Will the real Jesus please stand up?

[spike]

Hello Spike,

What BY proclaimed in my last post was what he had heard from JS. It is in regards to the atoning work of Christ Jesus on the Cross, being insufficient for some sins. Note the plurality of said sins.


TRUE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement.... man may commit certain grevious sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail .... And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Vol. 1, pp. 133-136)

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie still maintains that "under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing blood of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must have their own blood shed to atone for their sins." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 92)


Apostle Bruce R. McConkie made these comments concerning the blood atonement doctrine:

President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.133138. )

Apparently later McConkie later stated...

President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins ... that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ .... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp.133138. )

This doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands. It was, for instance, practiced in the days of Moses, but it was not and could not be practiced in this dispensation, except that persons who understand its provisions could and did use their influence to get a form of capital punishment written into the laws of various states of the union so that the blood of murderers could be shed." (Mormon Doctrine, page 93)


These are what your prophets and presidents taught. While today these are probably not taught, nor part of your doctrine, it is still what was once taught. It is still that which was spoken by LDS prophets.

Is this the same Jesus of the Holy Bible?

Hello, Daneel~

I have greatly appreciated the responses that have been offered by so many. They are illuminating.

Thanks for expanding upon this comment. To my knowledge, I haven't seen a list of the 'unpardonables', but then, I am not as knowledgeable as others who have spent more time researching such things. I am curious to see if those 'unpardonables' had been defined.

I am wondering - were the above statements also referring to the below?

"The one sin which God cannot forgive (regards) Mark 3:28-30 and Matthew 12:31-32. Jesus states (and your Bible version may differ), "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

I ran across that elsewhere on the board.. it is somewhat condensed from the original.

I wonder if these were re-instated as true doctrine again, what would you think?

I will take my cue from the Biblical Jesus. I will always maintain that mortal men can, and do, make errors.

-spike-

 

[spike]

By the way, JVAC, I've had to ratchet down my usual ultra-quick reading speed to catch up on and digest the information that you and Eliot have been trading with regards to word/name origin.. I am enjoying the comments, though!

-spike-

 

[JVAC]

JVAC,
you will notice a lot of Greek names with the ending "us", this was The Greeks way of a name put in masculine form, a tradition that also stems back to honoring of "Ze'us" (Pagasus, tarsus, etc...)

You said "it seems only natural we begin our new year with the birth of the Lord"

The New Year (according to the Roman calender) begins with The Greek god" Janus", after the rebirth of the Sun (Sol Invictus) As you know, these are Greek and Roman traditions.

The same GreeK and Roman leaders are the same ones who altered the writings of the Scrolls, thinking "their" mighty one (Zeus) was as superior as the 'Mighty one of the Hebrews', in which of course was and is not true.

The Septuigant (Greek speaking Orthodox "Jews") were also responsible for following the ways of the Greeks and Romans, to have nice things, they went along with the adversarys denying the only true Almighty.

The Greeks had a Salvator named Ieso'us ( this name exisited long before the Hebrew redeemer was sent), in the Hebrew texts, they removed the the name for the Hebrew redeemer and put (what they thought was equivalent) Iesous in His place, a name to them that meant "Savior", so to them it was "good enough".

All of these things pus many others have been handed down and placed in the very Bible you read from.

The holidays that people cherish, are not the only things exisiting from the ancient times that is false, the very names you are lead to believe as "your god" are none other than the Greeks "god".

When a name is removed and replaced with another name, the meaning within the name that reveals the true identity of that individual is lost, no longer affective, it is called "identity theft".

The letter "J" is a letter that didn't exist at all until the 1600's, when it was invented.

It is true that our secular calendar says that the new year begins in January, yes I know where it gets its name from. However, the Church year starts four weeks before the twenty-fifth of december, the nativity of our Lord, which was a Pagan European celebration, as well as greek, for the Sun God. This was done to make conversion easier for the pagans, I don't think Jesus minds all to much that we get the exact day right. Mind you the date was not placed there for the greeks but for the Pagan Europeans in the upper countries. Christians celebrate new years with Advent (either first Sunday of December or last Sunday of November and ending the year the Sunday before the next Advent with Christ the King Sunday) and go through the "Church Year" following certain themes to help teach them about the Faith.

On the grounds of the letter J, I don't understand you. The english language is the only language to give it that sound, like the G in plege. Granted the french come close pronouncing it like the S in measure. But the J in other languages doesn't hold to the Franco-Anglo sounding. Spanish sounds like H and German like Y. The slavic languages don't even have it. It is clear that the J is only pronounced thus in English. I won't even mention how it is spelled and pronounced differently all over. The English language is one of the newer languages anyway. Just because the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Jeshua was Iesous, proves little in your claim. Also that the Hebrew Jeshua or Joshua means "Saviour".

