What does a prophet look/act like?

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

@MiserereNobis, there’s one in every crowd. Please don’t judge all of us “Mormons” by a few holier-than-thous. I appreciate your different take on things, otherwise, this could turn into an LDS echo-chamber. You’ve found your way to be in this world and I’ve found mine. I hope our respective faiths can work together to heal this broken world. 

It's really not a problem. Every now and then I just have to call him out on his tone and word choice. I've been on the board long enough to know he's not representative of the LDS world  

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

It might well be.  FOR THEM.  The rest of us should get our own revelation.😉

You got a point there

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

MiserereNobis, there’s one in every crowd. Please don’t judge all of us “Mormons” by a few holier-than-thous.

If none of us were more holy than any of the others of us and we were all equally holy, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?   Hmm.  I suppose it would depend on how holy all of us were, or are.

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I appreciate your different take on things, otherwise, this could turn into an LDS echo-chamber. You’ve found your way to be in this world and I’ve found mine. I hope our respective faiths can work together to heal this broken world. 

I do believe that is possible.  We are now living on a planet of only telestial glory, generally, with most of us having only telestial glory while some others of us have some terrestrial glory, and a very small minority of us have some celestial glory.

And the more we gain celestial glory, or even only terrestrial glory, the better off all of us will be.

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would qualify the claim slightly. It's not necessarily between Catholicism and Mormonism. It's between traditional pre-protestant Christianity (namely, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and restorationism. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both accept the others' priesthood as authoritative and rites as valid. And if traditional Christianity has gone apostate, then it seems like there needs to be a restoration. Could be Joseph Smith, but not necessarily. And obviously this all rests on the need for priesthood authority, which protestants deny.

But generally speaking, I can agree with the statement. I know that 3DOP (Rory) does.

Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear. You say the difference is revelation and priesthood authority. We also claim both. The way revelation works in the LDS church appears to be quite similar as to the way it works in the Catholic church. We just don't use the word revelation, because it has a different definition to us. But we absolutely believe that the Holy Spirit "reveals" (inspires, guides, protects, gives truth to) the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. Not always, of course -- they are only infallible in pretty clear and obvious circumstances.

The Catholic Church also claims priesthood authority, given directly by the apostles. The Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." From the catechism:

Notice the second reason connects to the Holy Spirit and "revelation." The third reason points to the bishops as the successors of the apostles. What does that mean:

The office of apostle is permanent and is now occupied by the bishops. The bishops have the same authority as the apostles, so much so that whoever listens to the bishops is listening to the apostles and Christ Himself. The reason they are not called apostles is because that title is reserved for those who witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ. While the office and authority of the office can be transmitted through holy orders (ordination and consecration), the witness of the resurrection cannot be transmitted. That is unique to the apostles alone.

So, the Pope, and the college of bishops, do claim "revelation" and apostolic authority, like President Nelson.

True, and that is why I keep using the word revelation in this discussion -- it would not really be used by a Catholic, because it has a different meaning in Catholicism. But even though the definition is different, what it appears President Nelson does when there is revelation is similar to what the Pope does, though the Pope would not call it revelation because, I said, that word means something a little different in Catholicism.

Yes, I see your point here. I am focusing on theophanies and such. However, if everything on that list is considered a revelation, then revelation is alive and well in Catholicism, too, since all but #4 (and maybe #9..?) have happened and continue to happen in Catholicism.

Thanks for this new information about dispensations and dispensation heads. It was interesting to learn more. I can see your point here. 

In the closed thread, I responded to some quotes by B.H. Roberts in Rongo's article. Here's one of those quotes:

Doesn't this come close to saying that only grandiose revelations are needed for dispensation heads, since they are leading the commencement of the dispensation? And once the dispensation is on its way, they aren't really necessary anymore?

I covered this above, but I just want to reiterate it. Yes, the Pope does not claim the title of apostle -- that is a title reserved to those who were physical witnesses to the death and resurrection of Christ. However, he and the college of bishops most emphatically claim to have apostolic authority, the same authority and the same priesthood as the apostles. So he is claiming to be an "apostle" in the sense that has the exact same office as St. Peter.

