An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[Stephen168]

What President Hinckley meant when he said we don’t believe in the traditional Christ is that we don’t accept the concept of Christ from the Nicean Creed.

My only purpose in writing is to show that Latter-day Saints are Christians, we believe the Bible and my strong belief that all Chriatians need to work together in the cause of Christ. The problem I see is that there are two different definitions of a Christian: Definition 1- One who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (1 John 4:15), who rose from the dead on the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-4) and who strives to follow his commandments. (John 14:5) Definition 2- One who believes in the teachings as defined by the Nicean Creed and other Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church.
Most LDS members only know Definition 1 and therefore are deeply offended when we express our belief and then others say we are not Christian. As far as I know, no LDS members would have a problem with being excluded from Definition 2.

Did Hinckley know definition 2?

 

[Kaeleara]

Hi. So I’ve read some of this thread and it seems to be focusing on whether or not Mormonism is Christian and if it is really the “new True Church.”

I just have a few comments/points/questions to present, because, having a multitude of Mormon cousins, I just can’t see how they believe what they believe.

1. How can Mormons just reject the Old Testament and the New Testament? Catholics embrace both, and can prove each phrase in the Bible is in complete agreement with the Church’s teachings. Nothing is really that revolutionary in the New Testament that would contradict the Old Testament, and I believe this is because Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophesy (and thus the END of all prophesy). What more could there be if He fulfilled every promise and cryptic prediction there was?
2. How do Mormons respond to these Bible verses?

• “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:8)”
• “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Cor 11:14)
• “If you are the Son of God,” he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ " (Mat 4:6) This one just reinforces the other two quotes, because if satan can quote Scripture, then he can pull one convincing masquerade!
• “And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Rev 20:10) I understand that Mormons believe that their “prophets” (as I am a Roman Catholic, I believe you will understand my use of quotations ) are legitimate, but this quote goes along with my others.
• “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

1. as for Mormons being Christian, these are some quotes by some important Mormon people:

• “I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong…their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).
• “Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast” (Journal of Discourses, John Taylor [3rd Mormon President], 13:225).
• “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).
• “All the priests who adhere to the sectarian [Christian] religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith, ed. Vol. 1, n. 4, 60).
• [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).
• “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).
• this was a side note as a defense for one of the quotes: "Some contemporary Mormons…will respond [to “McConkie’s ranting”] with, “That’s only his opinion.” This is disingenuous at best. Keep in mind that McConkie, who died in 1985, was raised to the level of “apostle” in the Mormon church after he had written all these things. And still today, his Mormon Doctrine is published by a church-owned publishing company and remains one of the church’s bestsellers.

1. How can Mormons defend their changing doctrine?
   examples:

• different races becoming priests
• polygamy
• abortion:
  “The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).”

“Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).”

• one god to many gods:
  "In an early book of “Scripture” brought forth by Joseph Smith, the creation account consistently refers to the singular when speaking of God and creation: “I, God, caused . . . I, God, created . . . I, God, saw. . . . " The singular is used 50 times in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (1831).”

“At about the same time, we begin to see a doctrinal shift. Smith had acquired some mummies and Egyptian papyri. He proclaimed the writings to be those of the patriarch, Abraham, in his own hand, and set out to translate the text. His Book of Abraham records in chapters four and five that “the gods called . . . the gods ordered . . . the gods prepared” some 45 times. Smith thus introduces the notion of a plurality of gods.”

1. last question: Why can Mormon companies sell alcohol when it is forbidden?
   example: Marriot hotels

all of these quotes are from two different websites, but the questions are all mine
catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp

 

[blueadept]

CatholicGuyNY, I am quite aware of this. This entire conversation is ABOUT that; Catholcis FOR THEMSELVES are not limited to the NT, and do indeed have access to Sacred Tradition.

Just as we have revealed scripture in these latter days.

the point I have been making is that, just as it is unreasonable of us to use Book of Mormon scriptures to prove to you that something we believe in is true (since you do not accept BoM scripture as scripture) then it is unreasonable of you to expect non-Catholics to use “Sacred Tradition” to inform our beliefs.

Most LDS folks that I discuss religion with are very aware that they shouldn’t use the BoM too much in defending their faith with non-members which is a good thing.

