Greg Prince and metaphorical Mormonism

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It's very simple. No matter what degrees and gravitas one has, all of us, in the end, believe what we want to. Because it's what we want to believe. 

The "brights" among us insist that they have solid, concrete, scientific reasons for their belief, while the fundamentalists among us rely on blind faith, but the reality is that both of us are really choosing to believe what we want to believe, because we want to believe it. 

With that, there is objective truth independent of what we do or don't believe, but this is litigated and handled at the individual level, in the individual heart. This very individual process is largely non-transferable. 

Please don't call liberal believers "brights". I can't think of a more cringe-worthy self-appellation.

As far as choice goes, I cannot choose to be a literalist. Given the information I have and the way I process information, I cannot choose to be a literalist, any more than I could choose to believe I am Superman.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

If by reality you mean a look at scripture using a historians tools, the results will be less than kind to those taking a literalist approach. 

I can live with that. There are historians that insist on things about secular history using their tools that I disagree with. What is one more on the pile?

In any case I want it tested by spiritual confirmation but I do not want to spiritualize the thing we are spiritual about. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is its crass literalism. A God became a man and ate, drank, laughed, and farted. He went on top of a hill and talked with dead people that were there. He was executed by torture and then came back to life in the same body and touched people and ate with them. Joseph was given literal gold plates. Joseph interacted with angels and Gods with his five basic senses (by that I do not mean he licked Moroni).

A high-minded religion of symbols tends to quickly devolve and become meaningless. I respect symbolism but the core behind it has to be more real then the symbol or you are doing symbolism WRONG.

Edited October 11, 2016 by The Nehor

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The only actual "fundamentalism" for Mormons is polygamy fundamentalism practiced by splinter groups.  The only other legitimate use of "fundamentalism" is with respect to Protestant fundamentalists who believe in an inerrant and infallible Scripture -- which is their only source of doctrine (sola scriptura).  Such christian fundamentalists do believe in some pretty silly ways of interpreting Scripture, such that they allow for only a very recent creation and reject both geology and biology in understanding such matters.  These fundamentalist notions are anathema to Mormonism.

I get that fundamentalist has certain connotations - in Mormonism often being used to refer to polygamists, or to those in the Evangelical movement in Christianity. 

But all fundamentalists are selectively fundamentalist. Evangelicals don't read EVERYTHING literally, it's just their general approach to scripture. 

But I think fundamentalism is also an appropriate term to anyone who insists broadly on literalism when it comes to certain "fundamental" aspects of scripture. For example, insistence on the historical reality of the Book of Mormon is a kind of fundamentalism. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Please don't call liberal believers "brights". I can't think of a more cringe-worthy self-appellation.

As far as choice goes, I cannot choose to be a literalist. Given the information I have and the way I process information, I cannot choose to be a literalist, any more than I could choose to believe I am Superman.  

Yes, but have you even tried wearing bright blue tights with red briefs over them? Have you even tested the possibility?

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that  you are wrong about this, but I would like to see an actual demonstration of the inimical use of such professional tools.  As to those odd-bods taking a "literalist approach," I don't think that the Brethren accept a view which excludes figurative and metaphorical interpretation.

For example, take the four gospels. Very little of that material can be said to represent the life and teachings of the historical Jesus. The sources are too late, the contradictions too numerous. There are lot of stories that appear to be intentionally constructed to allude to previous Biblical stories. IE, the sermon on the mount is an allusion to Moses on Mount Sinai. Jesus is the new Moses. The ascension of Jesus is an allusion to the story of Elijah, meaning Jesus is the new Elijah, not meaning that Jesus literally rose up into the sky. Ancient scripture is not constructed like history at all. John even seems to make fun of people who read scriptures literally. 

Mark doesn't seem to know anything about the virgin birth story, and John seems to reject it altogether. And so forth. 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that  you are wrong about this, but I would like to see an actual demonstration of the inimical use of such professional tools.  As to those odd-bods taking a "literalist approach," I don't think that the Brethren accept a view which excludes figurative and metaphorical interpretation.

I would also add - I think the important thing is not that people reject a literal interpretation, but rather that they at least remain open to BOTH! You can read the scriptures literally, and get one layer of meaning from that, I suppose. But if you're also open to figurative interpretations (I agree that church leaders seem to be), then you open yourself up to a much richer experience with the scriptures. 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can live with that. There are historians insist on about secular history using their tools that I disagree with. What is one more on the pile?