I was basing my expectation on Joseph Smith. You responded that he is different because he is a dispensation head, and I can accept that in your paradigm of course. For current times, I was looking at recent actions by President Nelson as reported on this board and found them to have little difference than what the Pope does. They seem to be firmly in the camp of administration, policy, and teaching. The temple rite was changed. Popes have full authority to change liturgy and have done so many many times. The handbook of instructions was changed (same-sex marriage apostate stuff, etc.). The Pope has full authority to change Canon Law (the Catholic equivalent) and in fact has very recently done so, codifying that woman are allowed to server as readers and altar servers. Etc.

Here it is again:

So yes, it is presented as a revelation. This pronouncement also works as evidence that the Pope claims apostolic authority (his mention of the apostles). He also claims the authority of Christ. So the Pope's claim to authority is similar/identical to President Nelson's.

See the pronouncement above. And sure, he wouldn't say presiding high priest. He would say the Successor of the Prince of Apostles, which is like senior apostle on earth, since he has supremacy and primacy over all other successors to the apostles, just like President Nelson has supremacy and primacy (I would assume) over all other LDS apostles. Very similar, just slightly different words.

Fair enough.

Fair enough, too.

Thank you, too, for sharing yours. I'm trying to keep up with your line-by-line parsing style. It's tough, especially with the quote/scroll/post/scroll repetitions

All the best,

Jesse

Thank you for your many thoughtful responses.  I came to realize long ago that the LDS and the Catholics were not very far apart, and you have reinforced that notion.

The LDS see the need for restoration and AFAIK are the only Church asserting that need.  But it's easy to understand the Catholic position as well.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's really not a problem. Every now and then I just have to call him out on his tone and word choice. I've been on the board long enough to know he's not representative of the LDS world  

I have noticed that, too, and frankly it makes me feel a bit sad but still hopeful that maybe someday there will be a lot more people like me and who I am following as my exemplar. 

Everyone CAN see my siggy, right?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Would you like to summarize why this article is meaningful to you?

Yes, first, in general, comfort with uncertainty (or ambiguity is how I usually put it) as a virtue would do a lot to promote symbiosis between science and faith or religion to discover and apply truth, and to discourage the unhealthy, polarizing effect of dogmatism that some adherents hold in both science and religion. Second, with regards to your specific comment on reliable ways to identify a prophet, anyone can replicate the test (e.g. Alma 32 / Moroni 10:3-5) and get the same results they can share.

Some quotes copied and pasted below, but the message is far superior in context of reading the whole article.

-----

"Comfort with Uncertainty

"In our world today, dogmatism abounds in politics, religion, and science. Dogmatism is “the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinion of others.”² In science there is a growing extremism, called scientism, that claims that science is the only source of knowledge and any pursuit outside of that is fantasy.

"Dr. Thomas Burnett, a philosopher and science historian, aptly put it this way:

"It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.³

"Likewise, we find extreme orthodoxy within religion that rejects all other avenues for seeking truth, claiming that truth can come only from revelation concerning the creation of our beautiful world and all other aspects of human life. Both worldviews put limits upon human inquiry. Neither reality is a healthy place in which to live and to learn and to progress. We must become more comfortable with uncertainty."

-----

"Here is where the processes differ: the evidence here [spiritual testing] is different. It is not tangible, measurable evidence by a scientific definition, but it is real evidence nonetheless. However, this test assumes that you know how to recognize the Holy Ghost and the evidence—in other words, that you have the necessary tools to detect the evidence. These spiritual tools take practice to develop, but they do exist and you can develop them. In terms of science, there is nowhere that this type of hypothesis testing fits in. However, this is not to say that this spiritual hypothesis testing is in any way less valid. It is just a different way of approaching truth.

"...This test is absolutely, 100 percent repeatable, and everyone can receive the spiritual evidence if they choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect that evidence."

 

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Comfort with Uncertainty

"In our world today, dogmatism abounds in politics, religion, and science. Dogmatism is “the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinion of others.”² In science there is a growing extremism, called scientism, that claims that science is the only source of knowledge and any pursuit outside of that is fantasy.

"Dr. Thomas Burnett, a philosopher and science historian, aptly put it this way:

"It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.³

"Likewise, we find extreme orthodoxy within religion that rejects all other avenues for seeking truth, claiming that truth can come only from revelation concerning the creation of our beautiful world and all other aspects of human life. Both worldviews put limits upon human inquiry. Neither reality is a healthy place in which to live and to learn and to progress. We must become more comfortable with uncertainty."

