New Church Policy?

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'd benefit from a little hair splitting here. Do LDS have an agreed upon definition of "evil" and "telestial" (a new word to me)?

A further hair-split: personal agreement in understanding definitions in their various contexts. For example, "God is good." Does that mean He's "OK" and not "best"? Which of the five senses does He appeal to (please demonstrate)?

I wasn't able to find a definition for "evil" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, either. Certainly not "telestial"!

But I'd be happy to explain what I meant if you have a questions about my post!

 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of the biggest successes of the Adversary has achieved over our society is to make every physical interaction potentially carnal, sexual

The problem with “avoid the appearance of evil” is too often it moves innocence to evil.  I keep flashing back to the Friend article where a four year old? can’t bring herself to wear a sundress without a T-shirt because it is immodest.  Suddenly the Church is implying four year olds can sin by being immodest and that seeing little girls’ shoulders is evil.  I suspect the rationale for the article was in part avoid the appearance…if it is evil/sinful/immodest for an adult to wear only strapped tops, then little girls shouldn’t wear them either.

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

The problem with “avoid the appearance of evil” is too often it moves innocence to evil.  I keep flashing back to the Friend article where a four year old? can’t bring herself to wear a sundress without a T-shirt because it is immodest.  Suddenly the Church is implying four year olds can sin by being immodest and that seeing little girls’ shoulders is evil.  I suspect the rationale for the article was in part avoid the appearance…if it is evil/sinful/immodest for an adult to wear only strapped tops, then little girls shouldn’t wear them either.

Let's not even talk about the time and cultures where young kids could and would run around naked.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

How do we discern between others' (and our own) personal revelations and "screwy beliefs that may often get "imposed"by us or others on others? Methinks that happens all too often in too many faiths (maybe most). I love change and being in a LIVING church. That is why I enjoy the LDS folks, the Baptists, the Catholics, and the Mennonites! Perhaps it ain't up to you to challenge other's revelations or hearts who ain't LDS!?  Tolerance of ambiguity is indeed a big deal - especially in faith (as well as in psychology)! I embrace ambiguity. It is certitude that I struggle with! Are you with me?

I think God leads us on the path WE personally need to follow to get us where we need to go in following him.

I was having trouble with Catholicism and I needed to become an atheist for a few years.  Did God want me to be an atheist in that time?  I believe the answer is "Yes".

I explored religion and became a student of philosophy studying all I could to find out what "truth" is and was- how to define it- how to understand the purpose and function of every belief and theory, the differences between beliefs and theories, what linguistically made sense and what did not.  I was finally working on my Masters in philosophy when I discovered philosophers who were also atheists, but understood- in my estimation- the purpose of belief in God and all other beliefs and how they functioned in our lives- they were the Pragmatists and other similar schools, who studied how ideas functioned in our lives- seeing ideas as tools, or paradigm, admitting that there was no "truth" that we could learn about how the world "really is" since we are all prisoners of our own bodies and experiences and beliefs.

The bottom line is that they emphasized, not "truth" - which was too elusive of a word to define- and that 2500 years of western philosophy and all others- could not define it- and so all we have is "what works" to solve problems and allows us as a civilization to progress with better and better ideas- measured by the benefits of the beliefs themselves.

All we know is filtered through our minds and spirits- that is simply not debatable.  We have questions, and then we solve them for answers with what we find to patch together a reality as we know it- and everyone is on this journey through their lives in learning what paradigms/theories work for them to make sense of the world.

And the LDS parable of "creatinging worlds" MIGHT be literally correct or even IF "just" a parable- if it is all we can know on a subject- it works for us.  The Church of JCLDS is actually a scientific approach to spirituaity!   We experiement with beliefs and see how they work for us, just as we do with science to determine what works in dealing with .... well anything!

And in so doing we are building out own "worlds" of belief.

