Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

My words, but when you know as I do that God is real, then becoming an atheist is akin to "selling my soul". I am not just a believer, I know, and have known of the reality of God from my infancy. I know that God lives as well as any human ever has. Would you have me deny this, so that I can agree with you? 

From my vantage point you are comfortable in your current beliefs, perhaps even clinging to them in a defensive way.  I don’t mean any offense by this, many amazing people much better than I am are also very comfortable in their belief paradigm and not desirerous to expand on those beliefs.  It depends on whether you are open to new explorations and I can’t promise any specific outcome.  

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph Smith at first said the BoM lands were in the New York area.

Could you give us that link, pleeze

North America indeed had Lamanites AND Nephites, and it was part of the area called the "land northward".  The actual issue is the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BOM.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I just wonder how important it is for a real prophet to reveal things, when we have the scripture about false prophets. If they say something and it doesn't come to pass.

Each of these Biblical prophets are UNCONDITIONAL prophecies. Just wondering whether they are also false prophets?

1. Jonah prophecy -- Jonah 3 [4] And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. result -- Jonah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed.

2. Isaiah prophecy -- Isa 38 [1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live. result -- Isaiah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed. Hezekiah did not die for another fifteen years

3.Nathan -- prophecy -- 2 Sam 7 [2] That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains. [3] And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee. Nathan result -- Nathan gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed. David did not build the temple, but his son built it.

 These three Bible prophets failed your test. YOU say they are false prophets, but GOD says they are true prophets. YOU are the one who has failed the test by renouncing God's true prophets

Edited March 6, 2018 by cdowis

[Gray]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Then stop appealing to authority until you do have an idea.  

 

I would never dream of appealing to that. But it's an irrelevant question - you were the one trying to make an appeal to authority.

 

Quote

Please be specific.  Do you include sheum, NHM, Pahoran, Paanchi, cement cities, codex, sophisticated calendar, horses (be careful) in that list?
Stop making broad generalizations without specific examples without documentation.  BTW "Not found not exist" is a logical fallacy.  

Atonement theology is a big one. Specifically penal substitution, which is in the Book of Mormon and was originally modeled on feudalistic crime and punishment. That's the kind of anachronism I mean.

Or even more obvious anachronisms - that the Book of Mormon is textually dependent upon writings that didn't exist yet (at the time the BOM was supposedly written). Those are big red flags. Maybe that's why very few people outside of some committed partisans (apologists and counter-apologists aka anti-Mormons) have even bothered to formally deal with it as an ancient document. It's taken much more seriously these days for its role in 19th century American literature and history.

 

Quote

I do not "reject" legitimate Biblical scholarship, UNLESS the expert has never read the Bible!  (if you get my meaning)

What makes Biblical scholarship legitimate? When it supports your theological commitments?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

And for its historicity...

I agree.

That said, the Eight Witnesses did not testify about "supernatural events" or "a strange translation process."  

I'm not sure I agree to that.  There may very well be Nephite locations and artifacts that are extant, but which have not yet been identified as "Nephite."  If we were to create two piles of A) things we know about Mesoamerica and B) things we do not know about Mesoamerica (or else do not fully understand), Pile (B) would be far, far bigger than Pile (A).

When all is said and done, I have found the Book of Mormon to be . . . plausible.  I think it could fit quite well into a proposed Mesoamerican setting.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there a big enough pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica to hide Nephites? Maybe, maybe not, but without the Book of Mormon, no one would feel the need to posit their existence based only on existing evidence. There isn't a "Nephite shaped hole" that Mesoamerican scholars are trying to fill. Generally with theologically-driven research the attempt is to explain why the Nephites wouldn't have left any discernible evidence.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I just wonder how important it is for a real prophet to reveal things, when we have the scripture about false prophets. If they say something and it doesn't come to pass.

I guess you would have to provide a reference for when Joseph Smith was speaking. The context. What did he say, when and where did he say it? Was he speaking in his capacity as a prophet? Was he claiming inspiration as to remarks about the location of events described in the Book of Mormon? Apart from those events occurring somewhere in the Americas, I do not think we have any revelatory guidance on that General subject.

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Is there a big enough pile of unknowns in Mesoamerica to hide Nephites? Maybe, maybe not, but without the Book of Mormon, no one would feel the need to posit their existence based only on existing evidence. There isn't a "Nephite shaped hole" that Mesoamerican scholars are trying to fill. Generally among devotional research the attempt is to explain why the Nephites wouldn't have left any discernible evidence.

