Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

was he saying they never have or just currently don't? 

Here’s what he said:  “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

It’s a fairly far reaching statement.  Unfortunately, it’s false. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what he said:  “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

It’s a fairly far reaching statement.  Unfortunately, it’s false. 

I don't know, what leaders he had in mind though. Besides, if we know about history then it has come to light, it's the history that we don't know about but as Elder Ballard said they don't hide history. I remember a class in my Canadian History class years ago the teacher said that W.L. Mackenzie King's (the PM when Canada went to WW2) diaries from that point in history were restricted, they knew they existed. According to him, so take this with a million pound bag of salt, but people didn't want to know that Canada went to WW2 for the sole purpose that he was looking at his bowl of alphagetti's and the word "yes" appeared before him. He was a peculiar man shall we say. People wanted to believe that Canada went for some noble reasons. Now, today though they are digitized and you can probably find out why Canada actually went to war. Society changes, people's interest change. People still aren't interested in history despite what the church is doing now. I would love to know what church members reactions were when the James Allen article came out about the different versions of the First Vision.  My BIL is a convert and I told him a few years that black men couldn't get the priesthood until 1978 and he could care less. What we think are big deals others just don't care.

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Here’s what he said:  “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

It’s a fairly far reaching statement.  Unfortunately, it’s false. 

I can just imagine them getting the Arrington bio for Christmas, and the awful dread setting in as they hit the mid-1970s in the book...

Edited November 27, 2017 by cinepro

[rockpond]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

I don't know, what leaders he had in mind though. Besides, if we know about history then it has come to light, it's the history that we don't know about but as Elder Ballard said they don't hide history. I remember a class in my Canadian History class years ago the teacher said that W.L. Mackenzie King's (the PM when Canada went to WW2) diaries from that point in history were restricted, they knew they existed. According to him, so take this with a million pound bag of salt, but people didn't want to know that Canada went to WW2 for the sole purpose that he was looking at his bowl of alphagetti's and the word "yes" appeared before him. He was a peculiar man shall we say. People wanted to believe that Canada went for some noble reasons. Now, today though they are digitized and you can probably find out why Canada actually went to war. Society changes, people's interest change. People still aren't interested in history despite what the church is doing now. I would love to know what church members reactions were when the James Allen article came out about the different versions of the First Vision.  My BIL is a convert and I told him a few years that black men couldn't get the priesthood until 1978 and he could care less. What we think are big deals others just don't care.

Well, Ballard said that he and Oaks know the history of the church and the integrity of the prophet and apostles from the beginning and that there has been no attempt by leaders to hide anything from anyone.  We know this to be false.  So, I’m trying to figure out why he would make such a statement.  His statement actually sets himself up as knowing the history and the leaders rather than indicating that possibly there are things that he and Oaks are unaware of. 

In the same talk he cited the first vision accounts as evidence that nothing was hid.  And yet, one of the examples of church leaders hiding things is Joseph Fielding Smith cutting the earliest account of the first vision out of Joseph Smith Jr’s Journal and hiding it in a safe for years. 

Is Ballard ignorant of this occurrence even though he stands there and boldly proclaims that nothing has been hidden?

Is Ballard unaware of the church leaders’ practice and hiding of post-manifesto polygamy?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I can just imagine them getting the Arrington bio for Christmas, and the awful dread setting in as they hit the mid-1970s in the book...

No kidding!  It’s reallt unfortunate in this time in the church’s development to have our leaders be so uninformed. 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, Ballard said that he and Oaks know the history of the church and the integrity of the prophet and apostles from the beginning and that there has been no attempt by leaders to hide anything from anyone.  We know this to be false.  So, I’m trying to figure out why he would make such a statement.  His statement actually sets himself up as knowing the history and the leaders rather than indicating that possibly there are things that he and Oaks are unaware of. 