So for an atheist, does it "work" in your life to see God in this light?   If God exists, he would be able to communicate with his children, right?   How else could he judge you if you could not find Him in your earthly journey?   Why accept the Bible at all unless YOU KNEW it was the word of God?   Because your parents and generations before who never thought about it, believed in God?   Heck no!   What is YOUR EXPERIENCE of God??

So I thought and prayed.   What religion tells me I have to find God for myself and to follow MY interpretation of all this, and which is most compatible with these pragmatic ideas?

I found a fath that told me to PRAY for my own testimony, and did, and got seriously clobbered by the Holy Spirit that I was on the right track!  I could not doubt it, I knew that there was a FORCE oR PERSON telling ME something.   It was NOT coming out of my mind- it was the most "real" experience of "REALITY" I ever had.

So here I am.

SO- screwy beliefs or the "truth"??   One MUST be able to discern the difference or that is the end of the experiment right there.  It must be inborn for you to find the truth.   It is a general axiom that IF there is God- given truth, we must be able to find it!   

So finding it becomes a journey, and we are all on the journey, and must be left to our own development-path to understand this.   And today's screwy idea can become the absolute God-given truth by spiritual experience.

The whole Restoration is based on that possibiity but it doesn't work unless you surrender to whatever answer you get

So yes, atheists who think God is a "screwy idea" CAN learn throught their own journey become theists.   That MUST be a part of being a theist at all, so we should always be progressing on our own volition.

If any religion say you can and do get your own revelations as good as the Bible- then I am a Baptist, a Catholic or a Mennonite.   It's all just names.  But unfortnately NONE of those really mean that you find your own truth.

There is NO principle the church teaches that I do not believe, NOT because the church says so, but because I KNOW so!   I found them for myself and just agreed incredibly, with what the church teaches.   Of course the church taught them first.... 

 

[Vanguard]

Part and parcel with drawing any behavioral line will always involve the margins to be debated. Though I would agree with you on the example of the little girl and her wardrobe issue, certainly you are not advocating no line in terms of behavior in any given situation.  As I asked of Theosis, do you think the church should buy out of discouraging LGBT from any type of behavior that falls short of actually engaging in sex? And in your mind would there be different standards when it comes to youth or would it all be the same?  

Edited April 21, 2022 by Vanguard

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

So what does that mean?  If someone does not have a temple marriage are they outside the "law of God?"

I don't believe that, and never will.   Surely God does not require every human to be born of church members to satisfy "God's LAW" nor would the church mean that.

For thousands of generations people have gotten "married" to the oppposite sex.   I believe that was what was the intended meaning of that way of thinking, calling it "God's Law".  Obviously you can agree with that or not.

Living with someone of the same sex intimately has had other names.

Naming something characterizes how we define it socially according to our cultures.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Part and parcel with drawing any behavioral line will always involve the margins to be debated. Though I would agree with you on the example of the little girl and her wardrobe issue, certainly you are not advocating no line in terms of behavior in any given situation.  As I asked of Theosis, do you think the church should buy out of discouraging LGBT from any type of behavior that falls short of actually engaging in sex? And in your mind would there be different standards when it comes to youth or would it all be the same?  

I am saying if you move boundaries/standards “just in case”, more problems are created in many situations, not less.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am saying if you move boundaries/standards “just in case”, more problems are created in many situations, not less.

But that could just as easily be said about many of the behavioral standards the church expects at dances, you know, "Oh, they're overcorrecting 'just in case'''. Again, what is your opinion about having behavioral standards at church standards as it relates to our LGBT?

Edited April 21, 2022 by Vanguard

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

. Again, what is your opinion about having behavioral standards at church standards as it relates to our LGBT?

Local church officers should decide based on what is actually happening, not what is feared.  I would suggest the same standards for inappropriate dancing be applied to both same sex and opposite dancers if there are no other issues. 
 

