First Vision: Did Joseph hallucinate?

[Dale]

MyDogSkip-It is merely a summary of the longer version in our official church history. The author who wrote the summary knows the account well. It does not in any way, nor was it written to suggest it was a hallucination. Anyone who is Community of Christ who reads that has read the fuller account. In missionary work sometimes one has to explain such things in brief as it is better for them to read the fuller account in brochure form.

I looked around our website and found other details of the vision taught. But any Community of Christ person like myself familiar with our history knows of the appearance of God and Christ to Joseph Smith. But any shortening of the telling of the story is not meant to deny the details of the vision. RLDS have historically felt God and Christ were two persons based on the testimony of Joseph Smith.

Though the church has after years of debating the Anti-Trinitarian view and creedal Trinitarianism officially favors a creedal view of God. But not being a creedal church we have persons like myself who favor the view God and Christ are two persons. But not mandating beliefs about God among our members we have had persons among our members and leaders who have favored the two different ideas of the Godhead. Though i do not think the above presentation you cited has anything to do with our toleration Trinitarianism. Rather it was done to simplify things for persons new to the vision.

Another problem we have is we get Evangelical Anti-RLDS material. The First Vision a clear part of our heritage gets attacked. And some persons new to the content of the vision can get upset over the content. People don't like to hear the ministers Joseph smith was aware of were corrupt for example. I am not sure whether these considerations went into how to tell the Joseph Smith story.

To be clear whether one likes how the author told the story the First Vision is officially a recognized part of our official history. It just seems some prefer to tell, or share more or less of the story in missionary work based on personal preference. I myself would prefer to make a copy of that to give to a non-member prior to getting them a longer account.

I am not certain of Book of Mormon historicity myself. At one point early in the 20th century skepticism of the Book of Mormon historicity was rampant in the LDS Community. The book was not used very much in discourse, or gospel instruction. A book i have by FARMS entitled Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited mentioned that. (pg.2)This does not mean i am not open to it being inspired by God. I am only open to the books historicity based on what i think is solid evidences for its antiquity in books by FARMS. But among more liberal Community of Christ they think FARMS is intellectually unsound based on the thinking of liberal scholars they read.

I am more conservative on Book of Mormon historicity. And i have hung out and debated historicity with our more liberal members. To me the book just can't be true on the surface. I can find truth in any number of religious texts. But with the Book of Mormon if the book is not even possibly historical it is a product of a 19th century scam. While i do not feel belief in its historicity should be mandated i see a need for that belief. To me Joseph Smiths reliability veracity as a prophet stands or falls on its historicity.

But being a church where common consent governs the church has come to favor the non-historical view. This was done as a result of our leaders grappling with seemingly insurmountable evidences for modern not ancient origins. I myself favor LDS Scholar Blake Ostlers idea the book has many 19th century things in it. But that it still has enough things of antiquity in the text to be accepted as ancient. Someone not aware of such evidences, or worries such evidences are phony in my church based on my experience tends to favor only the non-historical view. I know this because i link to his research with members of my church who hold that view and they tell me this.

[Guest User-Removed]

I strongly agree with Jolly here on the use of the word "hallucination." They call it a "vision" and I believe using the word "hallucination" is derogatory. Our opponents do the same thing to us by carefully selecting words that have a very negative connotation even if they are close to accurate. Let's not follow their example.

You're free to have your opinion...the facts speak for themselves, the Community of Christ has reduced the First Vision down to nothing more than a young boy's "auditory hallucination"

Thanks to others on this thread, it has been pointed out where they've gone further astray.

Those who long to nuance their apostasy are welcome to do it, but I suspect JSIII is turning in his grave over what McMurrey and Veazey have done and continue to do...

[Guest User-Removed]

MyDogSkip-It is merely a summary of the longer version in our official church history. The author who wrote the summary knows the account well. It does not in any way, nor was it written to suggest it was a hallucination. Anyone who is Community of Christ who reads that has read the fuller account. In missionary work sometimes one has to explain such things in brief as it is better for them to read the fuller account in brochure form.

