessed her. I strove to receive revelation as to what to say, and blessed her that the doctors would find the problem, and that she would fully recover after several weeks' time. 

The non-member called me about a week later, and told me that her niece had just passed away. She had never come out of her coma. I panicked in my heart at what that would do to the family, and she told me that they had felt very peaceful after the blessing, and that she was shocked at how peaceful and calm they had reacted at her passing. She said that they were in a very good place, and she said that the nurse asked them after we left what church we were from. "We're not sure," they told her, and she asked them if they could find out for her. Even though my attempt at prophesy in this case could not have been more technically wrong, the outcome was as good as if it had been technically correct. This experience helps me to not fear being wrong and to be bold.

As far as Elder Rasband's promise, many, many people will find him to be correct, and this will solidify their testimony. For people who don't find him to be correct, if they are exercising real intent, the experience of reading the Book of Mormon will ultimately work to their testimony's good, even if the results aren't as dramatic or quick as they would like. President Benson's promise that the power of the Book of Mormon will flow into our lives the minute we undertake a serious study of the book is true. 

In my experience, those who claim to apply an Alma 32 test to things and it fails have other issues that fall outside of a "controlled," clinical, objective test. I'm not talking at all about sin (although that can also be a factor); rather, I think that people have emotional barriers to getting their answers that they have to get over (in some cases, this may be an out-of-proportion focus on social or policy issues they are angry with the Church over, and no witness or spiritual experiences can surmount this all-encompassing obsession). There can be other barriers as well.

[cdowis]

I believe that the Lord will keep this promise with the caveat that He will never interfere with our Free Agency.  If we do these things but maintain a spirit of pride and rebellion, then we have disavowed the promise.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's verifiably false based on the conditions he placed on the promise. If he was dishonest and low-balled those conditions then maybe you're right. Even so, I was extremely devout. It's hard to fathom any way in which I could have been more faithful. I don't say that to sound prideful but to illustrate the reality that I was ALL IN. Big time. FHE, daily scripture study (family and individual), daily prayers (family, spouse, individual, meals), church and temple attendance, continually magnifying all callings and assignments, Keep the commandments, covenants, service, yada, yada, yada. I've done it all, faithfully. And yet, despite my very best efforts my testimony was not protected. To me, Rasband's promise is empty. And worse, it blames me for my decimated testimony.

I'm not talking about a challenged testimony. I'm talking about a nuked testimony. And what led me down the road to having my testimony destroyed? Serving faithfully in my calling. Studying so I could help counsel others who were struggling. Blaming me, which is what the empty promise does, is cowardly because it represents a failure and unwillingness to consider that there are real problems in the church, both historically and currently.

Empty promises push the very people away who are grasping for any reason to stay. 

The bolding is mine, but highlights what is wrong with these types of promises.  If the promise turns out to be false, then the member is blamed.  It is never the leader's fault.  As we know, they are above criticism, even if the criticism is true.   

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your life experiences must be very different from mine because I've never witnessed a promise being kept, only broken. And that's when I had full expectation and faith that promises would be kept. I feel like I was naïve to believe those promises despite the evidence against their validity.

The thing about these kinds of promises is that they are verifiably false. Rasband's promise can be disproven time and again by individual's personal experiences.

Someone tried this promise in the last few days and already proved it false? Wow.....

[thatjimguy]

 

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

I believe that the Lord will keep this promise with the caveat that He will never interfere with our Free Agency.  If we do these things but maintain a spirit of pride and rebellion, then we have disavowed the promise.

But we are always falling short, so it a set-up we can never win.

It's kind of like being frustrated things are going bad and someone says "Are you doing your scripture study?" and going on down the line till they find something (which anyone always can) that we aren't doing 100%.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's definitely a tactic which places all the blame on the victim (the person who struggles with testimony) while absolving the church (teachings, policies, history etc) of any responsibility. If you don't have a testimony it's your fault because you weren't faithful to begin with. "Naïve" is a kind word for it

He is giving you a recipe, HappyJack.  It is up to you to cook it and see how it tastes for yourself.  If the souffle doesn't come out the way he promised, then of course you can blame it on him.  There is nothing at all naive about it.  He has done his job.  Now you have to do yours.  If he hadn't done his job, you'd be calling him a wuss or yellow-belly.

Your critique here is the same which the disappointed people of Israel used to criticize Moses for bringing them out of Egypt (Exodus 16:3).  Such people always feel completely justified, and that is their right, but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your life experiences must be very different from mine because I've never witnessed a promise being kept, only broken. And that's when I had full expectation and faith that promises would be kept. I feel like I was naïve to believe those promises despite the evidence against their validity.

The thing about these kinds of promises is that they are verifiably false. Rasband's promise can be disproven time and again by individual's personal experiences.