I think the same standard works fine for both same sex and opposite sex dance partners given we are teaching every young man should be preparing a mission and 18 and younger is too young for marriage for the vast majority of the youth.  Thus there is an expected separation of at least 18 months even for those who stay at home (no dating on any kind of mission for young adults, correct?). My view is there should therefore be no long term commitments made between couples prior to age 19 at least as it is laying on too much guilt or emotional drama if a commitment made when a youth gets broken as they move into adulthood.  So viewing no relationship as long term is wise imo, so any dancing that could be inappropriate between members of the same sex because it is viewed as leading to an inappropriate relationship falls into the same category imo for opposite sex relationships.  Stuff that could fall into either platonic or romantic should be assumed to be platonic for anyone unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise (behaviour outside of dances perhaps).

Edited April 22, 2022 by Calm

[Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Local church officers should decide based on what is actually happening, not what is feared.  I would suggest the same standards for inappropriate dancing be applied to both of there are no other issues. 

Ok. So let's hypothetically say, there are two young men slow dancing and who are known to be romantically attracted to each other. In your opinion, is that something 'actually happening' that would merit church officers stepping in and stopping?

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Ok. So let's hypothetically say, there are two young men slow dancing and who are known to be romantically attracted to each other. In your opinion, is that something 'actually happening' that would merit church officers stepping in and stopping?

No, not interested.  I can’t read their minds. See my addition.  That is all I care to say.  Local church officers or whoever is chaperoning should be making that decision based on what they know of the two involved, same as they would for opposite sex couples.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Part and parcel with drawing any behavioral line will always involve the margins to be debated. Though I would agree with you on the example of the little girl and her wardrobe issue, certainly you are not advocating no line in terms of behavior in any given situation.  As I asked of Theosis, do you think the church should buy out of discouraging LGBT from any type of behavior that falls short of actually engaging in sex? And in your mind would there be different standards when it comes to youth or would it all be the same?  

Pardon the intrusion but it helps if you hit the "quote" box in the lower left corner of the post to which you are replying.   That will add the comment to which you are responding to your reply and allow others, like me, to join the conversation, and it also alerts the person to whom you are responding that you in fact did respond.

As it is, it seems like an interesting aspect of the discussion, but I have no idea to whom you are responding, and cannot agree or disagree or make any sensible comments on what you have made effort to post. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Let's not even talk about the time and cultures where young kids could and would run around naked.

And let us remember that in the past, one actually had to wash diapers- IF they were used at all.  I know it is hard to imagine a world without Pampers.

The extent to which folks worry about that now is manifested in the abject fear some had that toilet tissue might not be available during Covid. 

And no diaper services?  Oh my, these First World problems create all kinds of imaginary disasters.   Time to get out the history books.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Ok. So let's hypothetically say, there are two young men slow dancing and who are known to be romantically attracted to each other. In your opinion, is that something 'actually happening' that would merit church officers stepping in and stopping?

Why? The impending social scorn will probably solve the problem on its own.

[Vanguard]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why? The impending social scorn will probably solve the problem on its own.

So shouldn't we instead enforce the rule of behaving charitably towards others we disagree with and not tolerate the scorn? What is your position on the issue?

[Vanguard]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, not interested.  I can’t read their minds. See my addition.  That is all I care to say.  Local church officers or whoever is chaperoning should be making that decision based on what they know of the two involved, same as they would for opposite sex couples.

Fair enough though I'm not sure who's minds you cannot read? The leadership's or the couples' in question? IMO, you're reluctance to provide specifics speaks to how difficult it can be for leadership to make these types of decisions in the moment. Of course, it is quite easy for us to after-the-fact, criticize these folks for the decisions they've had to make in the moment. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think the same standard works fine for both same sex and opposite sex dance partners given we are teaching every young man should be preparing a mission and 18 and younger is too young for marriage for the vast majority of the youth.  Thus there is an expected separation of at least 18 months even for those who stay at home (no dating on any kind of mission for young adults, correct?). My view is there should therefore be no long term commitments made between couples prior to age 19 at least as it is laying on too much guilt or emotional drama if a commitment made when a youth gets broken as they move into adulthood.  So viewing no relationship as long term is wise imo, so any dancing that could be inappropriate between members of the same sex because it is viewed as leading to an inappropriate relationship falls into the same category imo for opposite sex relationships.  Stuff that could fall into either platonic or romantic should be assumed to be platonic for anyone unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise (behaviour outside of dances perhaps).