If we look to the scripture, we see promise of the messiah from ancient times. Through the new testament we know who this is, and He is not a farsical greek god, but the one true Messiah, which is translated to Greek with Christos (anointed). Such things have been around before your greek legends, technically even before there was time .

In response to your statement of Jesus being a farcical greek god I show, 1John 2:22 "...It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist-he denies the Father and the Son."

-James

 

[JVAC]

SOMETHINGS I FORGOT TO ADD:
You mentioned "Josephus". The J is suppose to be a Y, the suffix "us" is a Greek attachment.

Another example: "Paul'us" (notice once again the "us"), His correct name is 'Shaul'.


Our REAL New Year begins at the 'Yearah Hodesh', which means the 'freshening of seasons', this is around April (spring time) when the earth starts to "blossom" once again.

I mentioned Josephus (in the English spelling) because he can atest to Jesus being a living person.

Secondly, New Year is an arbitrary thing, everyone keeps track of time differently. If everyone was the same then we wouldn't have things like chinese new year, hmong new year and so on. I submit myself, however, to two calendars, that used by the secular world for my 'worldly business' (Gregorian Calendar, funny how it was finalized by the Church also), and the Church calendar so my faith may be well sustained.

-James

 

[gort]

Hello Spike,

I ask again, "Why would Js, By, and JFS all claim that the Blood of Jesus cannot atone for certain sins?"

Are they not the mouthpiece of the Lord?

According to this JS should be believed regarding all statements he made.

Note also in my last post the "atonement that some men may have to make for their sins"



Note also the statement ........The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (CR, October 1960, p. 78)

FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETS
By President Ezra Taft Benson
BYU Devotional Assembly
Tuesday, February 26, 1980, 10:00 a.m.

FIRST: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to "give heed unto all his words"--as if from the Lord's "own mouth."

SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

FOURTH: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President (Heber J.) Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (CR, October 1960, p. 78)

FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

SIXTH: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4).

SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

NINTH: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Is this the same Jesus of the Bible?

 

[spike]

I ask again, "Why would JS, BY, and JFS all claim that the Blood of Jesus cannot atone for certain sins?"

Are they not the mouthpiece of the Lord?(emphasis by spike)

According to this JS should be believed regarding all statements he made.

Note also in my last post the "atonement that some men may have to make for their sins"

Good Morning, Daneel~

I may have missed this point (highlighted) in your last post.

I am still curious as to what those sins are that cannot be forgiven by Christ (save the example given earlier), thus that was the primary question in my last response. I interpret this clarification of yours to ask how I feel about the Prophets with regard to them being the 'mouthpiece' of the Lord, how that compares to the teachings of Jesus (and/or the Bible), and what order of prominence they might hold in relation to Jesus.

The key to how I think can be seen in the final line of my last post, where I stated that, basically, Jesus (and His Word as written in the Bible) trumps all mortal men with regards to doctrine. Obviously, no man is perfect, and all are corruptible; therefore an instruction to do something that does not square with my understanding of the Bible and what Jesus taught would not be followed dilligently by me, without question. This is one of the reasons why I had been apart from 'organized' religion for many years. I will always be cautious with whatever is spoken from the mouths of men.

I would have accepted H. J. Grant's advice with a grain of salt. It is, to me, stangely worded. I would have chosen a different way to express faith in the Prophets with regards to their leadership.

I honestly do believe that the G.A.'s do not try to mislead the church membership for gain, and I haven't seem any evidence of that in anything that I've read from them that may have been published within the last few decades. Admittedly, I am new to the fold, so there is much yet for me to see and read, but believe me, I do so with a very critical and objective eye, for in the end I must act on what I believe in my heart to be the right choice in the eyes of my Heavenly Father, regardless of the wishes of men. Regardless of their position of authority. Regardless, even, if the decision of another whom I profoundly loved contradicted with the Word of Christ as I understand it. It can be no other way for me, because it will be I who must stand accountable for my deeds on the last day.

(Granted, my 'understanding' of scripture will be different than others, and I have been accused of having a more 'liberal' stand with regards to it and doctrine than some of my contemporaries - but less so than most ordinary folks! But my perspective, created of my own unique life experiences, has lead to those conclusions. One example is my non-trinitarian view of the Godhead.)

So, how does that square with the following?

"The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray..." (source? October 1960, p. 78)

FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHETS
By President Ezra Taft Benson
BYU Devotional Assembly
Tuesday, February 26, 1980, 10:00 a.m.