Though the church has after years of debating the Anti-Trinitarian view and creedal Trinitarianism officially favors a creedal view of God.

I am not sure whether these considerations went into how to tell the Joseph Smith story.

To be clear whether one likes how the author told the story the First Vision is officially a recognized part of our official history. It just seems some prefer to tell, or share more or less of the story in missionary work based on personal preference. I myself would prefer to make a copy of that to give to a non-member prior to getting them a longer account.

Dale...Feel free to nuance it all you want. Others on this thread have pointed out where the Community of Christ has "apostasized" from the views of The Prophet Joseph..and even those of the succeeding Smith sons and brothers.

I have a friend, who had a relative who was a Counsellor to Israel Smith...He's fond of calling the Community of Christ...the apostates of the apostates. He clung to one sect after the "revelation" giving women the Priesthood.

He told me once, that in his view the Prophet Joseph either was a Prophet called of God...or he was the greatest Con Artist of his day.

He prayed and fasted for many years, before deciding that one could be a "Josephite" in a "Brighamite" world. He and his wife were recently called to the Mission Field. When we talk, which isn't often anymore he's grateful for the Book of Mormon and for the promises contained in it. He's proud of his families history in the Restoration, the Reorganization...and in the fact that he discovered that the true Gospel will always have a home for those who sincerely seek it...as he did.

Dale...The Book of Mormon is true...It's message is as valid for us today as it was to the people of its day. Joseph Smith is and was a Prophet called of God to restore his Gospel in these latter days. Joseph LITERALLY saw God the Father and his son. There is no trinity, I believe in your heart of hearts you know that. Veazey and his posse are stealing your doctrine and your faith. They've sold you out to the National Council of Churches for a mess of financial pottage to satisfy themselves....

[bytor2112]

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless? Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me. Josephs prayer opened Heaven once again and a flood of truthwashed away alot of confusion.

[Guest User-Removed]

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless? Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me. Josephs prayer opened Heaven once again and a flood of truthwashed away alot of confusion.

It doesn't make "sense"...but it does make "cents" particularily when those cents add up to dollars from the National and World Council of Churches...

[rameumptom]

Everyone, I hope we will stop attacking other religions and faiths. Do I disagree with many of the teachings of other religions, including the CoC? Of course I do. And I am glad to vigorously debate those issues. But some of the discussion here is getting down to plain insults.

I've known Dale on the Internet for quite a few years, including at the MADB/FAIR boards. He's very fair to the Brighamites in his discussions, and we should show him just as much consideration back, even if we disagree with some of their beliefs.

Heck, even Dale seems to disagree with some of the CoC beliefs, such as he believes the Father and Son are separate beings. Let's not denigrate the man nor the religion, though we can definitely discuss issues where we separate.

The reality is, each of us is in an apostate state. Insofar as we are separated from the presence of God, we are in a fallen state. Even in the LDS Church, people believe in many wrong beliefs and ideas that could be considered apostate. Much of it is due to ignorance. Much of it is due to not having all the revealed truth necessary to know for certain.

Even prophets and apostles have had mistaken beliefs in the past, such as believing that the Native Americans' primary DNA ancestor was Lehi. That doesn't make the gospel false. It does make that teaching untrue, and requiring revision through new light and truth.

I agree that the CoC has steadily been leaving their Josephite roots. It is a big concern to me that they no longer stress the Book of Mormon, which Joseph taught was the keystone of the religion. It concerns me that other big changes have occurred that seem more political than inspired.

But you know what? Others could say the same thing about the Manifesto on Plural Marriage and on the Priesthood Revelation. Were those divine or political decisions? Or both?