In the same talk he cited the first vision accounts as evidence that nothing was hid.  And yet, one of the examples of church leaders hiding things is Joseph Fielding Smith cutting the earliest account of the first vision out of Joseph Smith Jr’s Journal and hiding it in a safe for years. 

Is Ballard ignorant of this occurrence even though he stands there and boldly proclaims that nothing has been hidden?

Is Ballard unaware of the church leaders’ practice and hiding of post-manifesto polygamy?

The answers to those questions can only come from one source, Elder Ballard himself and very fortunately my mother never named me Melvin although she has a cousin named Melvin

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, Ballard said that he and Oaks know the history of the church and the integrity of the prophet and apostles from the beginning and that there has been no attempt by leaders to hide anything from anyone.  We know this to be false.  So, I’m trying to figure out why he would make such a statement.  His statement actually sets himself up as knowing the history and the leaders rather than indicating that possibly there are things that he and Oaks are unaware of. 

Oaks is pretty well read. He's written one historical book and was one of the founders of Dialog. He also has shown himself to be pretty knowledgeable and well read despite the commitments of his calling. I'd have to see the full quote (I just don't have time to watch video) But going from Scott's transcript I get the feeling they mean history. That is they're distinguishing between things revealed that aren't taught to the world and hiding things. I'd agree this is a somewhat problematic distinction even though I get what they're getting at. However the reality is that until recently most records were kept most unavailable to scholars and there were pressures on people publishing things unfavorable to the Church. Likewise it seems hard to deny the hiding of polygamy in Nauvoo and while post-manifesto polygamy was a bit of an open secret at the time it counts as well. So I think they're trying to make a distinction between practice/belief and stopping publication of things. But that seems to me to be a somewhat misleading distinction even if I get what they're trying to say. They could definitely have worded things better.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Oaks is pretty well read. He's written one historical book and was one of the founders of Dialog. He also has shown himself to be pretty knowledgeable and well read despite the commitments of his calling. I'd have to see the full quote (I just don't have time to watch video) But going from Scott's transcript I get the feeling they mean history. That is they're distinguishing between things revealed that aren't taught to the world and hiding things. I'd agree this is a somewhat problematic distinction even though I get what they're getting at. However the reality is that until recently most records were kept most unavailable to scholars and there were pressures on people publishing things unfavorable to the Church. Likewise it seems hard to deny the hiding of polygamy in Nauvoo and while post-manifesto polygamy was a bit of an open secret at the time it counts as well. So I think they're trying to make a distinction between practice/belief and stopping publication of things. But that seems to me to be a somewhat misleading distinction even if I get what they're trying to say. They could definitely have worded things better.

Regardless of that distinction, the church has hid both.  They have hid practice and beliefs and hid historical events and mistakes.

I haven't had time to watch the entire video - hoping a transcript will be published soon.  But even if we applied it to just the first vision accounts (Ballard's example) it is still a false statement as Joseph Fielding Smith hid the first JS account (1832) for several decades.

I'm just still in shock from this.  It seemed that they wanted to speak directly to the youth and answer the pressing questions they have and then they stand up and share falsehoods.  Really surprising.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Regardless of that distinction, the church has hid both.  They have hid practice and beliefs and hid historical events and mistakes.

I haven't had time to watch the entire video - hoping a transcript will be published soon.  But even if we applied it to just the first vision accounts (Ballard's example) it is still a false statement as Joseph Fielding Smith hid the first JS account (1832) for several decades.

I'm just still in shock from this.  It seemed that they wanted to speak directly to the youth and answer the pressing questions they have and then they stand up and share falsehoods.  Really surprising.

I agree.  Particularly since this was a planned event--that is they had the questions before they performed for the YSAs.  As I recall Elder Ballard consulted notes to make this point.  It was really surprising he said it and said it as he did.   

