LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[Old_Ephriam]

Interesting thread.

Parker, I don’t think that your statement that God cannot force his will on anyone in order to prevent apostasy is consistent with LDS belief. I recall hearing President Hinckely say On at least 1 occasion that the Lord would never permit him to lead the church astray. Otherwise how could there be any guarantee that the LDS church itself has not fallen into apostasy?

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting thread.

Parker, I don’t think that your statement that God cannot force his will on anyone in order to prevent apostasy is consistent with LDS belief. I recall hearing President Hinckley say On at least 1 occasion that the Lord would never permit him to lead the church astray. Otherwise how could there be any guarantee that the LDS church itself has not fallen into apostasy?

Old Ephriam,

My statement was that God will not force His will on anyone. That is an important distinction from the word “cannot”.

To clarify what you heard President Hinckley quote from President Wilford Woodruff, here is the quote which is found in “Official Declaration 1”:

President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

The statement says that “the Lord would remove me out of my place…” The implication is that this would happen before the attempt, not after the attempt, so the prophet would be removed from “his place” as prophet by either serious illness or death.

There are key differences between this teaching of President Woodruff and those who have quoted him, and the belief that is implied in the statement that justifies Catholic belief in infallibility of papal authority.

One is that behind the teaching of President Woodruff is the understanding that there are Twelve living apostles with the keys of the kingdom, and those apostles are chosen by revelation through the Holy Ghost and then “proven” during the course of their ministry as an apostle, and preserved of course to live to be the prophet if that is God’s will for the particular needs that will be happening on the earth at the appointed time when they have become the senior apostle. This does not mean those who don’t outlive the others have been removed from their place–it means God has a plan for who will lead, and those leaders are united in making decisions and in understanding that the senior apostle becomes the president of the Church after the death of the prior prophet/president.

Another key difference is in the knowledge that the Holy Ghost guides the leaders by revelation, rather than saying “public revelation ended with apostles”–so there is no comparison between the Catholic belief and the LDS belief that is a one-to-one comparison on this point.

 

[Javl]

Parker:

Once again, my friend, you misconstrue what I say, and I find that a typical LDS characteristic. We are given free will to accept or reject, to which we have both exercized this gift. Christ did not say " I force you to believe!", but He did ask us in faith to accept His teachings and truth. He did say that He will always be with His Church until the end of the world. He also said that He will protect it against error and the snares and wiles of the devil. And believe me when I say that the devil has been trying his best these past 2000 years to destroy Jesus’ Church, the Catholic Church, more so than any other.

There has been absolutely no change in the teachings of His Church. His Church, the Catholic Church HAS NOT apostacized. Time and again proof of this occurance has been requested of the LDS and there has been none given. I wonder if the LDS can tell the difference between an individual apostacizing, which has occured within the Church, and the Church itself. If any Church has strayed or departed from Jesus’ and the Apostles teachings and basic Judaeo-Christian belief, it is the LDS Church along with others in its category that claim a message from God to restore Christianity, such as the Jehovahs Witnesses, The Way, etc.

No my friend. The sooner you realize that the Catholic Church is The One True Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ, and that it has not apostacized, the sooner your veil will be lifted to let the sunshine of His truth come in. No longer will you see through a glass darkly but will revel with joy and true peace in His and the Holy Spirit’s light. Shalom.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. I pray constantly for your edification.

 

[Cruxis117]

Then you can’t be very familiar with the Bible, the Catechism, or the ECFs, because they all teach those things. Maybe it would be a good idea if you would familiarize yourself with them first, before debating these subjects.

On the contrary my friend, as I have shown using Scripture, and others using the ECFs, and with the misunderstanding of certain terms that could be miscontstrued in the Catechism, it is you who are highly unfamiliar with these texts.

All of these subjects have been discussed and rehashed on this board hundreds of times. I am not sure any useful purpose would be served to rehash them with you all over again.

I agree that these subjects have been discussed many a time, however that does not make the Truth any less of what it is. Proclaimation of the Truth has more than a useful purpose, it is a divine ordinance.

 

[SteveVH]

Parker:

Once again, my friend, you misconstrue what I say, and I find that a typical LDS characteristic. We are given free will to accept or reject, to which we have both exercized this gift. Christ did not say " I force you to believe!", but He did ask us in faith to accept His teachings and truth. He did say that He will always be with His Church until the end of the world. He also said that He will protect it against error and the snares and wiles of the devil. And believe me when I say that the devil has been trying his best these past 2000 years to destroy Jesus’ Church, the Catholic Church, more so than any other.