In any case I want it tested by spiritual confirmation but I do not want to spiritualize the thing we are spiritual about. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is its crass literalism. A God became a man and ate, drank, laughed, and farted. He went on top of a hill and talked with dead people that were there. He was executed by torture and then came back to life in the same body and touched people and ate with them. Joseph was given literal gold plates. Joseph interacted with angels and Gods with his five basic senses (by that I do not mean he licked Moroni).

A high-minded religion of symbols tends to quickly devolve and become meaningless. I respect symbolism but the core behind it has to be more real then the symbol or you are doing symbolism WRONG.

Why limit anti-intellectualism to Biblical studies? There is a whole world of intellectual pursuits that you could reject in favor of the faith based approach - like the faith based approach to medicine! No more doctor's visits.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but have you even tried wearing bright blue tights with red briefs over them? Have you even tested the possibility?

I have. The neighborhood banded together and took them away.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Please don't call liberal believers "brights". I can't think of a more cringe-worthy self-appellation.

As far as choice goes, I cannot choose to be a literalist. Given the information I have and the way I process information, I cannot choose to be a literalist, any more than I could choose to believe I am Superman.  

Hey, the "brights" started it!  I thought at the time that most people, even people who think like the self-appointed "brights," wouldn't like the label.

Liberal, progressive members do kind of look down on literalists as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal simpletons, though.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I get that fundamentalist has certain connotations - in Mormonism often being used to refer to polygamists, or to those in the Evangelical movement in Christianity. 

But all fundamentalists are selectively fundamentalist. Evangelicals don't read EVERYTHING literally, it's just their general approach to scripture. 

But I think fundamentalism is also an appropriate term to anyone who insists broadly on literalism when it comes to certain "fundamental" aspects of scripture. For example, insistence on the historical reality of the Book of Mormon is a kind of fundamentalism. 

Sounds very odd to me, from an intellectual POV, and I don't think that ordinary Mormons themselves would understand your use of the term.  But if it makes you happy . . . 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If the church still exists 100 years from now, it will only be because it has been able to successfully shift its members belief paradigm from a literal black & white worldview to one based on Prince's nuanced belief paradigm.  

Please pardon me, but I'm not holding my breath, on the edge of my seat, with 'bated breath, all aquiver, waiting for the Lord to call Greg Prince or any of his like-minded fellows as one of His Prophets, Seers, and Revelators!  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Please pardon me, but I'm not holding my breath, on the edge of my seat, with 'bated breath, all aquiver, waiting for the Lord to call Greg Prince or any of his like-minded fellows as one of His Prophets, Seers, and Revelators!  

Doesn't religious history show us that it's usually NOT the establishment that leads us into the next dispensation?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Does the "Inspired Fiction" theory constitute "false doctrine?"  Does openly advocating for it constitute "apostasy?"  I have an opinion on such things, but I'll keep it to myself.

 

This was not addressed to me but I hope you don't mind if I comment on it for a moment.  I know you are not fond of my posts and we disagree on many points.  I hope to maybe resolve that to some degree.

I believe that the "inspired fiction" view does in fact constitute false doctrine.  Fiction is a deliberately concocted story known by the author, spun completely from whole cloth, either for purposes of entertainment, like say "Star Wars" or "War and Peace" or straight out fraud.  Yes literature can be moving emotionally and convey great truths, and books like "The Brothers Karamazov" is famously known as being in the latter category.

Yet no work of fiction can approach scripture in its effect on people.  The level of "inspiration" is of an entirely different order.

My point is an epistemological one, about how we KNOW the truth of the contents of scripture vs inspired fiction.  Fraudulent fiction concocted to be passed off as "scripture" cannot possibly be "inspired" so as far as I am concerned the phrase "inspired fiction" applied to scripture is self contradictory.   It cannot be "scripture" if it is concocted by the author to be passed off AS scripture because it is clearly not inspired.

On the other hand we have ancient manuscripts or present pronouncements of prophets about religious matters which are "inspired" which have the weight of scripture.

We KNOW the present pronouncements have been actually uttered by prophets- in many cases we have those talks on video, or good transcripts etc.

In cases of ancient scripture in many cases we have no clue who the actual author of the book may be.   Yet we are to accept these books on faith, with very little or no actual evidence who wrote them or under what intentions.  Isaiah, for example gives us profound and beautiful links to Christ, yet there are questions about its authorship.

How can we know that the book of Isaiah has "historicity"?  Yet who could dispute that we should take these profound insights as anything less than "scripture"?