But what about letting the youth govern themselves? I remember a thread from several months ago where we were all speaking on a related topic regards to modesty standards at dances. Much of the consensus revolved around the issue that we should let youth make these decisions without the need for the adult gestapo (my phrase) stepping in. Is your stated position above a departure from that hands-off enforcement approach? Though your philosophy about why young men and women should not have significant relationships before their missions is reasonable, I'm not sure what you're suggesting regards to enforcement? I suspect a hands-off approach. My default position would be to enforce only opposite-sex slow dancing. Fast dancing? Have at it - the more the merrier. ; )   

 

[california boy]

It is interesting to me that most of this thread has been about whether, gay couples dancing a slow dance is comparable to adultery, yet as far as I can tell, there has been no discussion about what is actually best for the youth of the Church.  Do you think the youth will buy into the idea that a slow dance with the same sex is the same as adultery??   

I am not going to argue what is a sin and what isn't in this situation, I will leave that up to those who care more than I do about how that argument goes.  But I would like to talk about the BIGGER issue IMO.

It is no secret that the Church has a big problem with the number of youth leaving the Church.  And it is no secret that how the Church treats LGBT issues is one of the main reasons for those youth leaving.  So, how about this for a question?  If the Church leaders forbid gay members from even dancing with someone of the same sex at a church dance, how does everyone think the youth will react to that.  Obviously, they probably won't all react the same way.  But if a youth already has a problem with how the Church treats LGBT issues, will this bring them closer to the decision to stay in the Church or be the last straw. The youth don't view their gay friends as being evil.  Nor do they believe that being in love with someone of the same sex is evil.  Having a Church policy that treats dancing with the same sex as evil, probably isn't going to help

And what about the gay youth?  They are at a point in their lives where they are really weighing whether they can navigate the path that the Church requires of them.  I know for me, if I couldn't even slow dance at a Church dance, it would help me realize sooner that me staying in the Church probably isn't something healthy for my life.  I would have to find a path outside the Church.  And the parents of those gay youth?  Would they feel the Church was doing everything it could to keep their son or daughter in the Church?

Hopefully I am pausing to give some here a different perspective that hasn't been considered.   Isn't  how this policy would affect the youth at a church youth dance be the most important consideration, or at the very least, a small consideration.  How do you think that a policy prohibiting slow dancing with the same sex will affect the youth?

[Navidad]

On 4/20/2022 at 10:43 AM, filovirus said:

We are taught that SS marriages do not lead to eternal salvation

I really do get confused about the LDS concept of eternal salvation vs. eternal exaltation. They apparently aren't the same, but they are? How do DS (different sex) marriages lead to eternal salvation? My wife and I have been married for 52 years. Are we on a path that leads to eternal salvation, just not eternal exaltation? That would be fine with me. I strive to be like God, not as God.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

So shouldn't we instead enforce the rule of behaving charitably towards others we disagree with and not tolerate the scorn? What is your position on the issue?

How do you enforce charity or try to control the social dynamics of teenagers? This way lies madness…….

[filovirus]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I really do get confused about the LDS concept of eternal salvation vs. eternal exaltation. They apparently aren't the same, but they are? How do DS (different sex) marriages lead to eternal salvation? My wife and I have been married for 52 years. Are we on a path that leads to eternal salvation, just not eternal exaltation? That would be fine with me. I strive to be like God, not as God.

My bad. Let me explain, and people can correct me if I’m wrong. Salvation means being saved and receiving some degree of heavenly glory. All but only a select few, known as sons of perdition, will receive this salvation.