Your view of a personal testimony constituting verifiable proof is very naive, HappyJack.  Personal experience is valid only for the individual having the experience and is not transferrable.  In science and logic we look for reproducible fact, not blatant opinionmongering.  You have made your own personal experience the measure of all reality, ignoring any contrary views.  Your statement that you "have never witnessed a promise being kept, only broken," is hardly credible as an absolute statement, even if true as an immediate emotional response.  You are lashing out recklessly in anger.

[stemelbow]

Quote

To all who wish to bolster their faith, I give you this promise: as you faithfully live the gospel of Jesus Christ and abide by its teachings, your testimony will be protected, and it will grow.

The big issue I have with this is many take this to mean that people who are faithful will remain faithful to the Church, as if the Church is God or only represents the mind and will of God.  I'd say God leads people in all directions.  He does so for His purposes.  If God only led people to the Church, considering we're such an insignificant voice and percentage in the world, then it would be that God has failed.  But I have to assume God has not failed.  He leads people in all directions.  testimony of the Church is not relevant to God, in my view.  Testimony of good.  Testimony of God--even if one's experience leads to God in a back door way.  That is important.  I don't know what Elder Rasband intended here, but my guess is he meant to suggest a faithful person would never leave the Church.  I disagree and find his view off.  He would never know if a person who leaves is faithful and I'd hope he'd learn that at some point. 

I think sadly, we apply the scriptures in ways they were never meant and that often puts us in a place or mindset God is not pleased with.  This, to me, seems to be an area where the Church is off.  We're just too proud, rich and all that to really see.  The Book of Mormon teaches us that, even if that book is largely non historic maybe we should take seriously it's teachings. 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. My experience does not necessarily translate to you. But that also means Elder Rasband's experience doesn't necessarily translate to me.

But if a promise like this is verifiably false to me, based on my personal experience, why would/should I trust the person making the verifiably false claim?

That's the problem (one of them) with this kind of blanket pronouncement of promise. It is verifiably false to many people. Not all, but many. Why would a rational person trust someone who makes false claims/promises?

Now you are interpreting for other people and declaring that certain claims are verifiably false for many?  When you speak for yourself, fine.  When you follow your own conscience, fine.  How could you do anything else?  However, now you are speaking authoritatively and angrily about something, as though you actually have command of absolute facts -- declaring that Elder Rasband is making false claims and promises.

If we listen to you, we will always tell Billy Graham to shut up, and that applies to any other preacher or rabbi.  Likewise for anyone who makes such promises or gives similar advice -- including the Dalai Lama.  For you they are all cynical snake-oil salesmen, liars, cheats, and thieves.  And we know this how?  Because you say so.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He is giving you a recipe, HappyJack.  It is up to you to cook it and see how it tastes for yourself.  If the souffle doesn't come out the way he promised, then of course you can blame it on him.  There is nothing at all naive about it.  He has done his job.  Now you have to do yours.  If he hadn't done his job, you'd be calling him a wuss or yellow-belly.

Your critique here is the same which the disappointed people of Israel used to criticize Moses for bringing them out of Egypt (Exodus 16:3).  Such people always feel completely justified, and that is their right, but that does not necessarily mean that they are correct.

Thanks for illustrating the problem. Based on that metaphor I've had the recipe and I've followed it for 40 years of my life. But life and testimony aren't are a recipe. It's way more complex than that and the implication that all people can follow a certain checklist and get a specific outcome is both naïve and harmful. It doesn't account for the complexity of the individual and treats them like a mass produced factory product.

Quote

 The Nehor- Someone tried this promise in the last few days and already proved it false? Wow.....

I tried the promise for 40 years. His promise was based on a principle of closely adhering to a checklist of faithfulness that I've followed very closely. Or are you suggesting that his promise starts from the day he uttered it as if his words were some kind of magical incantation?

Other than Robert Smith who flat out said I'm to blame, I've yet to see anyone try to thoughtfully tackle the underlying question that prompted this thread. What does it mean when a man who supposedly speaks for God makes a promise that isn't kept? If an individual's experience shows that the promises isn't kept, why should that individual continue to place trust in the person making the broken promises? Or should the individual choose to blame God instead?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I tried the promise for 40 years. His promise was based on a principle of closely adhering to a checklist of faithfulness that I've followed very closely. Or are you suggesting that his promise starts from the day he uttered it as if his words were some kind of magical incantation?

There is no checklist of faithfulness.
There is one way in which Elder Rasband was a little naïve (he wasn't wrong at all, but a little naïve).
There is no action, prevention, checklist, or blessing that prevents our faith from being tried to its very core.  He spoke of protecting our testimony, and he is right.
But that doesn't prevent every possible doubt and question from being hurled against that testimony.

