A very Strang finding

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Martin Harris eventually went to Utah and was re-baptized in the faith, having never recounted his earlier testimony.   Here are some statements concerning his belief--

Here's an article written by Dan Peterson that has quotes from some of the Strang witnesses. 

I know full well the Church's narrative on the 3 witnesses.  That is not my point.  

My point is, you are claiming that the witnesses to the plates Strang found recanted their testimony.  I was asking if the Strang's official narrative says that or just some web site some where, similar to some web sites claiming the BoM witnesses recanted their stories as well.

You link to Dan Peterson, hardly a impartial judge of what happened to the Strang witnesses.  I could give you links to what the Tanners have written about the BoM witnesses.  Would you take what the Tanners wrote as being the "real" truth about the BoM witnesses?

Quote

I agree that it's important to be fair when assessing supernatural claims.  

Do you agree that you are not being fair in using non official sources about the Strang witnesses, yet referring me back to the official Church narrative about their witnesses to the BoM?  

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by california boy

[AtlanticMike]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/confession?lang=eng

 

Nothing in there suggests nonmembers have to confess to a bishop (Latter-day Saint variety) in order to be forgiven by the Lord. 
 

Added: Mike, it is harder to find references for something that is not required than something that is, in this case nonmembers confessing serious sins to a bishop as opposed. Have there been enough references that demonstrate nonmembers can repent without confession to bishops (at the very least because generally they are not sinning even in serious ways that damage the Church or its members in general unlike members who commit serious sins) or is there something else that needs clarification for you?

I'm still confused. Sorry. If you dont mind, can I ask you a few more?

Me personally, I think the word of wisdom is a commandment for all of Gods children, not just mormons. Would that be correct? If it is a commandment for all Gods children, then people who smoke, drink coffee and so on, are carrying around sin unknowingly because they've never been introduced to the word of wisdoom, Is it wrong to look at it that way? I was always taught sin is sin, no matter what. I have more questions but would love opinions on this to help me understand what I'm seeing wrong.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

, I think the word of wisdom is a commandment for all of Gods children, not just mormons. Would that be correct? I

I don’t believe it is a commandment for all of humanity even if it can be a blessing for any who choose to obey it.  It wasn’t even a commandment originally for those who were members. 
 

The scriptures talk about those who have the law and those who don’t. Do you believe those who don’t have a particular law can sin in regards to that law?

Think about circumcision, for example. It was the law for the Israelites. Do others sin if they don’t practice such?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I know full well the Church's narrative on the 3 witnesses.  That is not my point.  

My point is, you are claiming that the witnesses to the plates Strang found recanted their testimony.  I was asking if the Strang's official narrative says that or just some web site some where, similar to some web sites claiming the BoM witnesses recanted their stories as well.

You link to Dan Peterson, hardly a impartial judge of what happened to the Strang witnesses.  I could give you links to what the Tanners have written about the BoM witnesses.  Would you take what the Tanners wrote as being the "real" truth about the BoM witnesses?

Do you agree that you are not being fair in using non official sources about the Strang witnesses, yet referring me back to the official Church narrative about their witnesses to the BoM?  

 

No I don't agree.  I looked at the Strang-ite official webpage and it doesn't talk about the witnesses at all.  You can't get blood from a turnip.  Likewise, you can't get information about the witnesses to Strang's book from the official web page.  So I had to use other sources that provided actual quotes or other information.  It's not a perfect process, but it's not 'unfair'.  

And, I didn't refer you to the official church narrative, I provided actual quotes from the people in question.  If you think that it's unfair to use primary sources to support a claim, then there's not much more that we can say to each other and we should just agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm still confused. Sorry. If you dont mind, can I ask you a few more?

Me personally, I think the word of wisdom is a commandment for all of Gods children, not just mormons. Would that be correct? If it is a commandment for all Gods children, then people who smoke, drink coffee and so on, are carrying around sin unknowingly because they've never been introduced to the word of wisdoom, Is it wrong to look at it that way? I was always taught sin is sin, no matter what. I have more questions but would love opinions on this to help me understand what I'm seeing wrong.