[rongo]

The Brethren are not very good at Q&A. There are a lot of data points on this: the recent one in question (controlled environment), the Swedish Rescue (non-controlled environment), a Q&A we had in the Phoenix area (non-controlled, Elder Ballard was exasperated by a question about Joseph Smith polygamy. He didn't come across as knowing much about it). I've heard that the next announced Face-to-Face will feature questions from President Nelson's grandchildren. Is that true? That looks really bad, especially in light of how this one went. 

What I find puzzling was the preemptive response that people should seek out "experts" instead of general authorities or apostles for historical or historical doctrinal questions. This seems to contradict what Elder Ballard said in this last conference: ("Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand.") While I think he was referring to Denver Snuffer, et. al., it is whiplash-inducing to counsel people to steer clear of people claiming to be able to answer question they say today's apostles can't answer, but then to beg-off from answering these types of questions and punting it over to the "experts" (experts people are supposed to find on their own, per both of them). It was also kind of bewildering to hear them say this in light of other recent counsel, such as Elder Ballard's "Gone are the days when a student asked an honest questions and the teacher responded, 'Don't worry about it!' Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response to avoid the issue."

As for "I am a general authority, but that doesn't make me an authority in general," --- why aren't general authorities experts in these same types of questions that are of concern today? They come in contact with the Saints through their constant travels with stake conference, mission tours, etc. How is it that they a) can be completely unaware of these questions, or b) consistently don't want to answer them? Why have apostles? This is one of the crying needs, and it is part of the job description.

 

 

 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

What I find puzzling was the preemptive response that people should seek out "experts" instead of general authorities or apostles for historical or historical doctrinal questions. This seems to contradict what Elder Ballard said in this last conference: ("Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand.") While I think he was referring to Denver Snuffer, et. al., it is whiplash-inducing to counsel people to steer clear of people claiming to be able to answer question they say today's apostles can't answer, but then to beg-off from answering these types of questions and punting it over to the "experts" (experts people are supposed to find on their own, per both of them). It was also kind of bewildering to hear them say this in light of other recent counsel, such as Elder Ballard's "Gone are the days when a student asked an honest questions and the teacher responded, 'Don't worry about it!' Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response to avoid the issue."

I think the distinction is historical vs doctrinal issues. The GAs are authorities on the latter (sometimes just by virtue of having authority), but not the former.  It's very different to ask, "Did Joseph Smith do x" vs "Does the church teach x?" History is history, and historical questions are academic questions.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the distinction is historical vs doctrinal issues. The GAs are authorities on the latter (sometimes just by virtue of having authority), but not the former.  It's very different to ask, "Did Joseph Smith do x" vs "Does the church teach x?" History is history, and historical questions are academic questions.

Historical and doctrinal issues often overlap, though ---- and when they do, they are ground zero for concerns and issues people have. Presentism, doctrinal change and development, contradictory doctrine between eras, etc., just to name a few areas. 

I'm pretty sure the Brethren would punt it over to the "experts" to answer questions of this type concerning doctrine. 

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the distinction is historical vs doctrinal issues. The GAs are authorities on the latter (sometimes just by virtue of having authority), but not the former.  It's very different to ask, "Did Joseph Smith do x" vs "Does the church teach x?" History is history, and historical questions are academic questions.

Apparently Ballard is not an authority on either (historical or doctrinal).  Church leaders have hid both.

[Honorentheos]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 1:12 PM, Duncan said:

but again what was Pres. Smith's motivation? do we have a journal entry as to why he did what he did? I found two ideas from him from the period 1922-1946 about the First Vision (i'm sure they are others but I haven't really delved into it but he simply said that the 1838 account is the best so how can you add to it or as he calls it embellish it? for him that account was good enough, when he was writing. I would LOVE to work in the CHL in SLC but that would mean I would have to move to the States and live among you barbarians who say "frosting" and "Flog" I think you mean it's pronounced "flay-gue" because they is an "a" in there???