There has been absolutely no change in the teachings of His Church. His Church, the Catholic Church HAS NOT apostacized. Time and again proof of this occurance has been requested of the LDS and there has been none given. I wonder if the LDS can tell the difference between an individual apostacizing, which has occured within the Church, and the Church itself. If any Church has strayed or departed from Jesus’ and the Apostles teachings and basic Judaeo-Christian belief, it is the LDS Church along with others in its category that claim a message from God to restore Christianity, such as the Jehovahs Witnesses, The Way, etc.

No my friend. The sooner you realize that the Catholic Church is The One True Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ, and that it has not apostacized, the sooner your veil will be lifted to let the sunshine of His truth come in. No longer will you see through a glass darkly but will revel with joy and true peace in His and the Holy Spirit’s light. Shalom.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. I pray constantly for your edification.

Well said Javl.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Old Ephriam,

My statement was that God will not force His will on anyone. That is an important distinction from the word “cannot”.

To clarify what you heard President Hinckley quote from President Wilford Woodruff, here is the quote which is found in “Official Declaration 1”:

President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

The statement says that “the Lord would remove me out of my place…” The implication is that this would happen before the attempt, not after the attempt, so the prophet would be removed from “his place” as prophet by either serious illness or death.

There are key differences between this teaching of President Woodruff and those who have quoted him, and the belief that is implied in the statement that justifies Catholic belief in infallibility of papal authority.

One is that behind the teaching of President Woodruff is the understanding that there are Twelve living apostles with the keys of the kingdom, and those apostles are chosen by revelation through the Holy Ghost and then “proven” during the course of their ministry as an apostle, and preserved of course to live to be the prophet if that is God’s will for the particular needs that will be happening on the earth at the appointed time when they have become the senior apostle. This does not mean those who don’t outlive the others have been removed from their place–it means God has a plan for who will lead, and those leaders are united in making decisions and in understanding that the senior apostle becomes the president of the Church after the death of the prior prophet/president.

Another key difference is in the knowledge that the Holy Ghost guides the leaders by revelation, rather than saying “public revelation ended with apostles”–so there is no comparison between the Catholic belief and the LDS belief that is a one-to-one comparison on this point.

There is nothing in the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit that implies that God “forces” choices/beliefs/actions. But Parker will go on and insist that God forces Catholic leadership. And frankly I can’t really see how killing someone before they make a mistake is a good thing.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker:

…We are given free will to accept or reject, to which we have both exercized this gift. Christ did not say " I force you to believe!", but He did ask us in faith to accept His teachings and truth. He did say that He will always be with His Church until the end of the world.

JAVL,
That is another Biblical verse that has varying points of view about its meaning, but it definitely does not say nor imply “Catholic church”. The use of the word that was translated into the word “you” can be understood with its commonly understood usage, which means it has either one or a group of people who are being identified specifically and that group in that particular case was the apostles.

He also said that He will protect it against error and the snares and wiles of the devil. …

My point has been that He did not say that, and that He allows free will choice and His carrying out of His Father’s plan has included the perfectly planned allowance for free will choice;

that includes the allowance that the leadership of the apostles (including John, the last living apostle from His ministry) could be devalued by the leaders who should have been acknowledging John in his role as the holder of the first order of leadership on earth after the deaths of the other apostles.

No longer will you see through a glass darkly but will revel with joy and true peace in His and the Holy Spirit’s light. Shalom.

Shalom Aleichem

P.S. I pray constantly for your edification.

Peace to you also. If I were to place myself in seeing through the glass you seem to think I need to see through, then because of the knowledge given by the Holy Ghost already in my life, and the joy and peace that have accompanied that knowledge as I have lived the very gospel taught in the New Testament by Christ and the apostles, then I would be placing myself into the unenviable position of sinning against the witness of the Holy Ghost. This I would not do, of course.

(Note that I am not making an inference about anyone else–I am only speaking for myself and the knowledge that has been confirmed to me through the Holy Ghost as the perfect Testator and the perfect Witness to my spirit and my soul.)

My prayer for you is that you may be inclined not to use the two words that you used in post #671 about the Savior, who certainly knows what He is doing and knows the hearts of all men, but that perhaps you may learn from Jude 9 and allow that the Lord is in a different position to “rebuke” than are people like us, or angels like Michael. Therefore, the choice of words becomes very important in that our words reflect what is in our heart, and whether we may be judging harshly or rashly which would not be a good thing.

 

[ParkerD]

I think it so very critical that we understand the context of the words of Scripture, the events surrounding them, and know we share in the common faith and its development. It can’t always be a burning in the bosom…again, that is more personal and individual and can’t be applied when constructing doctrine and rules for Christ’s universal Church…

KathleenGee,

I suppose that with your long post, I owe you a response.