No, I don't think that's correct.  I believe that the only people who are under covenant or commandment to keep the WoW are those who have covenanted to do so through baptism.  Besides that, you can't sin in ignorance, so in that respect, sin is NOT sin.  

[AtlanticMike]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I don't think that's correct.  I believe that the only people who are under covenant or commandment to keep the WoW are those who have covenanted to do so through baptism.  Besides that, you can't sin in ignorance, so in that respect, sin is NOT sin.  

Maybe my family are just crazy backwoods mormons 😁. We were always taught that sin is sin, and even though most of Gods children haven't been introduced to the true gospel of jesus christ here on earth, and aren't familiar with all of Gods commandments, that they'll be able to repent for their sins in spirit prison. I think it was called salvation for the dead. 

[Calm]

From the official website’s page on sin:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng
 

Quote

To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1996/10/sins-and-mistakes?lang=eng

Quote

It contains one verse giving this important direction: “Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct” (D&C 20:80). The clear implication of this verse is that “transgressing” is different from being “overtaken in a fault,” but that either type of action is to be dealt with as the scriptures direct....

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Maybe my family are just crazy backwoods mormons 😁. We were always taught that sin is sin, and even though most of Gods children haven't been introduced to the true gospel of jesus christ here on earth, and aren't familiar with all of Gods commandments, that they'll be able to repent for their sins in spirit prison. I think it was called salvation for the dead. 

That's true, but God has told us that He only holds us accountable for the truth that we know.   You can't sin in ignorance, the Atonement of Christ automatically covers those sins, so none of us will need to repent of sins committed in ignorance.

[Calm]

Quote

2 Nephi 2:22–23. What Is the Difference Between Sin and Transgression?

• Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained the difference between sin and transgression: “[The] contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-7-2-nephi-1-3?lang=eng
 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

No I don't agree.  I looked at the Strang-ite official webpage and it doesn't talk about the witnesses at all.  You can't get blood from a turnip.  Likewise, you can't get information about the witnesses to Strang's book from the official web page.  So I had to use other sources that provided actual quotes or other information.  It's not a perfect process, but it's not 'unfair'.  

Remember, all of the early Strangites were followers of Joseph Smith that also believed the gold plates were real. Despite how we might view them today, they were Mormons, followers of Joseph Smith and believers in the Book of Mormon. They didn't instantly become members of some weird cult when they decided Strang's plates were authentic.

As Weebles pointed out, the Voree Plates were on display for all to see. There was no need for witnesses to sign a statement that they saw them, because anybody could see them and hundreds of people did see them. Strang was simply following the precedent set by Joseph in getting signed statements from a set of witnesses.

Imagine if the Golden Plates were available for over a decade for anybody to handle and examine. Then imagine one or two of all those people, after they had a falling out with Joseph Smith, saying that those plates "look like common brass" or that they "helped Joseph make those plates out of a tea pot". You can't always believe the things that people say, when those people have a chip on their shoulders. This is what you are doing when you give weight to the later statements of the witnesses of the Voree Plates. 

By the way, Martin Harris (one of the three witnesses to the Golden Plates) joined the Strangites and served a mission for the Strangite Church in England. A neighbor of his famously said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Should we believe it?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Rajah Manchou

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Remember, all of the early Strangites were followers of Joseph Smith that also believed the gold plates were real. Despite how we might view them today, they were Mormons, followers of Joseph Smith and believers in the Book of Mormon. They didn't instantly become members of some weird cult when they decided Strang's plates were authentic.

As Weebles pointed out, the Voree Plates were on display for all to see. There was no need for witnesses to sign a statement that they saw them, because anybody could see them and hundreds of people did see them. Strang was simply following the precedent set by Joseph in getting signed statements from a set of witnesses.