LaMar Petersen's notes from his meeting with Levi Young (the 70 who essentially blew the cover off of the existence of the 1832 account) included this description of Levi Young's experience:

Quote

His curios­i­ty was excit­ed when read­ing in Roberts’ Doc. His­to­ry ref­er­ence to “doc­u­ments from which these writ­ings were com­piled.” Asked to see them. TOLD TO GET HIGHER PERMISSION. Obtained that per­mis­sion. Exam­ined doc­u­ments. Writ­ten, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told NOT TO COPY OR TELL WHAT THEY CONTAINED. Said it was a “STRANGE” account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. REMAINS UNUSED, UNKNOWN.

While we can't exactly read anyone's mind, we can apply the evidence to the claim that they were being hidden deliberately, not to be copied, nor revealed. The information they contained appears to be of substantial concern not just the pages themselves. There is no reason to imagine we'd be having this conversation at all about a subject we might know nothing about had Levi Young not told LaMar Petersen about them and Petersen, after Young's passing, then making it public that there was something unknown but worth seeking out.

[Duncan]

22 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

LaMar Petersen's notes from his meeting with Levi Young (the 70 who essentially blew the cover off of the existence of the 1832 account) included this description of Levi Young's experience:

While we can't exactly read anyone's mind, we can apply the evidence to the claim that they were being hidden deliberately, not to be copied, nor revealed. The information they contained appears to be of substantial concern not just the pages themselves. There is no reason to imagine we'd be having this conversation at all about a subject we might know nothing about had Levi Young not told LaMar Petersen about them and Petersen, after Young's passing, then making it public that there was something unknown but worth seeking out.

I don't know, do we have all the evidence? It would be nice to see some diary entries or something along those lines. if Pres. Smith was hiding it why did he show it to anyone at all? I just looked at Levi Edgar Young's papers at the CHL and they say portions are closed to access, which means if you know the date you can ask them to see if he wrote anything about this exchange of information or what all happened. In saying "hiding" that shows deliberate intent in concealment, which there is no evidence of that, unless you can get the diary entries of Pres. Smith. Sometimes people put things in a safe for safe keeping, especially something from 1832.I haven't checked but I am going to assume Pres. Smith's diaries are restricted.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Duncan

[Honorentheos]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know, do we have all the evidence? It would be nice to see some diary entries or something along those lines. if Pres. Smith was hiding it why did he show it to anyone at all? I just looked at Levi Edgar Young's papers at the CHL and they say portions are closed to access, which means if you know the date you can ask them to see if he wrote anything about this exchange of information or what all happened. In saying "hiding" that shows deliberate intent in concealment, which there is no evidence of that, unless you can get the diary entries of Pres. Smith. Sometimes people put things in a safe for safe keeping, especially something from 1832.I haven't checked but I am going to assume Pres. Smith's diaries are restricted.

We don't have access to all of the evidence because Joseph Fielding Smith's diaries from the time period when it occurred are not available to you or me or anyone who asks to see them. But they exist. Hmm.

 

ETA: Again, the fact Levi Young was told not to disclose their existence, copy them, or speak of them very much qualifies as evidence that they were being deliberately concealed. It absolutely shows deliberate intent.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

I'd also add that once their existence was made known, their being reinserted into the journal they came from and disclosed to Cheesman and ultimately public disclosure counts as evidence that their concealment until they could no longer be concealed counts as evidence that it was their content that was of concern and being kept from disclosure not the pages themselves being protected.

There really is nothing in the way this narrative played out that leaves room for conclusions other than Joseph Fielding Smith was keeping the content of those pages from people's view, did not want their content disclosed, and worked to control how the information was disclosed once the lid was off of this particular Pandora's box. And his private thoughts from this period recorded in his diaries are not available to us because THOSE pages are now being kept inside of a vault from public view.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

We don't have access to all of the evidence because Joseph Fielding Smith's diaries from the time period when it occurred are not available to you or me or anyone who asks to see them. But they exist. Hmm.