There are hundreds of BOM artifacts. Let me explain.
Let us suppose you were excavating an authentic Nephite city, and you find a jade necklace. Please tell us how we would identify it as "Nephite" instead of Mayan, or something else. How would you identify a Nephite city??

The BOM tells us that they did not use Hebrew as the vernacular, but a language unknown to any other nation. What physical evidence uniquely identifies that Jade necklace, or even the city itself? All of the written records were destroyed by the Spanish. The artifacts are there but it is an issue of identification. Please help us solve that problem..

Anyway, here is a "hole" of 15 million people undiscovered until now.  There may other such holes as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/03/mayan-civilization-was-much-vaster-than-known-thousands-of-newly-discovered-structures-reveal/?utm_term=.f48a8d54d137

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by cdowis

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

In what way?  How would a theory about atonement theology that didn’t exist anywhere in the world, had never even been imagined by a human being, that’s built upon earlier concepts and theologies and has a clear imprint based on the time and place with which it gained prominence, how would those concepts all of the sudden show up in another time and place many hundreds of years earlier?   

From Terryl Givens' "Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity"

Quote

The historic atonement theory closest to Mormonism's may be the Governmental Theory of Hugo Grotius

The atonement theory of the Book of Mormon did not originate with Joseph Smith. It originated in 17th Century Europe. I agree, though, that it makes no sense in a 4th Century work.

Edited March 6, 2018 by JarMan

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We agree that it’s modern, but I roll my eyes at theories like this because they are just rampant speculation with shabby evidence.  I’m sorry, but I can’t take that seriously without substantial evidence somewhere. 

There is very substantial evidence. You just haven't looked at it. Have you even read through champatsch's numerous papers on the EModE of the Book of Mormon? How much time have you spent reading through 17th Century religious, political, scientific and literary works? The evidence is there. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence Joseph had the requisite knowledge or ability. He couldn't possibly have had the knowledge since it would take essentially a lifetime of study to acquire it. And he certainly didn't have the ability to spit out a literary masterpiece in a matter of a few months with very little revision. If it's evidence you want to base your theory on you're just way off here.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How would Joseph have received this 17th century text?  Do you proposed that he received it via seer stone or do you think he obtained a copy of this 17th century text and then memorized it sufficiently to dictate it to his scribes?  

This is really only a secondary issue, but I think either of the options you presented or one of several other options is possible.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

The historic atonement theory closest to Mormonism's may be the Governmental Theory of Hugo Grotius

I've been doing some reading on Hopkins and the New Divinity movement that gave rise to a sort of spiritual revival that had a very direct and profound influence on individuals that were closely related to the Smiths during their time at Dartmouth.

If you are looking for a period of time when most of the elements (including the works of Grotius) found in the Book of Mormon fall within Joseph Smith's orbit, then look to the New Divinity movement at Dartmouth. There is little need to make Grotius our hypothetical author when the Smiths were surrounded by Arminians and New Divinity Hopkinsians. Asael's cousin Dr. John Smith was a substantial figure in the movement and was one of New England's leading scholars in Oriental languages and Arminian theology. We even have a sort of parallel case of a Golden Book surfacing with the appearance of an angel in a white robe among converts of Hopkinsian-influenced missionaries in Burma. Adoniram Judson himself was a Hopkinsian professor from the New Divinity school of thought whose father stated he "loved the character and imbibed the theories of Nathanael Emmons", Oliver Cowdery's Great Uncle.

Why assume Grotius was the sole author when there were thousands of Arminians, Hopkinsians, Emmonites and New Divinity theologians, who could have read all the Arminian theological works of Grotius, within a few miles of the Smith Homestead? 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Meerkat]

On 3/3/2018 at 2:49 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I dare not list more, as remembering what I m writing and seeking to keep track of is getting more difficult every passing day. So forgive any errors, or ramblings. 

I think I can speak for many of us, Papa Lee, when I say "Keep on rambling!"  Your love of God, family, mankind, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon shine through, and pleasantly so.  I love your stories and ramblings.  Regarding your memory, I think you're preaching to the choir here to a great degree.  You know what they say: "The first thing to go is your memory and the first thing to go is your memory!"

 

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just wonder how important it is for a real prophet to reveal things, when we have the scripture about false prophets. If they say something and it doesn't come to pass.

Regarding prophecies fulfilled, just give it time.  Regarding false prophets, ye shall know them by their fruits.  See Moroni 7.