Catholics should be careful in not referencing Sacred Tradition too much. IMO, it’s equivalent to LDS using their F&T meetings with their personal revelation. It’s not very helpful for non-members to understand the faith IMO.

 

[SteveVH]

I concede that you have reasons that you believe all these things are valid; if you didn’t, you wouldn’t believe them. The point I’m making is that you can’t support them INSIDE the NT. You rely on support from Tradition. That’s fine, if you happen to accept Tradition.

The problem, of course, is that the question is about whether Tradition is valid…and the claim is that these things are CHANGES from the way things were done in the NT. They are, which of course is the whole point.

I find it strange that you require that each of our beliefs must be spelled out in the NT otherwise you claim they are not valid. When you apply the same standard to yourself you fail miserably. Whoever said that the NT was an exhaustive list of what we are to believe? The Bible itself states that there are many things not included. The NT grew out of Tradition and the writings chosen to be included in the canon of Scripture were measured against Tradition; what the Church had always believed, what had been handed down to them. Since there were no printing presses available at that time and considering the fact that the majority of the population was illiterate anyway, Tradition was the primary source of spreading the gospel. That is why Tradition is held as equal to Scripture. Tradition came first and contains the fullness of the gospel. If every Bible in the world was somehow destroyed, the fullness of revelation would still exist within the Church.

For instance, basing a very important, if not vital, part of your doctrine regarding baptism and salvation on the ABSENCE of something…that is, the absence of a statement that these ‘entire families’ didn’t include infants, is problematic. As it happens, entire families are a great deal more likely NOT to include infants than that they are; even, or especially, with extended families that include elders. (and we have no information regarding the makeup of the families involved.) The thing is, the birth rate of that time was high…and so was the infant death rate. One can certainly assume the presence of children…since the odds of that are at least 50%, but of infants? Nope.

As well, when on my own mission was was present at the baptism of two ‘entire families.’ Everybody except the kids under the age of 8…but because everybody ELIGIBLE for baptism was baptised, the assumption was that the ‘entire family’ was–because of course those children, when they reached the age of 8, would follow the example of the rest of their family and be baptised.

The fact is, there is no language in the NT, or in any document written by a Christian before the death of the last apostle, that supports the specific practice of infant baptism. There just isn’t. The most you can do is point to the ‘entire family’ verse, and say that they could have had babies,…

Sorry, not enough.

Circumcision was an absolute requirement of Jewish males in order to enter into God’s covenant. Paul tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision.

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:11-12)

If we could enter into a covenant relationship with God through being circumcised as an infant, why would you think that we could not enter into the New Covenant with him through * baptism* as an infant. We are basing nothing on the “ABSENCE of something”. Your contention that baptizing entire “households” would not have included infants is not credible. There is surely nothing mentioned that would give the impression that it was not allowed. More likely is the possibility that this was such a standard practice that it did not need explaining.

I’m off to a meeting so will have to address the remainder of your comments another time.

God bless.

 

[mtolympus]

That is your belief. We believe differently. Why can’t you leave it at that?

You may believe what you want, but please don’t tell me I’m not a Christian.

 

[LongJourney]

You may believe what you want, but please don’t tell me I’m not a Christian.

I won’t. I keep my opinion on that to myself. I know what canon law says. Anything beyond that only adds heat to the dissent. You know, there are good non-Christians, who follow God’s law without having any accurate knowledge of Jesus’ message.

 

[dianaiad]

I find it strange that you require that each of our beliefs must be spelled out in the NT otherwise you claim they are not valid.

No, Steve, that’s not what I said.

Look at it this way: if I quoted the BoM to you in an attempt to prove that Jesus visited the Americas, would you consider that I had proven that to you?

It doesn’t…unless you accept the Book of Mormon itself as a valid source, then anything that comes from it can’t be considered valid—if that’s all there is to show as evidence.

The frustrating thing I’m running into here is this complete inability for some Catholics to understand that to us, Mormons and Protestants alike, Catholic Sacred Tradition is very much like the Book of Mormon in that both are ‘extrabiblical,’ I trust the Book of Mormon because I believe it is scripture. I can use it to inform my understanding of God. Catholics trust Sacred Tradition, and use it to inform their beliefs about Jesus, Mary, the nature of God Himself, Purgatory…all manner of things—

And those beliefs, I am quite aware, are beliefs that you consider to be valid. That’s fine.