 

ETA: Again, the fact Levi Young was told not to disclose their existence, copy them, or speak of them very much qualifies as evidence that they were being deliberately concealed. It absolutely shows deliberate intent.

So, before we have all the evidence do you think it would be wise to not draw any conclusions as to intent?

No offense but we have Lamar Peterson's account of what Levi Edgar Young was told by Pres. Smith, who for all we know was told by someone else, I don't know but I wonder if something got muddled up along the way?  What was Pres. Smith's reaction when it did get out? did he try to suppress the Paul Cheeseman MA thesis in the 1960's. One thing to keep in mind, it was in his family's safe, he was under no obligation to give it out anyone.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I'd also add that once their existence was made known, their being reinserted into the journal they came from and disclosed to Cheesman and ultimately public disclosure counts as evidence that their concealment until they could no longer be concealed counts as evidence that it was their content that was of concern and being kept from disclosure not the pages themselves being protected.

There really is nothing in the way this narrative played out that leaves room for conclusions other than Joseph Fielding Smith was keeping the content of those pages from people's view, did not want their content disclosed, and worked to control how the information was disclosed once the lid was off of this particular Pandora's box. And his private thoughts from this period recorded in his diaries are not available to us because THOSE pages are now being kept inside of a vault from public view.

Are you sure all of the Pres. Smith diaries are in Church's hands? he had loads of kids maybe one of them has a copy, who knows!

 

As I have said before the CHL has a "access to restricted materials" form you can complete, so there are ways around things if you ask nicely

Edited November 28, 2017 by Duncan

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know, do we have all the evidence? It would be nice to see some diary entries or something along those lines. if Pres. Smith was hiding it why did he show it to anyone at all? I just looked at Levi Edgar Young's papers at the CHL and they say portions are closed to access, which means if you know the date you can ask them to see if he wrote anything about this exchange of information or what all happened. In saying "hiding" that shows deliberate intent in concealment, which there is no evidence of that, unless you can get the diary entries of Pres. Smith. Sometimes people put things in a safe for safe keeping, especially something from 1832.I haven't checked but I am going to assume Pres. Smith's diaries are restricted.

Duncan -- The 1832 account was cut out of Joseph Smith's letterbook.  It was stored in a safe away from the rest of the book that was being stored in church archives.  Why would the church historian remove something from the original journal, damaging it in the process, and place it in a personal safe?

A member of the Presidents of the 70 had to get permission from higher up to even be allowed to see the document and when he saw it he was reportedly told not to copy it.

How would this NOT be considered "hiding"?

Further, even though the Church was clearly in possession of the first known account of the First Vision and the Church KNEW it was in possession of this account, the first to publish the 1832 account was NOT the Church -- it was Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are you sure all of the Pres. Smith diaries are in Church's hands? he had loads of kids maybe one of them has a copy, who knows!

 

As I have said before the CHL has a "access to restricted materials" form you can complete, so there are ways around things if you ask nicely

So go ahead and ask and show us that it wasn't being hidden.  Since the church doesn't hide anything, they ought to share the pages with you if you ask, right?

[Honorentheos]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, before we have all the evidence do you think it would be wise to not draw any conclusions as to intent?

No offense but we have Lamar Peterson's account of what Levi Edgar Young was told by Pres. Smith, who for all we know was told by someone else, I don't know but I wonder if something got muddled up along the way?  What was Pres. Smith's reaction when it did get out? did he try to suppress the Paul Cheeseman MA thesis in the 1960's. One thing to keep in mind, it was in his family's safe, he was under no obligation to give it out anyone.

He made the documents available to Cheeseman after the Tanner's asked about the pages, which they were told about by Petersen after Young's passing. We have fairly reasonable evidence from which to draw conclusions. I have to say, it would be a short, perhaps comedic way to live if one applied this standard to one's decision-making generally.