The gospels speak of the events of Jesus' life, yet in many cases their authorship is also questioned.   In some cases we have independent verification of the events but in many others, we have no such verification.  Even if one takes the historicity of the crucifixion without question, how can we know that this "historical"event took away our sins??

How could we know that?  Yet if it did not "actually happen"  I AGREE WITH YOU there is no salvation.

But how do we KNOW it happened with enough historical certainty to risk our immortal souls on this supposed historical certainty??

For me, in the final analysis, we have testimony and personal revelation to confirm to us BOTH that the events "actually happened"  AND that we are saved by those events.

I would never risk my salvation on historical evidence!!  God himself has told me these principles are true and "In God We Trust-" all others have to make stronger cases than we have for historical scripture.

So my position is that THOUGH I SEE THESE EVENTS AS HISTORY, I take that assertion itself on faith because the evidence is so scant

And certainly- the historical evidence for the BOM is even more scant, yet I see it as historical for the same reasons-  I believe it happened but I take the truth that it happened on faith.

I cannot imagine a reasonable person thinking that there is enough historical evidence for the BOM to take it as scripture based on the evidence.  Moroni did not even ask that in Moroni 10:4-5- he expects us to take the truth based on testimony not history

I think I will stick with his advice.

[Kenngo1969]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Doesn't religious history show us that it's usually NOT the establishment that leads us into the next dispensation?

Huh.   I thought we were living in the dispensation of the fullness of times.   Apparently, you know something I don't.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Huh.   I thought we were living in the dispensation of the fullness of times.   Apparently, you know something I don't.

Maybe we don't refer to it as a dispensation, but aren't we waiting for one more big change?  (Second coming?)

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that  you are wrong about this, but I would like to see an actual demonstration of the inimical use of such professional tools.  As to those odd-bods taking a "literalist approach," I don't think that the Brethren accept a view which excludes figurative and metaphorical interpretation.

Points for the odd-bods.🤓

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Why limit anti-intellectualism to Biblical studies? There is a whole world of intellectual pursuits that you could reject in favor of the faith based approach - like the faith based approach to medicine! No more doctor's visits.

Luckily they started licensing chiropractors so I can reject "medicine" and do just that without compromising my own health. Isn't this world amazing?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Hey, the "brights" started it!  I thought at the time that most people, even people who think like the self-appointed "brights," wouldn't like the label.

Liberal, progressive members do kind of look down on literalists as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal simpletons, though.

That is okay. I look down on them as nervous world-pleasing airheads who minimize everything because they have a pathological fear of being wrong on some minor point so they make sure they believe as little as possible and anything they do believe is so subjective as to be unchallengeable.

So at least there is symmetry.  

Edited October 11, 2016 by The Nehor

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

You say that, but then you follow it up with a pretty rigid-looking approach that insists on literalism below:

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Quote

The story of the restoration as it has been traditionally told is rife with primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture. You can't separate that out from the way stories were told in the early history of the church. 

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture."

Second, "the story of the restoration" doesn't have a lot of subtlety and nuance about it.  I don't think it's as susceptible to theological debates which are deployed when discussing translations of ancient writings (the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Revelation, and so on).  So when we have writings from Joseph Smith, the original author, about his experiences, and when those writings are in English (not translated and re-translated), and when the "chain of custody" for his writings is clear and beyond reasonable dispute, and when he says things like "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", then much (most?) of the complexity and nuance of "approaching" scripture pretty much goes out the window, and we're left with accepting these plain-spoken words, or not.  The "or not" options can be varied in their reasoning, but they all end up at the same place: rejecting the straightforward testimony of Joseph Smith.

Third, I am curious about what alternative "approaches" to reading/interpreting the above statement ("I had actually seen a light...I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...").  What other-than-"literal" approach to this verse is warranted?  When Joseph says "I had actually seen a light," do we really have room to assert a figurative explanation?

I'm not saying we are obligated to believe Joseph's narrative.  That is a matter of faith for the individual.  But Prince et al. appear to be advocating something along the lines of "Yeah, when Joseph said he 'had actually seen a light,' but he didn't, nor did he really see 'two Personages,' and 'they did in reality speak to me' should be interpreted as just a metaphor."  

Can you see how that seems rather a stretch?  Why import complexity where none exists?  Why inject ambiguity into a straightforward, written-in-modern-English, first-person explanation of events?  I am reminded of 2 Nephi 25:28: "And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand."