Imagine if the Golden Plates were available for over a decade for anybody to handle and examine. Then imagine one or two of all those people, after they had a falling out with Joseph Smith, saying that those plates "look like common brass" or that they "helped Joseph make those plates out of a tea pot". You can't always believe the things that people say, when those people have a chip on their shoulders. This is what you are doing when you give weight to the later statements of the witnesses of the Voree Plates. 

 

I completely agree.  That's why I'm trying to do an apples-to-apples comparison.  My disbelief in Strang doesn't rest on the witnesses; this discussion is about them, compared to the witnesses of the BOM, and that's why it's been the focus.

• Strang had witnesses who eventually fell away from church. 
• JS had the same. 
• From the sources available--which include at least one quote from the person in question--it appears that a couple of Strang's witnesses who left recanted their statement. 
• From the sources available--which include multiple quotes from the people in question--it appears that none of JS witnesses who left ever recanted.
• Strang's witnesses made no supernatural claims--they saw no angels, heard no heavenly voices, etc.  
• JS witnesses made multiple supernatural claims, both to angels and voices.

Quote

By the way, Martin Harris (one of the three witnesses to the Golden Plates) joined the Strangites and served a mission for the Strangite Church in England. A neighbor of his famously said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Should we believe it?

I think I know which quote you are referring to.  It it's the one I'm thinking of its source is fairly convoluted so should be treated with skepticism (Harris to the neighbor, the neighbor to the neighbor's friend, the neighbor's friend to a fourth person who recorded it).  Seeing as how we have quotes from Martin Harris himself about it those primary sources should naturally carry more weight than secondary sources.  

Sometimes all we have is secondary sources so we have to use those, but even in such cases not all secondary sources should be treated equally.  Some have more provenance than others and should be weighted in importance accordingly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Sometimes all we have is secondary sources so we have to use those, but even in such cases not all secondary sources should be treated equally.  Some have more provenance than others and should be weighted in importance accordingly. 

Furthermore, some secondary sources should be regarded more or less with skepticism because of inherent bias and hostility that taint their credibility. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Maestrophil]

17 hours ago, webbles said:

The Voree Plate witnesses aren't actually needed.  The plates themselves were displayed in a museum and anyone could come and see them.  So the existence of the plates aren't in doubt.  The only thing that the Voree Plate witnesses attest to besides the plates is that the ground where they found the plates was untouched.  So whether they lost the faith or reneged their testimony is kind of pointless since thousands of people saw the plates.

 

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, a few of them recanted and/or admitted to helping Strang make the plates and bury them so they could be “found” later. 

What Bluebell said is not 'kind of pointless' at all.  If they said they were complicit in fraud, that is a far cry from sustaining the original narrative.  If thousands saw forgeries, it has little spiritual bearing.  I am aware that doesn't;t prove inauthenticity, but it is very relevant.  

[Damien the Leper]

On 2/5/2021 at 6:43 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Joseph Smith Jr.: Often imitated, never duplicated!

Not true. That's not true. David Koresh went above and beyond Joseph. 

[webbles]

45 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

 

What Bluebell said is not 'kind of pointless' at all.  If they said they were complicit in fraud, that is a far cry from sustaining the original narrative.  If thousands saw forgeries, it has little spiritual bearing.  I am aware that doesn't;t prove inauthenticity, but it is very relevant.  

I think the problem we are dealing with is that James Strang actually had two different sets of plates and two different sets of witnesses.  Your question that I responded to was about the "Voree plates".  It looks like Bluebell is talking about the "Laban Plates"

The "Voree plates" only has 4 witnesses and I don't think we have any knowledge of what they did after they were witnesses.  They only attest to the fact that they dug up the plates in ground that appeared to be untouched.  These plates were put on display for thousands to see, though they disappeared sometime around the turn of the century and we don't have them anymore.  We do have drawings of them and we do have descriptions of them.