Anyone supposing to “construct doctrine and rules” for the church would absolutely be required to understand the “burning in the bosom” and that communication from God through the Holy Ghost, or they should not be “constructing doctrine”. They would have no business “constructing doctrine and rules…”

The KJV has quite different translations than yours for the Revelation of St. John the Divine, in the verses you quoted. You might read them, just for the sake of knowing that there is such a thing as different translations.

John prophesied of the falling away, and showed that it was happening as he wrote Revelation and his epistles. Here is a link to an excellent, detailed article that gives background on that subject, including explaining Revelation 13:7 where it is shown that the beast is allowed to “make war with the saints, and to overcome them…” but that it is a temporary situation before the restoration through “another angel fly(ing) in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,”… (Revelation 14:6)

(Note that the Bible doesn’t name the angel noted in Revelation 14:6. It is an erroneous notion that every angel having a purpose from God will have had their name specifically cited in the Bible.)

Here is the link:

lds.org/ensign/1984/12/early-signs-of-the-apostasy?lang=eng

Have a good day.

 

[Stephen168]

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth,
B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost
C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.
II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
A. No living Prophet

1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)
2. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
B. Doctrine must not change

1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
   2. Mormon Doctrines have changed
   
   a) Blood Atonement
   b) Adam-God theory
   c) Mark of Cain​
   C. Loss of Priesthood Authority
   1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority
   2. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing
      
      a) A sinful person does not lose his authority
      

      (1) King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon​

      ** 3. To lose Priesthood authority:
      a) Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority
      b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.**​

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Parker,

Stephen168 pretty much answers your post to me, so much better than I could.

Why is it that the Catholic Church cannot define doctrines in the face of heresy and errors among the faithful in the beginning church when there was no structure as such…

Yet Mormons can?

 

[KathleenGee]

To condense my post,

There was no apostasy after the death of the Last Apostle, St. John the Evangelist and we can know that by his writings in Revelation, especially the last, Rev 21 to end…

St. John the Evangelist defines the apostates. The Apostles’ successors do not fit in the category of those who do not enter the New Jerusalem.

St. John the Evangelist leaves us images of the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass, of all peoples, races, and tongues praising God in love through the Blood of the Lamb.

The unbloody, Daily Sacrifice must continue to atone for the daily committed sins of the world. As I stated on another post, in every local church, the bishop oversees all the souls under his care, and that includes non-Catholics, and the same for the parish pastors…they oversee the care of the souls for everyone inside their parish boundaries.

The Mass is being offered for every person in every part of the world for their sins. This tremendous act cannot be done by a 13 year old Mormon priest.

To be a Minister of Christ at the altar is a calling by Christ Himself. Christ HImself calls certain men to the priesthood, who do not marry for the sake of the kingdom. Celibacy itself was practiced by many in ancient times after great conversions to the life of Christ within. Many wanted nothing more than Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker,

Stephen168 pretty much answers your post to me, so much better than I could.

Why is it that the Catholic Church cannot define doctrines in the face of heresy and errors among the faithful in the beginning church when there was no structure as such…

Yet Mormons can?

KathleenGee,
I hope you’re having a great day. There was enough structure and guidance in the New Testament writings to know that the “doctrine” didn’t need to be “defined” beyond what was already taught by Christ and the apostles. It is simple enough doctrine. Learn to have faith, repent, understand free will choice, choose baptism for the remission of sins by authority, choose to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost to begin the process of sanctification and also do that through those who have authority, then stay on the path toward sanctification unto the “perfecting of the saints” and gaining the “fruits of the Spirit” and eventually gaining the promise of becoming “like Christ” through His atoning grace and mercy.

The doctrines Mormons teach are in the Bible itself.

They are Biblical doctrines, simple yet also leading to increased understanding along the path because that is what Christ promised and Paul and Peter wrote about.

 

[Stephen168]

Hi Parker,

Stephen168 pretty much answers your post to me, so much better than I could.

Why is it that the Catholic Church cannot define doctrines in the face of heresy and errors among the faithful in the beginning church when there was no structure as such…

Yet Mormons can?

I actually got this idea from a doubting Mormon. I just put it into an outline form because I think outlines make for clear thinking. His thinking was:
In order for Christ’s Church to require restoration there had to be a total and complete apostasy of the one he started 2000 years ago. The apostasy means a total loss of priesthood authority. The other reasons Mormons give for proof of an apostasy are really the result of the loss of priesthood authority, so authority is the key. Now what would it take, step by step, in detail, for my church (Mormon Church) to lose priesthood authority? The answer: Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority and at almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church. In other words it could not happen. So if it could not happen in the Mormon Church now, it could not happen 2000 years ago. No Apostasy, no need for the Mormon Church.