I will say that unless the CoC changes course, they will eventually reduce Joseph Smith to a charismatic, Billy Graham-like preacher, rather than a prophet. The early prophecies will become less and less important, as they embrace traditional Christianity. And as they do, more and more of the Josephites will abandon the CoC and embrace their roots, whether by joining the LDS Church or beginning a new Mormon sect. Either way, in 20 years, the CoC probably will not be a Restorationist religion any longer.

[nannysherri]

I am in complete agreement with Rameumptom, the gospel of the Saviour is of love. People have a right to their choices and no I don't agree with other teachings. Insults though are not in teachings of the Spirt and it will leave in acts like these.

[Guest User-Removed]

Everyone, I hope we will stop attacking other religions and faiths. Do I disagree with many of the teachings of other religions, including the CoC? Of course I do. And I am glad to vigorously debate those issues. But some of the discussion here is getting down to plain insults.

I've known Dale on the Internet for quite a few years, including at the MADB/FAIR boards. He's very fair to the Brighamites in his discussions, and we should show him just as much consideration back, even if we disagree with some of their beliefs.

Heck, even Dale seems to disagree with some of the CoC beliefs, such as he believes the Father and Son are separate beings. Let's not denigrate the man nor the religion, though we can definitely discuss issues where we separate.

The reality is, each of us is in an apostate state. Insofar as we are separated from the presence of God, we are in a fallen state. Even in the LDS Church, people believe in many wrong beliefs and ideas that could be considered apostate. Much of it is due to ignorance. Much of it is due to not having all the revealed truth necessary to know for certain.

Even prophets and apostles have had mistaken beliefs in the past, such as believing that the Native Americans' primary DNA ancestor was Lehi. That doesn't make the gospel false. It does make that teaching untrue, and requiring revision through new light and truth.

I agree that the CoC has steadily been leaving their Josephite roots. It is a big concern to me that they no longer stress the Book of Mormon, which Joseph taught was the keystone of the religion. It concerns me that other big changes have occurred that seem more political than inspired.

But you know what? Others could say the same thing about the Manifesto on Plural Marriage and on the Priesthood Revelation. Were those divine or political decisions? Or both?

I will say that unless the CoC changes course, they will eventually reduce Joseph Smith to a charismatic, Billy Graham-like preacher, rather than a prophet. The early prophecies will become less and less important, as they embrace traditional Christianity. And as they do, more and more of the Josephites will abandon the CoC and embrace their roots, whether by joining the LDS Church or beginning a new Mormon sect. Either way, in 20 years, the CoC probably will not be a Restorationist religion any longer.

No one here has "attacked" Dale...or even the Community of Christ, unless you feel that my statement about them being finance by the NCC and WCC is an atack?

Having a salient discussion over points of doctrine does not an insult make. I'm glad you have encountered Dale all over the cyber world. My limited experience with him has been nothing but positive. Having said that, I'll stand by my view that he has nuanced the issue and in nuancing...has not been intellectually forthcoming with us.

Having said that, I've seen no one disrespect him...any accusations as such I feel are simply a red herring designed to castrate any further discussion...

[Guest User-Removed]

I am in complete agreement with Rameumptom, the gospel of the Saviour is of love. People have a right to their choices and no I don't agree with other teachings. Insults though are not in teachings of the Spirt and it will leave in acts like these.

I have yet to see the insults or the attacks...at least upon Dale....

[HiJolly]

No one here has "attacked" Dale...or even the Community of Christ, unless you feel that my statement about them being finance by the NCC and WCC is an atack?

Having a salient discussion over points of doctrine does not an insult make. I'm glad you have encountered Dale all over the cyber world. My limited experience with him has been nothing but positive. Having said that, I'll stand by my view that he has nuanced the issue and in nuancing...has not been intellectually forthcoming with us.

Having said that, I've seen no one disrespect him...any accusations as such I feel are simply a red herring designed to castrate any further discussion...

Your response disgusts me, MyDogSkip. Yech.

HiJolly

[Guest User-Removed]

Your response disgusts me, MyDogSkip. Yech.