The "Laban Plates" (aka "Brass Plates") were used to translate the "Book of the Law of the Lord".  You can read it at https://www.ldsstrangite.com/uploads/2/0/9/4/20947834/book_of_the_law_of_the_lord_1.pdf if you want.  These plates are never shown to anybody except 7 witnesses.  They are very similar to the golden plates that Joseph Smith had.  The beginning of the book has their testimony:

Quote

BE it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

SAMUEL GRAHAM,

SAMUEL P. BACON,

WARREN POST,

PHINEAS WRIGHT,

ALBERT N. HOSMER,

EBENEZER PAGE,

JEHIEL SAVAGE.

I haven't been able to find anything on the bottom 5 of whether they stayed with Strang or left.  As for the top two, there is second/third-hand information that says that one of them helped make and/or hide the Laban (or maybe the Voree) plates.  This information is similar to the information that says that one of the 3 witnesses reneged their testimony: the provider is anti-Strang and, in one case, many decades later.  There isn't any information, though, of them testifying to other people other than this written testimony.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Not true. That's not true. David Koresh went above and beyond Joseph. 

I'm pretty sure Koresh is far, far below Joseph.  

[halconero]

On 2/5/2021 at 9:18 AM, JLHPROF said:

Well over 100 offshoots now, all claiming to be the restored gospel starting with Joseph Smith.
It's really quite amazing.
 

The fun epilogue to the Strangite branch is that James’ descendants rejoined the Church.

At some point the Strang family moved to Ontario. My good friend, we’ll call her Sarah, is married to a Toronto Strang. His father was tracted into by missionaries, took the lessons, and was baptized. His grandmother told him after his baptism of their family’s history with the Church, and he humorously named his first kid James.

Edited February 11, 2021 by halconero

[Rajah Manchou]

On 2/9/2021 at 10:31 PM, bluebell said:

Seeing as how we have quotes from Martin Harris himself about it those primary sources should naturally carry more weight than secondary sources.  

There were several secondary sources giving collective weight to the claims that Harris stated that he saw the plates with "spiritual eyes":

Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2: 255. The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 71 in EMD, 3: 122. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." John H. Gilbert, "Memorandum," 8 September 1892, in EMD, 2: 548. Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22. In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838 in EMD, 2: 291. A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Reuben P. Harmon statement, c. 1885, in EMD, 2: 385.

The claim is also made, and I'm trying to confirm this, that all but one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon accepted James Strang's claims. 

James Strang was sustained as prophet by two other members of the first presidency, three members of the quorum of twelve, five presidents of the seventies, the president of the high priests quorum and his counselor, four men in presidencies of elders quorums, the president of the priests quorum, and eight bishops at the largest church locations including the bishop over the whole church, the patriarch over the whole church, and seven members of major stake presidencies including the Nauvoo stake president and the Kirtland stake president. He was also sustained by the presidents of the largest branches of the church, including Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. James Strang was believed by at least seventeen people who were personally addressed by name in the Doctrine and Covenants. Strang was supported by all of the family of Joseph Smith. He was joined by the mother, wife, and three sisters of Joseph Smith. He was sustained by the only surviving brother of Joseph Smith, and his brothers-in-law. He was believed by all of the living Book of Mormon witnesses, except one who was no longer a member of the church. http://www.strangite.org/Famous.htm

If true, it becomes difficult to say that all the witnesses to the Gold Plates were deceived by Strang.

[Calm]

What is the issue if Harris’ experience was solely a vision? An angel appearing in a vision is not contrary to ‘typical’ descriptions of angelic visitations. We also have the 8 witnesses who touched and turned pages, etc without the angel present though to testify to them actually existing. 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There were several secondary sources giving collective weight to the claims that Harris stated that he saw the plates with "spiritual eyes":

Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2: 255. The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), 71 in EMD, 3: 122. John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye." John H. Gilbert, "Memorandum," 8 September 1892, in EMD, 2: 548. Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." Martin Harris interviews with John A. Clark, 1827 & 1828 in EMD, 2: 270; Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles, 24 December 1833, in EMD, 3: 22. In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." Stephen Burnett to Lyman E. Johnson, 15 April 1838 in EMD, 2: 291. A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." Reuben P. Harmon statement, c. 1885, in EMD, 2: 385.