To clarify, what we have are the actual taped in pages that you can see in the Joseph Smith Papers online. We have the fact they were not known or spoken of in a way that made it into public discourse until after Levi Young died. We have the fact that LaMar Petersen made his information known to the Tanners who asked to see them and were denied. We have the timing of Cheeseman's thesis in this sequence of events.

We have a significant amount of evidence and a very compelling timeline. Now the Church could provide compelling counter-evidence by supplying an authentic copy of Joseph Fielding's diaries that help illuminate his reasoning in a way that swings the probabilities in another direction. But the fact they don't counts in favor of the compelling idea that the Church was not acting in good faith or with transparency when the decision was made to damage a historical document in order to remove those pages and put them into a safe.

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

So go ahead and ask and show us that it wasn't being hidden.  Since the church doesn't hide anything, they ought to share the pages with you if you ask, right?

give me a date. I obviously can't guarantee they will as maybe the family has restrictions on it. Seperate though as I have tried to say earlier how archives work and what the Church does. If a family donates something to the archives and says no one is see this for 100 years then the archives has to honour that agreement.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, before we have all the evidence do you think it would be wise to not draw any conclusions as to intent?

No offense but we have Lamar Peterson's account of what Levi Edgar Young was told by Pres. Smith, who for all we know was told by someone else, I don't know but I wonder if something got muddled up along the way?  What was Pres. Smith's reaction when it did get out? did he try to suppress the Paul Cheeseman MA thesis in the 1960's. One thing to keep in mind, it was in his family's safe, he was under no obligation to give it out anyone.

Those are all fair and interesting questions.  But the fact is that it was in his safe.  That means it was hidden.  Period.  What Ballard said was wrong.  And this is only one example of many where the church has hidden things.

You can go directly to the gospel topics essays on LDS.org and see another example of where the church has hidden things:  Polygamy.  The essays admit that Joseph Smith tried to hide the practice.  Additionally, the essays admit that the Brethren tried to hide post-manifesto polygamy.

Ballard's statement is made even more ridiculous given Ballard's "gone are the days..." comment to CES instructors last year.

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

He made the documents available to Cheeseman after the Tanner's asked about the pages, which they were told about by Petersen after Young's passing. We have fairly reasonable evidence from which to draw conclusions. I have to say, it would be a short, perhaps comedic way to live if one applied this standard to one's decision-making generally.

To clarify, what we have are the actual taped in pages that you can see in the Joseph Smith Papers online. We have the fact they were not known or spoken of in a way that made it into public discourse until after Levi Young died. We have the fact that LaMar Petersen made his information known to the Tanners who asked to see them and were denied. We have the timing of Cheeseman's thesis in this sequence of events.

We have a significant amount of evidence and a very compelling timeline. Now the Church could provide compelling counter-evidence by supplying an authentic copy of Joseph Fielding's diaries that help illuminate his reasoning in a way that swings the probabilities in another direction. But the fact they don't counts in favor of the compelling idea that the Church was not acting in good faith or with transparency when the decision was made to damage a historical document in order to remove those pages and put them into a safe.

How they got out doesn't prove intent of concealment, for all we know there was a flood in a Smith family member's house in the 1890's (who knows) and they put them in there to keep dry. Who cut  that page out? are you sure it was Pres. Smith? Again are we even sure "the Church" even knew that it was cut out? You're saying that Pres. Smith didn't want this vision to be leaked but he told someone who it was alleged was told not to tell someone else and on and on until someone printed it in a MA thesis and later printed in a Church wide magazine, all the while Pres. Smith was alive and could have stopped any of it at any time. So, now the Church has to give up the diary entry, and who even knows when it was cut out, to show what you and others believe was already proven that Pres. Smith was trying to hide it (according to the Peterson account).  Honestly if anybody was trying to hide this we wouldn't even know about it. It would have been cut out and destroyed. The evidence for intent of hiding, to me, is weak.