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary vs. primary evidence?  Are you saying the theological concepts in the text is secondary?  

Matthew 16

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
            16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
            17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
            18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (the rock of revelation from Father in Heaven )  I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Personal revelation is the primary evidence for people like me, and others who build His Church.  Show me anything else, it doesn't matter.  My testimony was hard won, and it doesn't change.  It's locked in.  I could have been disturbed by the Church statement on priesthood, or other controversies.  The issue I have is how do I disregard all these fruits I enjoy living the Gospel?

Many years ago, Mark Hoffman sold the Salamander letter to the Church.  My uncle dropped by to tell my folks the leaders of the LDS Church were being proven cheats and liars.  My response was "Nonsense." Several months later, Hoffman was arrested for murder and forgery.  The Church has been proven true to me again and again and again.  Like a multiplication table.

[JarMan]

48 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I've been doing some reading on Hopkins and the New Divinity movement that gave rise to a sort of spiritual revival that had a very direct and profound influence on individuals that were closely related to the Smiths during their time at Dartmouth.

If you are looking for a period of time when all elements (including the works of Grotius) converge with a 19th century author, then look to the New Divinity movement at Dartmouth. There is little need to make Grotius our hypothetical author when the Smiths were surrounded by Arminians and New Divinity Hopkinsians. Asael's cousin Dr. John Smith was a substantial figure in the movement and was one of New England's leading scholars in Oriental languages and Arminian theology. We even have a sort of parallel case of a Golden Book surfacing among the American missionaries led by Adoniram Judson, a Hopkinsian from the New Divinity school who stated he "loved the character and imbibed the theories of Nathanael Emmons", Oliver Cowdery's Great Uncle.

Why assume Grotius when there were thousands of Hopkinsians, Emmonites and New Divinity theologians, who could have read all the works of Grotius, within the Smith orbit? 

For starters, the language of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English. This pretty much rules out any 19th Century authors. And there are so many more 17th Century ideas than just theology. The entire Nephite theory of waging war, for example, is reflected quite clearly in Grotius' seminal work on the subject. I've mentioned before a close parallel between Alma 47 and Grotius' writings about just warfare. There are easily dozens of points of agreement and, so far, I haven't found a single point of disagreement when it comes to the morality or ethics of waging war. We also have a governmental theory in the Book of Mormon that is very much 16th/17th Century European and not at all 19th Century American. There is a particularly good fit with the Dutch Republic with several internal struggles in the Book of Mormon that mirror the internal strife of the Dutch Republic. We have 17th Century scientific thinking in the Book of Mormon as I've shown in the various Galileo threads whereas I see zero 19th Century science. We have literary works produced by Grotius that have several parallels in the Book of Mormon whereas the 19th Century literary similarities which many have offered are pure nonsense. We see common practices of the 16th/17th Century such as the exiling and burning of heretics which has been discussed at length and which had no place in Joseph Smith's America. We have descriptions of robbers that are very similar to those described in ancient Rome, and which are referred to by Grotius in his writing. We have prolonged warfare in the Book of Mormon that has many similarities to the European 30 Years War that lasted from 1618 to 1648 and the 80 Years War between the Dutch and the Spanish. The Book of Mormon is from start to finish a 17th Century European work. I cannot find anything in the Book of Mormon that is out of place in the time and place I'm suggesting (Europe between 1635 and 1645). But there is plenty that is out of place in 19th Century America.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, JarMan said:

For starters, the language of the Book of Mormon is Early Modern English. This pretty much rules out any 19th Century authors.

Then how does the 18th and 19th century language get in there?

[Meerkat]

Hope for Things-- Surely I am confused about what you are saying to Papa Lee:

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Papa, if I were to give advice I would tell you that you NEED to lose your faith in order to find yourself.  The whole idea of God and religion and scripture and salvation and sin and exaltation and Christ and the fall and the atonement.  It is all a fiction.  You have to lose your faith in it literally to find the value on the other side of belief.  You have to experience the loss in order to see that the images in Plato's cave that you've been viewing all this time are just shadows, they aren't what's real, they are an illusion.