But you cannot, you simply cannot, quote Sacred Tradition at those who don’t believe that it is a valid source for doctrine, and use it to prove that a belief is valid for us.

Just as I cannot use the Book of Mormon to do the same for something I believe in–and you don’t.

We can both use these sources to show what our beliefs ARE, but not as prooftexts to make the other believe in whatever is under discussion.

Yet what is happening here is that people are making declarations regarding…say…Mary–that simply are not supported in those sources that we all agree are valid, and they can’t figure out why those of us who think that the Church fell off the path so that ‘Sacred Tradition’ is incorrect might not want to accept it as a prooftext for anything.

So what I get is this wide eyed wonderment from people who say 'well, YOU believe in extrabiblical stuff too…what’s the difference?"

Well…the difference is that we don’t believe in YOUR extrabiblical ‘stuff’ any more than you believe in ours. It’s not an insult to say so; it simply is.

When you apply the same standard to yourself you fail miserably.

Excuse me, but I DO apply the same standard to myself. Where have I failed? I am not, you realize, attempting to prove anything in the first place.

I am not the one making claims, for one thing.

Whoever said that the NT was an exhaustive list of what we are to believe?

Not me, certainly. That’s not the point. The point is that when we talk to each other, we are sorta stuck with those prooftexts that we BOTH trust; those things we hold in common.

But let me put it another way, by making a deal with you. I’ll bet it will instantly illustrate the problem.

I will accept every quote from you from Catholic Sacred Tradition, and if Sacred Tradition says this is true or that is, I will accept that as sufficient evidence for the validity of that belief.

In return, you will accept every quote I give you from the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as scripture equal to that found in the OT and NT, and if some doctrine is ‘proven’ by quotes from those books, you accept that doctrine as valid.

Is the ah HA bell going off yet?

 

[Stephen168]

Of course the early church (33 AD) followed the intructions of Jesus found in Matthew 28 just as Latter-day Saint do today. So, what I want to know is what happened after 33 AD that makes Latter-day Saints non-Christians? But remember anything that happened after 33 AD that makes LDS non-Christian will also make the Apostle Paul a non-Christian.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also teaches that the Holy Ghost is God (Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except by saying all three are somehow the one God?
Jesus tells his apostles to baptize “in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). This is a proof-text: three distinct Persons united in the one divine name. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” We see this same unity of divine Persons in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3. All three have always been and always will be. Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13, John 1:1-14, Isaiah 41:4, 1 Timothy 1:17.

Things that happened after 33AD: Joseph Smith invented the Melchisedech Priesthood, polygamy, and in 1844 started teaching about another god; a god not like the one in the New Testament. Mormons do not worship the God of Christianity, so they are not Christian. Mormons started as Christians until Joseph Smith took them into apostasy.

 

[Javl]

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

There was Holy Tradition long before there was scripture. Scripture depends upon tradition. If this were not so, then how/where does scripture come into being?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dianaiad]

There was Holy Tradition long before there was scripture. Scripture depends upon tradition. If this were not so, then how/where does scripture come into being?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javi…scripture does not depend upon Tradition…it was written before anything you classify as Holy Tradition was written. Holy Tradition does come into play when those scriptures were canonized into what the church accepts as this special class called 'scripture."…

but to claim that the Scriptures depend upon Holy Tradition is to claim that y’all wrote 'em, in a very real way. I know of no Catholic who would do that. Do you?

Y’all chose the writings that scholars accepted as Scripture–but they didn’t mess with the writings (well…thinking of that pesky Johaninne comma…not much, anyway) themselves. You will notice that other religious scholars eventually disagreed with you as to which writings were scripture and which weren’t; Luther, for instance wanted to throw out a BUNCH of works he was later talked out of throwing out. (I think it was Luther who did that…somebody refresh my memory on this one?)

MY opinion on this is that the scriptures we have now are the ‘cream of the crop…’ that is, writings that are so obviously scripture that they survived winnowing by church scholars. I think that other works may well be scripture also–but it would take a great deal to canonize them now—and why do that?

If they are scripture, then they are, so reading them and applying James 1:5 to them will enable the reader to glean the truths in there for him/herself. What more can anybody ask for, in a personal religious journey?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Javi…scripture does not depend upon Tradition…it was written before anything you classify as Holy Tradition was written. Holy Tradition does come into play when those scriptures were canonized into what the church accepts as this special class called 'scripture."…

Scripture is nothing but written Sacred Tradition. Christianity was oral before it was written.