 

[ParkerD]

I actually got this idea from a doubting Mormon. I just put it into an outline form because I think outlines make for clear thinking. His thinking was:
**In order for Christ’s Church to require restoration there had to be a total and complete apostasy of the one he started 2000 years ago. The apostasy means a total loss of priesthood authority. The other reasons Mormons give for proof of an apostasy are really the result of the loss of priesthood authority, so authority is the key. Now what would it take, step by step, in detail, for my church (Mormon Church) to lose priesthood authority? The answer: Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority and at almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church… **

Stephen168,

Your doubting Mormon example had wrong concepts in mind in what you have expressed.

Loss of priesthood authority was an effect, not a “cause” of the “apostasy”. Priesthood authority is God’s to give, and God’s to take away–it is not man’s to assume or to re-create or to modify or to “copy”. Since it is God’s to give or to take away, then figuring out the “cause” is more important than figuring out an effect (among others) of the apostasy.

I linked an article earlier. I think it is evident that the “cause” was that the people were bringing their own traditions (including both Jewish traditions and some brought Greek philosophy) into the mix after they had become members of the church, and thus they re-did the very thing that the house of Israel had done with the gospel before the coming of Christ, their Messiah. The house of Israel during Old Testament times picked up the traditions of their neighboring peoples, and were called to repentance time and again for having done so.

Effects of that similar cause included disunity and disharmony, contention, doctrinal changes, and assertions of authority such as the inconceivable assertion that the apostle John was passed over for the leadership of the church on the earth when he was the last living apostle. (Is his name listed as a “pope”? No–he is passed over.) The loss of real apostolic authority, meaning living apostles among the people, was the “loss of authority” that is talked about since the keys to the priesthood needed to be on the earth in order for any priesthood authority to be legitimate. The authority must by definition and example of the New Testament, be recognized by God, sanctioned by Him, and supported by revelation through the Holy Ghost to any decision-making leader and to the living apostles.

 

[catholic-rcia]

This man is coming to our Parish in February. Here is the Holy Spirit:

God Bless
Rich

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,

Your doubting Mormon example had wrong concepts in mind in what you have expressed.

He was a Mormon so I’m not sure how wrong he could be, but let’s see.

I. Mormonism claims the Apostasy means:
A. There were no more living prophets/apostles to continuously reveal the truth,

The loss of real apostolic authority, meaning living apostles among the people, ………………….

B. Plain and precious truths (true doctrine) became subverted by human ideas and was thus lost

I linked an article earlier. I think it is evident that the “cause” was that the people were bringing their own traditions (including both Jewish traditions and some brought Greek philosophy) into the mix after they had become members of the church, and thus they re-did the very thing that the house of Israel had done with the gospel before the coming of Christ, their Messiah. The house of Israel during Old Testament times picked up the traditions of their neighboring peoples, and were called to repentance time and again for having done so.
Effects of that similar cause included disunity and disharmony, contention,** doctrinal changes,** and assertions of authority such as the inconceivable assertion that the apostle John was passed over for the leadership of the church on the earth when he was the last living apostle. (Is his name listed as a “pope”? No–he is passed over.)

C. The priesthood authority was gone from the earth.

………………was the “loss of authority” that is talked about since the keys to the **priesthood needed to be on the earth **in order for any priesthood authority to be legitimate.

Your ‘concepts’ seem to match. The reason ‘C’ is most important is because if you have ‘C’ you can change ‘A’ and ‘B’ as the Mormon Church has in its short history

II. The Problems with the Mormon claim:
A. No living Prophet

1. Christianity never claimed to have a prophet (single person receiving revelation for all Christendom)
2. Mormon Prophets don’t prophesizes.
B. Doctrine must not change

1. Define Doctrine – an article of faith revealed by God, which the Church presents to be believed. The most universal beliefs which reason would dictate can not change; beliefs of who God is and means of salvation for example.
   2. Mormon Doctrines have changed
   
   a) Blood Atonement
   b) Adam-God theory
   c) Mark of Cain​
   C. Loss of Priesthood Authority
   1. Every Mormon male has Priesthood authority
   2. Priesthood authority and leadership are not the same thing
      
      a) A sinful person does not lose his authority
      

      (1) King Noah had priesthood authority to give to Alma to baptize at the Waters of Mormon​