And Jacob 4:14: 

Quote

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

And 2 Nephi 31:2-3:

Quote

2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

And 2 Nephi 32:7

Quote

And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.

"Plainness" in communications is a rather significant narrative element in The Book of Mormon.  It seems like the text was supposed to be read and construed and applied in a straightforward manner.  The same manner which you seem to find problematic.

Quote

All this really means is "I'm right, you're wrong. You ought to be punished for disagreeing with me."

I have said nothing close to any of that.  You are misrepresenting my position.  Flagrantly.  

Quote

It speaks to the fundamental insecurity that drives fundamentalism in the first place!

Oi.  This "fundamentalism" brickbat is getting a bit tiresome.

The Book of Mormon was written with "plainness" in mind.  Yes, it has rich and beautiful complexity, but those elements are in addition to the "plain" ones.

My sense is that Nephi and Jacob and their ilk were pretty much straight shooters.  They spoke "with plainness."  So did Joseph Smith.  And yet folks like Prince want to come along and tell the Saints to ignore this "plainness," to ignore what Joseph said in his first-person, written-in-English narrative about the origins of The Book of Mormon, and to instead adopt some vague, barely-coherent alternate explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon.  

I'll quote Jacob 4:14 again, as it just seems so darn applicable here:

Quote

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

Some sage observations, I think.

I am reminded of a funny YouTube video.  My kids love a YouTube channel called HISHE ("How It Should Have Ended"), which is a series of animated shorts poking fun at plot holes, illogic, etc. in popular movies.  One short deals with the movie Frozen and the illogic used by Elsa's parents.  Here's the clip (the relevant portion starts at 0:20 and goes to about 1:20):

Here's the relevant dialogue:

Quote

Troll (to Anna, about Elsa): She will be okay.

Elsa: But she won't remember I have powers?

Elsa's Father: It's for the best.

Troll: Listen to me, Elsa.  Your power will only grow.  There is beauty in it, but also great danger.  You must learn to control it.  Fear will be your enemy.  

Elsa's Father: Soooo . . . you're saying we should lock her up alone in a castle until she's safe to be around?

Troll (surprised): What?  That's not what I said.  That's a *terrible* idea.  No.

Elsa's Father: Soooo . . . you're saying we should teach her to be scared of herself?

Troll: Are you even listening?  I just said fear is her enemy!

Elsa's Mother: Soooo . . . you're saying to teach her to bundle all her feelings up 'til she gets this freedom complex?  And wait and see if she gets over this whole 'powers' thing?

Troll: Oh, wow.  You guys are bad parents.  No, I'm not saying to do *any* of those things.

Elsa's Father: Soooo . . . you're saying...

Troll (interrupting): Stop saying 'Sooo...'  Every time you say that you say the wrong thing!

Elsa's Mother (after a moment): Conceal, don't feel?

Troll (frustrated): Oh, my gosh!  The answer is 'love!'  Okay?  Love thaws, pure love heals.

(Parents look confused).

 

I can't help but think that the "Inspired Fiction" folks are sorta like Elsa's parents here.  They are not listening to straight talk.

Quote

Mainstream Mormonism (that is to say, the most popular expressions of Mormon culture) is still a fundamentalist affair. To prove the point, just consider how you might react if I say that there was no historical Adam and Eve, or no historical Nephi or Abraham.How well would such a statement go down in the average Sunday school meeting That makes most Mormons recoil It's true that not all fundamentalists are created equal, and mainstream Mormonism is not as rigidly fundamentalist as most Evangelical sects are. 

You are attempting to use "fundamentalism" as a slur.  But I don't think it will work.  I think you would be surprised at some of my personal opinions about "interpreting" the scriptures.  But "interpreting" JS-H in the way that Prince apparently advocates . . . nope.  Can't do it.  That seems like wresting the scriptures (JS-H, that is).  When Joseph Smith declares "I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...", I think it is eminently reasonable to construe this in a straightforward way.

I guess in a sense my approach is affected, to some extent, by my training and experience as an attorney.  I have worked on many cases where there is a dispute about the language of a contract.  One of the fundamental (Ack!  Now I'm using that word!) rules the courts use to interpret/construe the text of a contract is the "Plain Meaning Rule":

Quote

A principle used by courts in interpreting contracts that provides that the objective definitions of contractual terms are controlling, irrespective of whether the language comports with the actual intention of either party.