A couple of the qualifiers that we give to God are “eternal” and “endless”. D&C 19 talks about both eternal and endless punishment to those who disobey God. This doesn’t mean forever punishment , but rather godly punishment. So when I speak of “eternal” salvation, it is in fact godly salvation and corresponds to a full inheritance of all the heavenly blessings.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It is interesting to me that most of this thread has been about whether, gay couples dancing a slow dance is comparable to adultery, yet as far as I can tell, there has been no discussion about what is actually best for the youth of the Church.  Do you think the youth will buy into the idea that a slow dance with the same sex is the same as adultery??

I don't make any such comparison nor do I believe anyone else has. I think you're misrepresenting the comments about adultery.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If the Church leaders forbid gay members from even dancing with someone of the same sex at a church dance, how does everyone think the youth will react to that.  Obviously, they probably won't all react the same way.  But if a youth already has a problem with how the Church treats LGBT issues, will this bring them closer to the decision to stay in the Church or be the last straw. The youth don't view their gay friends as being evil.  Nor do they believe that being in love with someone of the same sex is evil.  Having a Church policy that treats dancing with the same sex as evil, probably isn't going to help

And what about the gay youth?  They are at a point in their lives where they are really weighing whether they can navigate the path that the Church requires of them.  I know for me, if I couldn't even slow dance at a Church dance, it would help me realize sooner that me staying in the Church probably isn't something healthy for my life.  I would have to find a path outside the Church.  And the parents of those gay youth?  Would they feel the Church was doing everything it could to keep their son or daughter in the Church?

But why would the Church want to be seen as encouraging the coupling of LGBT teens when this effort runs contrary to its stated position on same-sex attraction? And wouldn't this potentially be a massive set-up for said youth? Among other issues it seems like it would be 'kicking the can down the lane' for a much bigger conflict later when the same youth claim the Church was sympathetic to fostering same-sex unions when they were younger but now are drawing a hard line against them.  And do you really think the Church allowing same-sex slow dancing would assist in keeping an LGBT son or daughter in the Church? I don't think so. How on earth would these youth be satisfied with such a paltry offering?

I don't understand what you mean by the specter of not being able to slow dance at a Church dance as a youth? Did you slow dance with the opposite or same sex? I don't understand your point. And would you also say that leaving earlier from the Church would have helped you heal more quickly and more easily rather than what you actually eventually experienced?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Isn't  how this policy would affect the youth at a church youth dance be the most important consideration, or at the very least, a small consideration.  How do you think that a policy prohibiting slow dancing with the same sex will affect the youth?

I believe it's definitely a difficult situation. No one wants to see our youth hurt. But what is the resolution that wouldn't hurt our LGBT youth over the long haul? 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem with “avoid the appearance of evil” is too often it moves innocence to evil.  I keep flashing back to the Friend article where a four year old? can’t bring herself to wear a sundress without a T-shirt because it is immodest.  Suddenly the Church is implying four year olds can sin by being immodest and that seeing little girls’ shoulders is evil.  I suspect the rationale for the article was in part avoid the appearance…if it is evil/sinful/immodest for an adult to wear only strapped tops, then little girls shouldn’t wear them either.

I hate the “avoid the appearance of evil” thing. It is based on a dubious translation of the text and it makes our “virtue” a slave to the least common denominator observing our actions. Also if Jesus had lived His life in a way to make sure no one ever thought He did wrong he probably wouldn’t have been executed.

[Peacefully]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  We are condensing a set of behaviors into a single phrase.  That means there are some things that will obviously fall within the parameters of "homosexual behaviors," while others might be at the margins of the phrase's meaning and intent.

Look at "adultery."  Is there "a bright clear line around" it?  Is it, as HappyJackWagon would have us believe, only limited to actual sexual intercourse?  "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  (Matt. 5:28.)

Okay.