Job (fictional or not) followed the checklist of faithfulness.  And then had to have his faith tried.
Joseph Smith did everything God commanded, and then in cried out in despair in Liberty Jail wondering where God is in all this.
Our Lord Jesus Christ had more than faith, he had perfect faith - even knowledge perhaps, and yet cried out that God had forsaken him.

Everyone eventually receives their Gethsemane when no matter how faithful they are their faith has to be called into real question.

Quote

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Other than Robert Smith who flat out said I'm to blame

 

You speak of blame.  Perhaps instead recognize that a trial of faith can only come to those who are faithful to begin with.
The question isn't "who is to blame", but the question is "what will you do when your faith is made weak"?  Do you curse God or wait on him?
If you have entered your Gethsemane - the ultimate trial of your faith, perhaps you should thank God that he has so much confidence in you that it is time to give you a trial.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've yet to see anyone try to thoughtfully tackle the underlying question that prompted this thread. What does it mean when a man who supposedly speaks for God makes a promise that isn't kept?

Sometimes it means the promise had no authority behind it.  But if it did come from God the promise WILL be honored - God says he is bound when we do what he says.
Sometimes it means the receiver did not live up to the promise.  All blessings are predicated on obedience to various laws.
Both are possibilities as we know from scripture.

[stemelbow]

I also imagine we all swim in and out of faithfulness on different things throughout our lives.  God will direct enough.  heading in or our of the Church as we journey hardly seems like God's concern.  Just giving us a journey in which we learn and grow matters.  Making sure people's journey stays inside the Church doesn't seem like it should matter. 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no checklist of faithfulness.
There is one way in which Elder Rasband was a little naïve (he wasn't wrong at all, but a little naïve).
There is no action, prevention, checklist, or blessing that prevents our faith from being tried to its very core.  He spoke of protecting our testimony, and he is right.
But that doesn't prevent every possible doubt and question from being hurled against that testimony.

Job (fictional or not) followed the checklist of faithfulness.  And then had to have his faith tried.
Joseph Smith did everything God commanded, and then in cried out in despair in Liberty Jail wondering where God is in all this.
Our Lord Jesus Christ had more than faith, he had perfect faith - even knowledge perhaps, and yet cried out that God had forsaken him.

Everyone eventually receives their Gethsemane when no matter how faithful they are their faith has to be called into real question.

You speak of blame.  Perhaps instead recognize that a trial of faith can only come to those who are faithful to begin with.
The question isn't "who is to blame", but the question is "what will you do when your faith is made weak"?  Do you curse God or wait on him?
If you have entered your Gethsemane - the ultimate trial of your faith, perhaps you should thank God that he has so much confidence in you that it is time to give you a trial.

Sometimes it means the promise had no authority behind it.  But if it did come from God the promise WILL be honored - God says he is bound when we do what he says.
Sometimes it means the receiver did not live up to the promise.  All blessings are predicated on obedience to various laws.
Both are possibilities as we know from scripture.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I'll disagree about the existence of a checklist of faithfulness. There may be some slight variations or levels of detail but the church continually teaches to the checklist; keep the Sabbath day holy, fulfill callings, make and keep temple covenants, baptism (all ordinances), read scriptures, attend church and temple, pray, FHE, service, etc.

I agree that there is no guarantee that faith won't be tested, but what does "protected" mean if it's not shielded in some way from utter demolition?

This kind of promise saddens me because it feels meaningless, providing no real value or protection, and no one is accountable when the promise fails.

[Jeanne]

13 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The bolding is mine, but highlights what is wrong with these types of promises.  If the promise turns out to be false, then the member is blamed.  It is never the leader's fault.  As we know, they are above criticism, even if the criticism is true.   

And they never apologize.

[Kenngo1969]

I give up.   I've tried to reply twice now to this thread, both replies have been extensive, and the Board has said, "Thank you very much.  I'm hungry!  I'll eat these!"  What the crap?!!  

Edited October 4, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[cinepro]

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I give up.   I've tried to reply twice now to this thread, both replies have been extensive, and the Board has said, "Thank you very much.  I'm hungry!  I'll eat these!"  What the crap?!!  

Why do you not have Lazurus?  It shall save your bacon!

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lazarus-form-recovery/

or

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lazarus-form-recovery/loljledaigphbcpfhfmgopdkppkifgno?hl=en

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Why do you not have Lazurus?  It shall save your bacon!

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lazarus-form-recovery/

or

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lazarus-form-recovery/loljledaigphbcpfhfmgopdkppkifgno?hl=en

Sure, now you tell me!

Seriously, thanks!  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sure, now you tell me!

Seriously, thanks!  

The other trick is.  Employ brevity.  Try not to be so long winded so when something get's eaten, you can repeat it easily and quickly.  Alright...I dont' always do that, but I've been thinking of telling Smac that for a while.

just playing I like his contributions.