The plain meaning of the contract will be followed where the words used—whether written or oral—have a clear and unambiguous meaning. Words are given their ordinary meaning; technical terms are given their technical meaning; and local, cultural, or Trade Usage of terms are recognized as applicable. The circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract are also admissible to aid in the interpretation.

As I see it, Joseph Smith's explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon "have a clear and unambiguous meaning."  So you can throw around academic frou-frou gobbledygook jargon like "primitive American fundamentalist approaches to scripture" all the live long day, and it really won't mean much.  The Book of Mormon was written in "plainness."  Joseph Smith's narrative as to the origins of The Book of Mormon are eminently susceptible to the Plain Meaning Rule.  That seems like a reasonable approach.  That seems like the approach we are supposed to take.

Quote

Still, in the underlying philosophy that drives Mormonism, I see great potential for less rigid approaches to scripture. We claim to follow all truth, no matter what the source.

I agree.  

Quote

Hopefully that means eventually we start taking seriously the advances in academic Biblical studies. Right now we're still stuck in the scholarship that existed in the early 19th century or earlier. The culture is pretty anti-intellectual when it comes to the academic study of scriptures. I find that to be odd because we encourage education in just about every other area of life. 

Which may indicate that your accusation of anti-intellectualism is not apt.

The Plain Meaning Rule is, I think, a superior approach to Joseph Smith's narrative than academic approaches which have been developed to address issuers pertaining to language translation, unfamiliar cultural milieus, errors in translation, chain of custody issues, etc.  None of those complexities are relevant to Joseph Smith-History and its recitation of the origins of The Book of Mormon.

Quote

I chuckle when people throw around the words apostasy and heresy. It's just a dressed up way of saying  "I disagree with you".

So apostasy does not exist in reality?  We are incapable of succumbing to it?  I'll have to disagree with you there.

In any event, quoting scriptures about "false doctrine" is not "fundamentalism."  Acknowledging that apostasy can and does occur is not "fundamentalism."  

Quote

I interact with evangelicals from time to time and they're very fond of the word "heresy" and "heretic."  

And here we are, with you as the sole person using the words "heresy" and "heretic."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 11, 2016 by smac97

[cdowis]

Once again I go back to the core  issue, if JS was speaking in metaphors, outside of physical reality, then where do the witnesses fit into that narrative?  Clearly his intention was that this existed in the real world by including a cloud of witnesses,  to the plates, to the physical presence of divine messengers such as John the Baptist who laid his hands upon their head, and also shared visions of Christ and of Adam.

Metaphors could only exist in the mind of Joseph Smith, , but he boldly brought in witnesses to testify of a physical reality.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, churchistrue said:

There are many threads where BOM historicity is argued.  I don't care to get into that.  The question I have here, is whether this metaphorical version can work for people who can't get on board with historicity.  

 

 

 

 

I don't think its enough, not with what the Church asks.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds very odd to me, from an intellectual POV, and I don't think that ordinary Mormons themselves would understand your use of the term.  But if it makes you happy . . . 

Thanks for your patience and good humor with my yapping, Robert

[Gray]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Luckily they started licensing chiropractors so I can reject "medicine" and do just that without compromising my own health. Isn't this world amazing?

There's something for everyone in this marvelous modern world. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

Hey, the "brights" started it!  I thought at the time that most people, even people who think like the self-appointed "brights," wouldn't like the label.

Liberal, progressive members do kind of look down on literalists as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal simpletons, though.

I think "the brights" are a bunch of neckbeards with an inflated sense of their own intelligence and diminished social graces, but that's maybe not so kind...

I don't think fundamentalism speaks to a lack of intelligence at all. I don't think it's an intelligent position, but it's one that is held by many intelligent people for reasons that have nothing to do with the arguments for or against it. 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Gray

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think "the brights" are a bunch of neckbeards with an inflated sense of their own intelligence and diminished social graces, but that's maybe not so kind...

I don't think fundamentalism speaks to a lack of intelligence at all. I don't think it's an intelligent position, but it's one that is held by many intelligent people for reasons that have nothing to do with the arguments for or against it. 

Thanks for the backhanded, passive-aggressive compliment! . . .  

I actually agree with you. Not that fundamentalism isn't an intelligent position, but that it is held by many intelligent people for reasons other than "just the facts, ma'am." I think that secularism/higher criticism is, too. 

Our worldview and faith are largely chosen by us. They are mostly a choice, and it comes down to which each person wants to believe. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by rongo