-----

"Here is where the processes differ: the evidence here [spiritual testing] is different. It is not tangible, measurable evidence by a scientific definition, but it is real evidence nonetheless. However, this test assumes that you know how to recognize the Holy Ghost and the evidence—in other words, that you have the necessary tools to detect the evidence. These spiritual tools take practice to develop, but they do exist and you can develop them. In terms of science, there is nowhere that this type of hypothesis testing fits in. However, this is not to say that this spiritual hypothesis testing is in any way less valid. It is just a different way of approaching truth.

"...This test is absolutely, 100 percent repeatable, and everyone can receive the spiritual evidence if they choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect that evidence."

 

A lot of evidence is not tangible but still measurable and observable.  Whoever said evidence needs to be tangible to be scientific evidence is wrong. 

And ALL things CAN BE measured and determined by science through the scientific method of discovery, including God and all things God can reveal, by using... wait for it:

The scientific method of discovery:

Choose an idea and/or problem to research.
Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
Experiment to test hypotheses.
Examine results of the experiment(s).
Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
Share what has been learned.

CHEERS !

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The LDS see the need for restoration and AFAIK are the only Church asserting that need. 

There are a number of restorationist faiths, several of them (100 according to the second link below) being spin-offs of the Restored Church.  However, I don’t know how many outside the spin-offs see the restoration as needing to be done by God sending messengers with authority to restore as opposed to seeking out the primitive/original Christianity in other ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrrest.htm (List of denominations and includes differences in defining the Great Apostasy, etc)

Edited February 4, 2021 by Calm

[mrmarklin]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are a number of restorationist faiths, several of them (100 according to the second link below) being spin-offs of the Restored Church.  However, I don’t know how many outside the spin-offs see the restoration as needing to be done by God sending messengers with authority to restore as opposed to seeking out the primitive/original Christianity in other ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrrest.htm (List of denominations and includes differences in defining the Great Apostasy, etc)

I think you're quibbling on definition.  AFAIK LDS is the only church that had a divine intervention separating us from all others:  Ie.  restoration of priesthood authority, temples, organization. etc.  As Moses in his dispensation, Joseph Smith saw God and was directed accordingly.

[Calm]

Just now, mrmarklin said:

I think you're quibbling on definition.  AFAIK LDS is the only church that had a divine intervention separating us from all others:  Ie.  restoration of priesthood authority, temples, organization. etc.

That is why I added the “however”.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

 

"...This test is absolutely, 100 percent repeatable, and everyone can receive the spiritual evidence if they choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect that evidence."

 

No, it is not. Many people of many religions and beliefs conduct essentially the same test about those beliefs and get what they believe is spiritual confirmation. It's (edit) no more repeatable than people testing their favourite colour: many people may agree on one colour, but then again many people use the identical process to draw different conclusions about their favourite colour.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Meadowchik
Missing negative

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am curious how you define revelation, not just in terms of the delivery method discussion, but in terms of content and purpose.  It seems very broad a stroke based on this.  What constitutes revelation to you?

Whenever the Spirit tells me I’m hearing, reading or thinking revelation. For example, when I’m listening to the General Conference addresses live, the Spirit usually tells me instantaneously that what I’m hearing is revealed truth from God. And just for the record, President Russell assures us that he and the Church are constantly led by revelation and that we never have to fear that the Church is going to be led by the opinions of men...

“As a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I prayed daily for revelation and gave thanks to the Lord every time He spoke to my heart and mind.

Imagine the miracle of it! Whatever our Church calling, we can pray to our Heavenly Father and receive guidance and direction, be warned about dangers and distractions, and be enabled to accomplish things we simply could not do on our own. If we will truly receive the Holy Ghost and learn to discern and understand His promptings, we will be guided in matters large and small.

When I recently faced the daunting task of choosing two counselors, I wondered how I could possibly choose just two from twelve men whom I love and respect.

Because I know that good inspiration is based upon good information, I prayerfully met one-on-one with each Apostle.I then sequestered myself in a private room in the temple and sought the Lord’s will. I testify that the Lord instructed me to select President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring to serve as my counselors in the First Presidency.

In like manner, I testify that the Lord inspired the call of Elder Gerrit W. Gong and Elder Ulisses Soares to be ordained as His Apostles. I and we welcome them to this unique brotherhood of service.