I must be mistaken here (please let me know that I am wrong,) but did you just deny Jesus Christ, God the Father, the Scriptures, sin, the fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ?  You, who have served a mission teaching these things are now calling them "a fiction?"  It is one thing to lose a testimony, or have a faith crisis.  But when you, rather than say "I don't know," actually deny Jesus Christ and tell a great man of faith, Bill "Papa" Lee "you NEED to lose your faith in order to find yourself," you are going where angels fear to tread.  I understand Papa's sadness when he said "I am going to miss you," because he knows where he is going.  He knows what he is talking about.   I hope you do also, and change your course.  If you are trying to explain something, there has to be a better metaphor than the one you just used.  Please clarify.  Nice as you are, I don't believe that statement (on the face of it,) can be ignored in the Judgment, do you?  Your statement, if accurate, clarifies to me why you believe the Book of Mormon is just another book written by a talented young man.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Meerkat
To call attention to Hope that his statement requires clarification.

[JarMan]

17 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Then how does the 18th and 19th century language get in there?

There is very little that cannot be dated earlier than about 1700. And we have to realize that the surviving corpus of texts from that time is just a fraction of the total, so it’s possible the few words (like derangement) that seem to be later were actually in use earlier. 

[Rajah Manchou]

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

There is very little that cannot be dated earlier than about 1700. 

That would be very interesting if true. 

One question I've had as I've tried to identify the century the Book of Mormon fits within. We know 116 pages, possibly more, of the Book of Mormon were lost. If Grotius was the author, how did Joseph Smith recreate the first six books?

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That would be very interesting if true. 

One question I've had as I've tried to identify the century the Book of Mormon fits within. We know 116 pages, possibly more, of the Book of Mormon were lost. If Grotius was the author, how did Joseph Smith recreate the first six books?

Joseph didn’t write the small plates. Grotius did.  For a wise purpose which he knew not. 

[Kevin Christensen]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with this, and I honestly think I'm doing that.   I also think one of the tactics of apologists is to keep asking more questions, and coming up with more theories and avoiding evaluating the big picture of all the evidence and contextualizing all of these divergent theories determining what is the most accurate explanation of the data.  I see this same phenomena in the conspiracy theories community and in other religious groups with hard truth claims all over the world.  They all have elaborate and detailed studies they use to support their world view.  Mormons apologists are in good company with the majority of society in finding niche theories to support the narrative of their tribe.  

Unfortunately for me, I'm in a very awkward position as I find myself outside of traditional tribes on almost every major issue.  I don't fall in line politically with a tribe, or religiously or non-religiously.  I agree with different ideas of various divergent groups, but I disagree with others.  I'm a drifter, and a seeker.  I try to be open to new ideas and I try to learn.  I have a lens through which I view issues, but I try to be open to new information as well.

One of the useful things about labels is that they work at a such a high level of abstraction that details get lost.   Big pictures can get lost when you focus on details.  I'm 63, and have been serious in my readings for 43 years.  So I've accumulated lots of details... some very unusual and striking things, ranging from the details of Lehi's Journey, to First Temple Judaism in the Book of Mormon, to Nibley's essays on Forty Day Literature and Benjamin's discourse as ancient coronation, to NDE literature and the Book of Mormon to Eliade on the Year Rite compared to 3 Nephi, or Welch on 3 Nephi as Temple experience, to Nibley comparing Book of Mormon warfare accounts to Clausewitz on War, and Peterson comparing it to the writings of 20th century theorists on guerilla ware, to Poulson and Gardner and Sorenson and Wright and Clark on details of Mesoamerica, to Welch on Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, and Goff on Robert Alter and Type scenes and allusion, and all sorts of things a wide range of details, hundreds of scholars taking their distinct lifetimes of research and pointing it at the Book of Mormon, and seeing astonishing things.  Taves, for instance, by strategy and design, ignores all of this, and therefore explains absolutely none of it.   My response concerns both the big picture, and countless details that go into making it. 

Decades ago Nibley commented on "The Grab Bag", as critics propose to find the big explanation in some very small part, to find some parallel here or there, and to generalize about that bit to account for the whole.

Jarman  claimed that the Book of Mormon offers a 17th century theory of Atonement.  I've heard claims of other sources, but my own view is different.  I think it reflects First Temple Judaism, and from Loren K.Hansen, I learned that the theory in the Book of Mormon is actually very distinct from other notable Christian approaches.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

And see Barker here on the First Temple:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

And my comparison here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=6

I have also looked closely at the big pictures and details offered by a wide range of critics (and I've published on this sort of thing at length and in detail many times), finding in many cases that the details they offer are miscontextualized.  A fuss over small details overlooks the big picture.   An offered big picture like that offered by Taves accounts for none of the details I find striking.   A convincing big picture ought to be supported by a wide range of details, and ought to be confirmed when unexpected details arrive, rather than disrupted.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Gray]

10 hours ago, cdowis said:

There are hundreds of BOM artifacts. Let me explain.
Let us suppose you were excavating an authentic Nephite city, and you find a jade necklace. Please tell us how we would identify it as "Nephite" instead of Mayan, or something else. How would you identify a Nephite city??