FIRST:The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

"Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

"For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Simply as stated above.. if a Prophet told me to kill, I wouldn't. But, I don't honestly believe that I'd ever see that day. Should the Prophet ever attempt to reinstate multiple marriages, you wouldn't see me participating, either. (Jeepers, one wife is enough! )

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to "give heed unto all his words"--as if from the Lord's "own mouth."

I'm reading this as your conclusion, not as a quote from another source - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Every church that I've seen has some semblence of organization, from simple pastors on up to General Authorities, and the Pope. Their leadership position, however you regard their views, are meant to guide the faithful in practicing their religion. This is to be expected. I would trust that anything I hear from the mouth of Gordon B. Hinkley is going to be something that has been carefully reflected upon, and brought forth in a manner that the Spirit would have him do so, with regards to guiding the members of the Church. I would expect that all in positions of religious leadership, and highly regarded and accepted as such by the public at large, strive to do the same. Case in point - I may not always agree with the Pope, but I don't believe that when he speaks, he is trying to pull a fast one on Catholics.

SECOND: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Hmm. I'll guess, without clarification, that this means *all* standard works, even the Bible. This gives room to adapt to the times and unique situations that exist today that may not have millennia ago. I accept this with regards to, say, D&C - example, the reversal of the Church's stand on polygamy. Challenges to standard Bible doctrine and scripture, though, would likely be tested by myself. I'm betting that many others would feel the same. Basis for this decision? - again, mortal men are imperfect, regardless of position.

THIRD: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Makes sense to me for some practical reasons..

FOURTH: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Let's hope so. I haven't seen anything yet that would lead me to believe that they purposely have or would.

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President (Heber J.) Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray (CR, October 1960, p. 78)

(see my opening remarks..)

FIFTH: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

SIXTH:The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

'Earthly training'.. ? Prophet School?

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4). )

Can I haggle over the word, 'heed'?

SEVENTH: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Hmm. I agree. Seems as if we all need to hear what we need to know, rather than what we 'want to hear', perhaps, to phrase it differently..

EIGHTH: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

NINTH:The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

..and we have the free agency to accept or reject what we hear..

TENTH: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

ELEVENTH: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Sounds Biblical, yes? I realize that I possess this problem. Not hard to see it with what I've written, yes?

TWELFTH: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

No surprises there..

THIRTEENTH: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

FOURTEENTH: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

I could say the same of the teachings of Christ.

Is this the same Jesus of the Bible?

This is the summation of the post. To answer - No, I don't equate the Prophet(s) or any earth-bound mortal authority with Jesus. I honestly don't think that many (I won't say 'any' until I do some asking, which I've never done) in the Church would do so. I hope that this isn't the impression that most folks have of LDS Church members.

Have a Safe, Happy and Prosperous New Year, Daneel!

-spike-

 

[RhetorTheo]

You know what the scholars say: There is no one Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of John's Gospel is different from the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, who is in turn different from Paul's Jesus. And then the historical Jesus, who is different from all of them. And then the Jesus of Biblical interpretation, applying our views and values to Jesus.

 

[JVAC]

Spike:
Hmm. I'll guess, without clarification, that this means *all* standard works, even the Bible. This gives room to adapt to the times and unique situations that exist today that may not have millennia ago. I accept this with regards to, say, D&C - example, the reversal of the Church's stand on polygamy. Challenges to standard Bible doctrine and scripture, though, would likely be tested by myself. I'm betting that many others would feel the same. Basis for this decision? - again, mortal men are imperfect, regardless of position.

Are you trying to say the Word of God is sorta like the constitution, whereas it lets you change things by a 2/3 majority? I don't think the Word changes, or is meant to be changed. Like a topic that is hottly debated in the 'sexuality threads' about homosexuality, the growing liberalism wants to make it ok in the church no matter how it was and is taught. Being able to change the Word to be up to date with culture is a VERY dangerous thing. And I guess that would be another difference between our Jesus and yours, we can't change his teachings.

Role Troll;
The synoptic gospels showed a Jesus life, John focused on divinity, paul focused on Grace and Faith, Jude, falling away, James living christly and so on. These are all analagous teachings whereas they don't contradict the others. They just teach certain things in greater details than the others. Paul's Jesus is not different from Peter's, Luke's, John's, James', Jude, etc. They all witness the same one and teach of him. They all have different styles, just like a teacher of Physics teaches the same physics but teaches it differently from his other Professors. Yet no professor teaches a 'new physics' that contradicts the physics accepted in science.