The claim is also made, and I'm trying to confirm this, that all but one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon accepted James Strang's claims. 

James Strang was sustained as prophet by two other members of the first presidency, three members of the quorum of twelve, five presidents of the seventies, the president of the high priests quorum and his counselor, four men in presidencies of elders quorums, the president of the priests quorum, and eight bishops at the largest church locations including the bishop over the whole church, the patriarch over the whole church, and seven members of major stake presidencies including the Nauvoo stake president and the Kirtland stake president. He was also sustained by the presidents of the largest branches of the church, including Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. James Strang was believed by at least seventeen people who were personally addressed by name in the Doctrine and Covenants. Strang was supported by all of the family of Joseph Smith. He was joined by the mother, wife, and three sisters of Joseph Smith. He was sustained by the only surviving brother of Joseph Smith, and his brothers-in-law. He was believed by all of the living Book of Mormon witnesses, except one who was no longer a member of the church. http://www.strangite.org/Famous.htm

If true, it becomes difficult to say that all the witnesses to the Gold Plates were deceived by Strang.

I'm not sure why you think that is difficult?  

 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

What is the issue if Harris’ experience was solely a vision? An angel appearing in a vision is not contrary to ‘typical’ descriptions of angelic visitations. We also have the 8 witnesses who touched and turned pages, etc without the angel present though to testify to them actually existing. 

And we also have Harris saying that he saw the angel with his natural eyes.  

Quote

 

In 1875, Martin said:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer and myself, went into a little grove to pray to obtain a promise that we should behold it with our eyes natural eyes, that we could testify of it to the world."

 

 

[webbles]

19 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The claim is also made, and I'm trying to confirm this, that all but one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon accepted James Strang's claims. 

James Strang was sustained as prophet by two other members of the first presidency, three members of the quorum of twelve, five presidents of the seventies, the president of the high priests quorum and his counselor, four men in presidencies of elders quorums, the president of the priests quorum, and eight bishops at the largest church locations including the bishop over the whole church, the patriarch over the whole church, and seven members of major stake presidencies including the Nauvoo stake president and the Kirtland stake president. He was also sustained by the presidents of the largest branches of the church, including Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia. James Strang was believed by at least seventeen people who were personally addressed by name in the Doctrine and Covenants. Strang was supported by all of the family of Joseph Smith. He was joined by the mother, wife, and three sisters of Joseph Smith. He was sustained by the only surviving brother of Joseph Smith, and his brothers-in-law. He was believed by all of the living Book of Mormon witnesses, except one who was no longer a member of the church. http://www.strangite.org/Famous.htm

If true, it becomes difficult to say that all the witnesses to the Gold Plates were deceived by Strang.

The "Letter of Appointment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_appointment) is probably the main reason why so many of them accepted Strang.  I'd love to see that letter in the Joseph Smith papers.

And most of the above listed left Strang before his death.  Some only stayed with him for a year or two, but some remained longer.  According to wikipedia, the information about Lucy Mack Smith and the other family members might be misleading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Mack_Smith#Succession_crisis.  A pamphlet was published by the Strang that she and the other family members accept him as the successor, but shortly afterwards she spoke at a conference in Nauvoo and talked about going west with Brigham Young.  So the pamphlet might have been embellished.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure why you think that is difficult?  

We accept the statements of the 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. It seems likely those that lived through Joseph Smith's death accepted the claims of James Strang.

It's difficult because none of them accepted the claims of Brigham Young.

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

The "Letter of Appointment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_appointment) is probably the main reason why so many of them accepted Strang.  I'd love to see that letter in the Joseph Smith papers.

I'd like to hear an explanation as to why it might remain excluded.

[Stargazer]

On 2/7/2021 at 9:07 PM, Tacenda said:

I wasn't offended and I didn't like that my husband said something about it. I just validated what Atlantic Mike said about members not being okay with anything that isn't very known to them or makes them feel icky. And my husband didn't say it like you portrayed in your comment to me. 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to characterize it negatively -- but I can see that my response definitely came across that way. My apologies!!! 😞