You are suggesting that there is "a bright, clear line around homoromantic behavior."  I don't think that's so.  And in the absence of "a bright, clear line," there will likely be disparities in decisions reached for "in the margins" situations.  

Again, I don't think there is any such "bright line."

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'adultery' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'fornication' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

"Until someone higher up that a 70 starts preaching {a bright line about what constitutes 'pornography' and what does not}, and bishops and stake presidents start enforcing consequences around this alleged bright line, the bright line might as well not exist."

Would you buy in to that line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s insulting to compare a married monogamous gay couple with adulterers, fornicators, and porn addicts. But we’ve gone over this before on this forum. It’s getting old. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I really do get confused about the LDS concept of eternal salvation vs. eternal exaltation. They apparently aren't the same, but they are? How do DS (different sex) marriages lead to eternal salvation? My wife and I have been married for 52 years. Are we on a path that leads to eternal salvation, just not eternal exaltation? That would be fine with me. I strive to be like God, not as God.

A lot of members including leaders use them interchangeably**, so it is easy to see how it can be confusing at times (especially with anyone below exaltation qualifying as damned by our unique definition of damnation meaning any separation from God).  There is a difference though. I wouldn’t mind if PresNelson made it a thing like he has using Mormon. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/salvation-and-exaltation?lang=eng

Quote

“Salvation” and “exaltation” are two very important words relating to what we hope to receive after this life. Elder Russell M. Nelson explained that “to be saved—or to gain salvation—means to be saved from physical and spiritual death.” Exaltation, he further taught, “refers to the highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial realm.”

Since salvation is the opposite of damnation, this implies there are varying degrees of salvation as there are varying degrees of damnation.

Quote

As used in the KJV this word has a wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage. Damnation is the opposite of salvation and exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges and hence be damned to that extent.

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

Exaltation would be pure salvation (or the godly salvation referred to above) with no damnation/separation from God according to these definitions. Pure damnation would be outer darkness since even the lowest level of the Telestial is still part of a heaven of God’s glory.

I need to check to see if filo’s usage of eternal salvation is consistent with the church’s website. 

**https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1971/04/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-is-salvation?lang=eng

Quote

Salvation is exaltation. That is the sum and substance of the whole matter.

We are not completely consistent in our teachings.  If you expect us to be and assume you will be able to line all our beliefs/teachings up if you try hard enough, you are just going to end up frustrated, imo.  I prefer to look on our beliefs like electrons, we don’t know exactly where they are in relation to God’s truth (the nucleus) but they are somewhere close, moving around the core of it. 
 

Or you can look at it as our truths are no like a puzzle where each piece perfectly fits with all the others to form a coherent whole picture, but more like a mosaic of broken pieces that need the grout of faith to fit together in a beautiful piece of art. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you expect us to be and assume you will be able to line all our beliefs/teachings up if you try hard enough, you are just going to end up frustrated, imo.  I prefer to look on our beliefs like electrons, we don’t know exactly where they are in relation to God’s truth (the nucleus) but they are somewhere close, moving around the core of it. 

I plead guilty to trying to line up LDS beliefs in a way that I understand or in a way that makes sense to me. I don't do this to create a checklist, but yes, in a sense to put the puzzle (that is LDS doctrine to me) together to form the image that is on the box top. I like your idea of the grout of faith - that will really preach! I know what faith (used as a verb), believe, and truth (large and small t) mean to me, but they kind of seem to be used interchangeably by folks like the concept of exaltation and salvation. Any level of eternality, salvation, reward, or exaltation that doesn't involve practicing the full-time presence of the Father and Christ does indeed seem like a degree of damnation without the brimstone. Since I was a little boy I have been taught that we will sit at the feet of Christ in eternity and learn and grow to be more like Him . . . not as Him - since He is of a completely different essence from us - but like Him. I realize that is not what the LDS teach. As you fully know, I am not very good at milk now and meat later! Thanks for your kindness and patience.