 

[Hebrews11]

[Will the real Jesus please stand up], He is seated at the right hand of the throne of God, but I believe he has been alive for every day since the resurrection. Now that is truly something to shout from the housetops. 1970 plus years and going strong.

 

[JVAC]

[Will the real Jesus please stand up], He is seated at the right hand of the throne of God, but I believe he has been alive for every day since the resurrection. Now that is truly something to shout from the housetops. 1970 plus years and going strong.

I would disagree, I say he has been around eternally, as the creed states, "Eternally begotten of the Father." John 1:1 "In the begining was the Word". He has always been, is, and forever will be existant.

 

[gort]

Spike quote:

I am still curious as to what those sins are that cannot be forgiven by Christ (save the example given earlier), thus that was the primary question in my last response.

</FONT>MURDER



But then Mr. McConkie goes on to admit that some sins cannot be forgiven:

But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment. (Ibid, page 92)

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18)

ADULTERY



Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. (President Brigham Young, March 16, 1856, Journal of Discourses, 3:247).

I am asking you these questions to show you what a false prophet looks like. You may not like what I say, but I feel a need to say it.

It is quite obvious to many christians why JS was a false prophet. Hopefully someday you will see. Man cannot atone for his own sins.

Have a good life.



<><

 

[spike]

Are you trying to say the Word of God is sorta like the constitution, whereas it lets you change things by a 2/3 majority? I don't think the Word changes, or is meant to be changed. Like a topic that is hottly debated in the 'sexuality threads' about homosexuality, the growing liberalism wants to make it ok in the church no matter how it was and is taught. Being able to change the Word to be up to date with culture is a VERY dangerous thing. And I guess that would be another difference between our Jesus and yours, we can't change his teachings.

Hello, JVAC~

No, the Word of God is not like the Constitution.. .. note that I said I can accept a doctrinal change with regards to D&C. Furthermore, I stated elsewhere that any 'newly stated' doctrine must square with how I understand the Bible - as with the murder example.

On many/most things, the Bible is quite explicit on what is 'right' - allowable - and what is 'wrong' - not permissable. There are the occasional items that certainly could have used clearer explanation, and some things that are 'not covered'. The list is small, however. To tackle your example, the Bible quite clearly states God's position on homosexuality. I'm betting that it would be hard for anyone to justify a position of acceptance of same-sex relations in Biblical reference or scripture (I'm quite objective and am adept at seeing the 'other' point of view behind rationalizing many things, but I haven't seen anything yet that can even begin to convince me that the Bible does anything other than explicitly take a dim view, to say the least, of the practice).

The matter of acceptance for those who practice it by others ('live and let live'), rather than the judgement thereof, and whether or not that should solely be the province of God vs. the duty of mortals is another matter that drives much of the controversy in my eyes. But, I digress.

Last I checked, the LDS Church was still very much in line with Biblical teachings on the subject.

Now, with regards to birth control - there is ambiguity, and many churches have had to struggle with the issue of that ambiguity in light of a planet exploding with a population that is, in many places, unable to feed itself. Note that birth control is not the same issue as abstinence in general or sex outside of marriage. The Catholic Church struggled with this issue for years, recently deciding to accept the use of some birth control methods. This does not mean that the Catholic Church attempted to 'change' the Word of God, per se.

For me, the Bible and Book of Mormon will stand on their own unchallenged with regard to the Law. Nothing that I found within the BoM proper contradicted the Bible. Others may take exception, and I welcome examples. My comment regarded D&C, which, while containing words from Prophets, those words still are subordinate to Christ's, because I, like all LDS members that I know, regard Jesus himself as the true and primary source of doctrine - all that comes afterwards builds upon that.

Hope that this clarifies the statement - have a pleasant afternoon!

-spike-

 

[spike]

..Mr. McConkie goes on to admit that some sins cannot be forgiven:

"But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment. "

(new source) "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18)

Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. (President Brigham Young, March 16, 1856, Journal of Discourses, 3:247).

Looks as if D&C 42 just condemned Brigham!

I do not agree with BY's assessment, since adultery, at least since the coming of Christ, hasn't been a transgression that man has the right to murder for, especially in light of the fact that murder is the greater transgression.

I am asking you these questions to show you what a false prophet looks like. You may not like what I say, but I feel a need to say it.

It is quite obvious to many christians why JS was a false prophet. Hopefully someday you will see. Man cannot atone for his own sins.

It's OK, daneel - I am not offended. That is why I started the thread in the first place. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Have a good life.

..I will do my best!

-spike-

 

[JVAC]

So, I am assuming I won that little discussion aye eliot?