When we convene as a Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, our meeting rooms become rooms of revelation. The Spirit is palpably present. As we wrestle with complex matters, a thrilling process unfolds as each Apostle freely expresses his thoughts and point of view. Though we may differ in our initial perspectives, the love we feel for each other is constant. Our unity helps us to discern the Lord’s will for His Church.

In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “By union of feeling we obtain power with God.” No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!” (Russell M Nelson)

I have no need to apologize for teaching the truth.

 

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

A lot of evidence is not tangible but still measurable and observable.  Whoever said evidence needs to be tangible to be scientific evidence is wrong. 

And ALL things CAN BE measured and determined by science through the scientific method of discovery, including God and all things God can reveal, by using... wait for it:

The scientific method of discovery:

Choose an idea and/or problem to research.
Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.
Experiment to test hypotheses.
Examine results of the experiment(s).
Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.
Share what has been learned.

CHEERS !

Yes, the method then becomes differentiated by the kinds of evidences that are defined as acceptable.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

No, it is not. Many people of many religions and beliefs conduct essentially the same test about those beliefs and get what they believe is spiritual confirmation. It's (edit) no more repeatable than people testing their favourite colour: many people may agree on one colour, but then again many people use the identical process to draw different conclusions about their favourite colour.

I think that many people of many religions and beliefs conduct essentially the same test about those beliefs and get what they believe is spiritual confirmation because they have developed and used the spiritual tools at their disposal to detect that evidence. They can also choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect new evidence. hence the value of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5, and a willingness to not remain stagnant.

[mfbukowski]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:41 PM, california boy said:

D&C 68:4 comes to mind: "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

 

Don't most religions claim to be speaking for God because they have been moved upon by the Holy Ghost to know his will?  And don't most people in those religions feel what they teach has been confirmed to them of its truthfulness by the Holy Ghost?

No, in fact.

Which faith believes in ongoing revelation.?

Crushing originality, never heard that one before

What inspired you to leave? How did you know we are wrong?

Did you possibly feel it in your heart? 

Where is your objective evidence for that?

Edited February 5, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think that many people of many religions and beliefs conduct essentially the same test about those beliefs and get what they believe is spiritual confirmation because they have developed and used the spiritual tools at their disposal to detect that evidence. They can also choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect new evidence. hence the value of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5, and a willingness to not remain stagnant.

The problem I think arises from confusing science with religion, when religion takes on the goal of finding your own way, to give your life meaning, where in science the priority is to find the way the world works, and intentionally abandoning the whole notion that life even HAS meaning and purpose.

Alma essentially uses a scientific approach to finding MEANING in life, where subjective evidence, NOT objective evidence rules, and that confuses people.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem I think arises from confusing science with religion, when religion takes on the goal of finding your own way, to give your life meaning, where in science the priority is to find the way the world works, and intentionally abandoning the whole notion that life even HAS meaning and purpose.

Alma essentially uses a scientific approach to finding MEANING in life, where subjective evidence, NOT objective evidence rules, and that confuses people.

Science in this case is a convenient strawman. Finding joy and valuing human relationships needs neither religion nor deep science to become meaningful.

 

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think that many people of many religions and beliefs conduct essentially the same test about those beliefs and get what they believe is spiritual confirmation because they have developed and used the spiritual tools at their disposal to detect that evidence. They can also choose to develop the spiritual tools necessary to detect new evidence. hence the value of Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5, and a willingness to not remain stagnant.

Advanced spiritual tools help a person do the difficult spiritual thing, like be empathetic, hopeful, and principled. 

The argument, paraphrased, that "person A has spiritual insight because they've had faith in unprovable claims" was pretty much my friend's response to my challenge. They said I can't know that the vaccine was invented in Hell and gives people the stamp of the Beast because I lack that kind of faith.

I'm really skeptical of people who use spirituality that way. I would say that if a person has vital information about the truth of existence, they don't require spiritually unhealthy decisions to make their message accessible. They would promote good spiritual behaviours. 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Meadowchik

[teddyaware]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Science in this case is a convenient strawman. Finding joy and valuing human relationships needs neither religion nor deep science to become meaningful.

I understand what your saying here but it’s ultimately not true. You see, on a deeper level it needs to be understood that without the religion known as Christianity, the one true religion affirmed by God himself through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, mankind wouldn’t have the light of Christ and without the gift of the light of Christ it would be impossible to experience joy and have meaningful human relationships.