 

[Todd520]

Scripture is nothing but written Sacred Tradition. Christianity was oral before it was written.

Hi Chester,
Sorry if we are confusing you with our word usage. Here are the definitions as we intended

Holy Scripture = Bible = Scripture shared by CC, Protestants, & LDS
Holy Tradition = Living Magisterium for CC

No one is saying that scripture did not exist as tradition at some point. However, to make that point now only serves to confuse the discussion, which I’m sure was not your intent.

 

[Stephen168]

I’m always frustrated how the Catholic definition of Christian swings on Holy Tradition instead of Holy Scripture.

Hi Chester,
Sorry if we are confusing you with our word usage. Here are the definitions as we intended

Holy Scripture = Bible = Scripture shared by CC, Protestants, & LDS
Holy Tradition = Living Magisterium for CC

No one is saying that scripture did not exist as tradition at some point. However, to make that point now only serves to confuse the discussion, which I’m sure was not your intent.

Your definition of Holy Tradition is incorrect. As the Catholics have been trying to explain.

Scripture is nothing but written Sacred Tradition. Christianity was oral before it was written.

Just because we write something down doesn’t make it scripture and no longer Tradition. Therefore scripture agrees with tradition because it is the same thing. Mormons are not Christian because they do not worship God as we know him to be; handed down by Tradition (written and oral)

 

[SteveVH]

As to apostles, why are you arguing with me about that one? I know of no Catholic who claims that there were new apostles called, or that public revelation continued, after the death of the last one. Do you? Yes, I imagine that you can point to a long line of people who claim to trace their succession back to the apostles…and that’s fine. But we don’t argue with that. The argument is that way back when, some of those men went off the doctrinal path, so that what they passed on to you wasn’t correct any more; a change.

Diana, there were twelve Apostles (one replaced) and that is all there will ever be. We can demonstrate through historical documentation that the Catholic bishops have an unbroken line of succession. We don’t have bishops simply “claiming” succession. These bishops were given apostolic authority by the Apostles themselves, this authority being the authority of Christ himself. Even Paul, as I have said before, received no other revelation than the revelation of Jesus Christ. He received what the other apostles had already received, nothing more.

But you asked me to show you changes. I showed you. They ARE changes.

Changes in depth of understanding, yes. Changes in doctrine, no.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
What was he revealing, in every single circumstance you mention. He was revealing HIMSELF.

Yes…and He continued to do so. That’s the POINT. He didn’t STOP talking to His apostles, and there was no indication whatsoever that there was a point at which He would.

Are you drawing a conclusion based upon the ABSENCE of information? Let me put it this way. If I attempt to describe a unique house, you will have some idea of what it looks like. You may ask questions and I may be able to give you a better idea each time. The “mystery” of what the house actually looks like is revealed slowly, in part. This is what the prophets did. Finally, when the day comes “in the fullness of time”, I will actually take you to the house and it will be fully revealed to you. Once you have seen it and walked through it, what is left to be revealed? I do not have to continue revealing it to you. To believe that public revelation must continue is to at the same time doubt that “in him dwells the fullness of the deity, bodily” (Col 2:9).

…and when was that supposed to be, Steve? Please show me the verse in the NT where Christ said “I’ve said enough, and I’m not going to talk to you any more?”

I have never said that Christ does not continue to speak to his Church. I have given you examples that show that he continues to speak to his Church. He encourages us to remain true to what has been revealed in him. He deepens our understanding of what has been revealed in him. But he gives us no other gospel than that which has already been given.

In terms of public revelation, in this case it is what you think it is that counts. Mind you, if St. Francis’ revelation didn’t apply to the whole church, (and it didn’t, evidently) then you are quite right. It wasn’t public revelation.

No, his revelation did apply to the whole Church and was even given to the Pope himself. But what was it? It was a call to live the gospel that had already been given; a call to return to to the path already revealed to us. Francis didn’t come up with some new doctrine or belief. God sent him to renew the faith already given to us through the Apostles. That is called private revelation and is a great example of the difference between private and public revelation. It doesn’t mean it isn’t important, even for the whole Church. The difference is that it does not constitute a new belief or doctrine, but rather a call to return to the one deposit of faith already given.