The BOM tells us that they did not use Hebrew as the vernacular, but a language unknown to any other nation. What physical evidence uniquely identifies that Jade necklace, or even the city itself? All of the written records were destroyed by the Spanish. The artifacts are there but it is an issue of identification. Please help us solve that problem..

Anyway, here is a "hole" of 15 million people undiscovered until now.  There may other such holes as well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/03/mayan-civilization-was-much-vaster-than-known-thousands-of-newly-discovered-structures-reveal/?utm_term=.f48a8d54d137

 

There are hundreds of Atlantian artifacts too, by the same measure.

Let us suppose you were excavating an authentic Atlantian city, and you find a jade necklace. Please tell us how we would identify it as "Atlantian" instead of Mayan, or something else. How would you identify a Atlantian city? Or substitute any other mythical civilization. This is what I mean when I said that theologically driven research/scholarship seeks to explain why we shouldn't expect to positively identify any solid evidence.

What I mean by "Nephite shaped hole" is evidence of some unknown civilization with ties to the near east that scholars have detected and are trying to identify.  Nothing is leading anyone in that direction, unless of course you already start with theological commitments to the book as scripture AND history.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Gray

[champatsch]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven’t heard the term dynamic translation before, do you mean an Ostler like expansion, loose translation model or something else.

Simply that the Book of Mormon translation is a mixture of literal of non-literal.

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that there are some elements that it’s hard to explain where or how Joseph was able to come up with, however unless we have a plausible alternative explanation for the source of that material, I personally have to stick with the simplest explanation that Joseph was the source in spite of questions about how that’s possible and not having easy answers.

You mean to say that you rule out the possibility that the Lord was the source for the Book of Mormon English-language text?

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you clarify what you mean by secondary vs. primary evidence?  Are you saying the theological concepts in the text is secondary?  

If you wish to determine whether Joseph could have possibly been the author, then the contextual things, including the theological concepts, constitute non-primary evidence.  One must work from things that no author could successfully control over a long text of more than 250,000 words, which is the syntax and grammar.  As mentioned, these are mostly subconsciously produced, so the pseudo-archaism would reveal itself in the text, since Joseph was not a native speaker of earlier English, and didn't know many of the forms and structures, which happen to occur in the earliest text.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

From my vantage point you are comfortable in your current beliefs, perhaps even clinging to them in a defensive way.  I don’t mean any offense by this, many amazing people much better than I am are also very comfortable in their belief paradigm and not desirerous to expand on those beliefs.  It depends on whether you are open to new explorations and I can’t promise any specific outcome.  

Thank you, I m just a animated person, and that often comes trough in my responses. Either way, this debate is become circular between us, I am sure I am bing defensive, as I am with all things I love.  

[Meerkat]

10 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I must be mistaken here (please let me know that I am wrong,) but did you just deny Jesus Christ, God the Father, the Scriptures, sin, the fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ? 

You do have some great and sincere comments pretty regularly, Hope for Things.  And there is precident for denying Christ by the Apostle Peter.  He came back to his faith in Christ to become the chief apostle.  There is probably precident in Alma the Younger and the Apostle Paul also.  And, as an example of how easy it can be to misunderstand things, you have Moroni and Pahoran.  And Captain Moroni was nearly a perfect man.  I hope you are able to rekindle your faith in Jesus Christ someday.  He is real.  He is alive.  He continues to transform my life.  I can't deny it.  I believe the day will come when you will also see and believe it, as will we all, in my opinion.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

According to the text itself, the Book of Mormon was compiled in the 5th century AD. There was plenty of atonement theology in the 5th century AD. 

Yes, but not the small plates of Nephi portion, those weren't abridged by Mormon, so those are supposedly dated in the 600 - 150 BCE time period, so how would you explain that? 

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There is also substantial literature describing these Rechabites (or Rahmans as they were also known) containing  many of the same theological concepts as the Book of Mormon.

Can you give an example of a theological concept from these Rechabites that you can find parallel with the BoM?  Are you claiming that these people were isolated, without communication from the rest of the Israelites and that they  developed Christian ideas completely independently?