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I understand what your saying here but it’s ultimately not true. You see, on a deeper level it needs to be understood that without the religion known as Christianity, the one true religion affirmed by God himself through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, mankind wouldn’t have the light of Christ and without the gift of the light of Christ it would be impossible to experience joy and have meaningful human relationships.

Many religions have explanations like this, which basically say that they have the key to meaning. Some, like you seem to be saying, say that their religion is the only one with all the keys to meaning, and that any outsiders who do find meaning are somehow accessing those same keys, but just in a limited way, without knowing it.

Others say something similar as you, like: "I understand what your saying here but it’s ultimately not true. You see, on a deeper level it needs to be understood that without the gifts of Gaia, mankind wouldn’t  experience joy and have meaningful human relationships. And someone else says, "You're both wrong, what your experiencing is not Gaia or Christ! It's the power of XYZ and if you only gave it a chance you would experience it even more."

[CV75]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem I think arises from confusing science with religion, when religion takes on the goal of finding your own way, to give your life meaning, where in science the priority is to find the way the world works, and intentionally abandoning the whole notion that life even HAS meaning and purpose.

Alma essentially uses a scientific approach to finding MEANING in life, where subjective evidence, NOT objective evidence rules, and that confuses people.

Absolutely---I posted an article above, about the two reliable ways that can work symbiotically to recognize appropriate evidence and discover truth: https://magazine.byu.edu/article/faith-science/

They can work symbiotically (the speaker is a biologist (I usually use the term "functionally" though I think I like her term better) and needn't be at odds (dysfunctional, my other term) except when there's a lack of familiarity, understanding or dogmatism. Or other interference with the respective tools.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Science in this case is a convenient strawman. Finding joy and valuing human relationships needs neither religion nor deep science to become meaningful.

Advanced spiritual tools help a person do the difficult spiritual thing, like be empathetic, hopeful, and principled. 

The argument, paraphrased, that "person A has spiritual insight because they've had faith in unprovable claims" was pretty much my friend's response to my challenge. They said I can't know that the vaccine was invented in Hell and gives people the stamp of the Beast because I lack that kind of faith.

I'm really skeptical of people who use spirituality that way. I would say that if a person has vital information about the truth of existence, they don't require spiritually unhealthy decisions to make their message accessible. They would promote good spiritual behaviours. 

Me too; the quote from the article I linked to addresses this kind of dogmatism. Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5 are not about faith alone, but the required relational elements of spiritual testing such as faith, knowledge, opportunity and agency, which are also found in physical testing (hence the comparison with a seed). People can embrace both methods.

The means of finding joy and valuing human relationships is a  blend of physical and spiritual testing methods and finding out or concluding what works. I think we often think of joy and relationships as subjective and instinctual, but physicality provides tangible and objective evidence for joy and misery that rationally affects human relationships for better or worse.

[Meadowchik]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Me too; the quote from the article I linked to addresses this kind of dogmatism. Alma 32 and Moroni 10:3-5 are not about faith alone, but the required relational elements of spiritual testing such as faith, knowledge, opportunity and agency, which are also found in physical testing (hence the comparison with a seed). People can embrace both methods.

The means of finding joy and valuing human relationships is a  blend of physical and spiritual testing methods and finding out or concluding what works. I think we often think of joy and relationships as subjective and instinctual, but physicality provides tangible and objective evidence for joy and misery that rationally affects human relationships for better or worse.

I think that that could work very well as long as it does not involve 1)the claim of someone else or something being a spiritual authority, nor 2)the claim that something unprovable is provable.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that that could work very well as long as it does not involve 1)the claim of someone else or something being a spiritual authority, nor 2)the claim that something unprovable is provable.

It is really one method (though I called it two, which I think are more accurately described as customizing techniques designed to address two different kinds of evidence).

[Ipod Touch]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

A Biblical guide? That also depends upon the assumption that a prophet and prophets have already been identified.

Did you forget you are posting on a Mormon board?  Where people mostly believe in the Bible?

You may not believe it, but others do.  Learn to cope.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Did you forget you are posting on a Mormon board?  Where people mostly believe in the Bible?

You may not believe it, but others do.  Learn to cope.

As a non-believing Mormon, I intentionally share perspective that I think might be of interest to Mormons, believing and non-believing. I would not do that if it was against the rules of the board.