      ** 3. To lose Priesthood authority:
      a) Every Priesthood holder would have to not pass on their authority
      b) At almost the same time non-Priesthood holders take over leadership of the Church.**​

** In other words it could not happen. So if it could not happen in the Mormon Church now, it could not happen 2000 years ago. No Apostasy, no need for the Mormon Church.**

 

[onenow1]

JAVL,You have in another post another time said you believe Jesus grants to humankind free will choice, yet if He were to say “for the next two thousand years, I will not let church leaders go astray or lead the church astray” then that is making Him into one who forces His will. It is completely contrary to the gospel He taught while He was on the earth, and the gospel He taught through prophets and apostles…

Not at all Parker, the church leaders did, just as Jesus did in the garden.>>>Luke 22:42-43 “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.

The love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father is so evident here.

God Bless

 

[SteveVH]

Stephen168,

Effects of that similar cause included disunity and disharmony, contention, doctrinal changes, and assertions of authority such as the inconceivable assertion that the apostle John was passed over for the leadership of the church on the earth when he was the last living apostle. (Is his name listed as a “pope”? No–he is passed over.) The loss of real apostolic authority, meaning living apostles among the people, was the “loss of authority” that is talked about since the keys to the priesthood needed to be on the earth in order for any priesthood authority to be legitimate. The authority must by definition and example of the New Testament, be recognized by God, sanctioned by Him, and supported by revelation through the Holy Ghost to any decision-making leader and to the living apostles.

Parker, it is you and your church that limit authority to the Apostles and “pass over” those bishops duly ordained by the Apostles. Christ founded his Church upon Peter, not John. The same authority possessed by Peter was passed on to his successor by consensus of the bishops of the Church upon his death, but the office which was passed on was the Bishop of Rome. There was no requirement that this office be passed on to any other Apostle.

What is inconceivable is, assuming the office of “Apostle” was a requirement for authority and that such authority could not be passed on to a bishop for some reason, that the Church would not have paid very close attention to such an important matter and not immediately ordain another upon the death of any of the apostles, much less the last.
Your contention assumes that the single most important task facing the Church in order to continue in truth and authority was somehow overlooked. The Apostles did not all die at once in a plane crash.

The truth is that the authority of the Apostles was passed down to ordained bishops. It was the office of bishop that would carry on this authority and has to present. Christ new very well that his apostles would not live forever. Do you not find it a little strange that the Book of Revelation describes only the names of the twelve:

"The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:14)

Not dozens or hundreds of apostles, only twelve. Each of the Apostles held the office of bishop and that was the office passed down in succession, authority in tact. That office, including the Bishop of Rome, is legitimately possessed only by the Catholic Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

My statement is not as well defined, but I have been saying that if the Mormons could do it, then why not the Apostolic church???

When you ask for reference to when the Apostasy began and what was said, there really is no answer given. Just a sweeping statement that all was false until Joseph Smith’s findings…

 

[pablope]

Stephen168,

Your doubting Mormon example had wrong concepts in mind in what you have expressed.

IEffects of that similar cause included disunity and disharmony, contention, doctrinal changes, and assertions of authority such as the inconceivable assertion that the apostle John was passed over for the leadership of the church on the earth when he was the last living apostle. (Is his name listed as a “pope”? No–he is passed over.) The loss of real apostolic authority, meaning living apostles among the people, was the “loss of authority” that is talked about since the keys to the priesthood needed to be on the earth in order for any priesthood authority to be legitimate. The authority must by definition and example of the New Testament, be recognized by God, sanctioned by Him, and supported by revelation through the Holy Ghost to any decision-making leader and to the living apostles.

such as the inconceivable assertion that the apostle John was passed over for the leadership of the church on the earth when he was the last living apostle. (Is his name listed as a “pope”? No–he is passed over

Sorry to tell you Parker, but you are very shallow and narrow minded to base your reasoning of the failure of passing on priestly authority by the bypassing of John for being pope. Why is it inconceivable? So what if he was bypassed? Does that mean there was a loss of authority? No! See, in your looking for a reason to justify your position, you resort to such, and you are failing to see one the traits of John. He was humble and would knew what Jesus meant when He said Peter would be the Rock. Besides, before he passed away, he confirmed what was written in the first three gospels and wrote his gospel to supplement them. If he wanted to be pope, he would have expressed and wrote about it, but there is none in his writings or any other writings. He served the Lord in the way it was meant for him, to care for Mary. He was not after the glory of being pope, he was after serving Jesus in all humility.

You have not even come up with a logical reason for the apostasy, it is all based on conjecture, and it lives in your fantasy. If I am offensive, I apoligize in advance.