In fact, I would call your doctrine of papal infallibility ‘public revelation.’ if anything was. It fits the requirements better.

Papal infallibility was more of a realization over time of the magnitude and logical consequence of the promise given to the Church by Christ himself as the Church grew (and continues to grow) in its understanding.

Actually, no…we are still talking past one another, obviously. Public revelation is that communication FROM God TO the leaders of His church, for the purpose of guiding that church as a whole. What that revelation contains does not define that it IS revelation; it’s what it’s FOR, and Who it’s FROM that does. In the NT, apostles and prophets continued to receive revelation for the specific purpose of guiding Christ’s church. They received that revelation from Jesus Christ Himself, and there is absolutely no verse, no indication, NOTHING that tells us that this situation was supposed to end–that His church would continue without Him at the helm, without His leaders receiving direct revelation from Him for the express purpose of guiding the church.

…but Catholics, and you, claim that this ceased upon the death of the last apostle. We agree with you on that. The difference between us is that we don’t think it was supposed to.

All I can really say is that we disagree on the definition. If I was forced to use your definition of public revelation I would have to say that the Catholic Church receives public revelation all the time. But we do not define it that way. St. Francis certainly guided the Church with what was revealed to him, but did not provide any new doctrine or change any previous doctrine as is done in the LDS Church.

 

[mtolympus]

Hi. So I’ve read some of this thread and it seems to be focusing on whether or not Mormonism is Christian and if it is really the “new True Church.”
I just have a few comments/points/questions to present, because, having a multitude of Mormon cousins, I just can’t see how they believe what they believe.

My only reason for joining the conversation is so we may try to better understand each other. Your Mormon cousins probably don’t believe what you think they believe. I’m sure I don’t.

McKonkie’s objectionable comments were removed from his book 50 years ago. I believe it is time to forgive each other, try to understand each other and learn to love each other. (I don’t believe we have to agree with each other.)

Be strong in the Church that gives you faith in Christ.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

All I can really say is that we disagree on the definition. If I was forced to use your definition of public revelation I would have to say that the Catholic Church receives public revelation all the time. But we do not define it that way. St. Francis certainly guided the Church with what was revealed to him, but did not provide any new doctrine or change any previous doctrine as is done in the LDS Church.

Exactly. Dianaiad’s definition of “public revelation” is not how Catholics see “public revelation”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know about all that. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it”

Sounds pretty clear what Christ was talking about in directing the Apostles.

 

[GaryTaylor]

My only reason for joining the conversation is so we may try to better understand each other. Your Mormon cousins probably don’t believe what you think they believe. I’m sure I don’t.

McKonkie’s objectionable comments were removed from his book 50 years ago. I believe it is time to forgive each other, try to understand each other and learn to love each other. (I don’t believe we have to agree with each other.)

Be strong in the Church that gives you faith in Christ.

Ultimately there is no other solution. The Orthodox and Catholic church will unite. Thats just a matter of short time now.

Good and evil and its battle is much to strong now for there to be any other solution.

 

[Todd520]

Your definition of Holy Tradition is incorrect. As the Catholics have been trying to explain.

Just because we write something down doesn’t make it scripture and no longer Tradition. Therefore scripture agrees with tradition because it is the same thing. Mormons are not Christian because they do not worship God as we know him to be; handed down by Tradition (written and oral)

Stephen, why are you being so difficult?
Isn’t holy scripture = public revelation = the Bible?
And supporting me is the encylopedia on this site: “Sacred Scripture, is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament.” (notice they don’t get hung up on the origins)

For Tradition, the enclyclopedia definition is less precise, but appears to cover everything else not derived directly from Holy Scripture.

Net net, I think my usage was in line with your encylcopedia

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, why are you being so difficult?
Isn’t holy scripture = public revelation = the Bible?
And supporting me is the encylopedia on this site: “Sacred Scripture, is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which make up the Old and New Testament.” (notice they don’t get hung up on the origins)

For Tradition, the enclyclopedia definition is less precise, but appears to cover everything else not derived directly from Holy Scripture.

Net net, I think my usage was in line with your encylcopedia

I’m not being difficult. I’m telling you the Catholic understanding of Tradition and that it includes scripture. The origin of something has nothing to do with what it is. Scripture is tradition (written).
At this point in the conversation you should say: Oh, I now understand what Catholics believe.
And stop trying to tell us what we believe.