HiJolly

Well..Since I refuse to crawl down to your level Jolly...I think it's time to close this thread...You got your way...

[HiJolly]

Well..Since I refuse to crawl down to your level Jolly...I think it's time to close this thread...You got your way...

Insulting me won't make you look any better, MyDogSkip.

HiJolly

[VisionOfLehi]

Let's cool it a bit.

What I want to know is why it's wrong to call it a vision?

We call it the First Vision. We label it a vision, what's wrong with treating it as such?

I think all agree, either way, that it was absolutely Divine.

[Misshalfway]

My biggest doctrinal concern from the CoC snippit is what it leaves out! Like the true nature of God and the separateness of the Father and the Son and the fight he had with Satan. Not to mention the specific nature of the answers he received from the almighty.

It feels like a big watering down effort.

[VisionOfLehi]

When I was taught the First Vision by the missionaries there was no mention of the fight with Satan, and it wasn't the Vision account, but the lesson, that made it clear they were 2 separate beings.

I didn't learn about him being attacked by Satan before the prayer until an institute lessons months after my baptism that was actually about Moses (the same thing happened to him.)

I don't like that it leaves out the fact that the Father and the Son actually appeared. "healing presence of God" and "forgiving mercy of Christ" are not the same thing as them actually appearing.

But it's still not inaccurate.

[MrNirom]

Here is my opinion.. for what it is worth.

Since The RLDS Church or Community of Christ rejected plural marriage, the progression of the Church and many other things (including the first vision).. they are small in number and now virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

[rameumptom]

Let's cool it a bit.

What I want to know is why it's wrong to call it a vision?

We call it the First Vision. We label it a vision, what's wrong with treating it as such?

I think all agree, either way, that it was absolutely Divine.

It isn't wrong to call it a vision. I think the big problem comes in the CoC statement from it being extremely brief, to the point of not giving out any information. One does not get from it that Joseph Smith saw anyone in particular, vision or not. We see that he experienced something, but the sublime portions of the vision are left out.

Then again, the 1838 version Joseph gave us also leaves some things out. There is evidence from other versions that other angels were witnessed, for example. And the attack from Satan is more descriptive in some of the earlier versions.

The LDS Church doesn't dwell so much on Satan's attack, because the focus is on the fact that God appeared to Joseph. However, we do not hide that information, as we hand out Joseph Smith Testimony pamphlets and have it in our Pearl of Great Price for anyone to read.

Interestingly, the early Church did not emphasize the First Vision until after 1838, perhaps a decade or so later. Their focus was the testimony of the Book of Mormon and the angel (Moroni) coming to present the plates and the new revelations. Sad that any Restorationist Church would lose its focus on these two great and amazing experiences.

[VisionOfLehi]

I think if you're going to take a bone with something, it's not the First Vision account, but this statement (From their site):

God

The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit. God is the Eternal Creator, the source of love, life, and truth. God actively loves and cares for each person. All things that exist owe their being to God who alone is worthy of our worship.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is "God with us," the Son of God, and the living expression of God in the flesh. Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, and rose again. The nature, love, and purpose of God are most clearly seen in Jesus Christ, our Savior

Which, to me, doesn't seem that strange or unusual. We have to remember, though our roots are the same, the LDS and CoC Churches AREN'T the same. We've had different history, and have accepted different doctrine.

To hang your head in shame, or accuse them of waywardness, is just uncouth.

The Light is in all religions, this one not excluded. I think we should emphasize that they are our brothers and sisters, and that they're more likely to understand our beliefs than many other churches.

Build bridges, don't stomp on the cracks in old ones.

[Guest User-Removed]

I think if you're going to take a bone with something, it's not the First Vision account, but this statement (From their site):

Which, to me, doesn't seem that strange or unusual. We have to remember, though our roots are the same, the LDS and CoC Churches AREN'T the same. We've had different history, and have accepted different doctrine.

To hang your head in shame, or accuse them of waywardness, is just uncouth.

The Light is in all religions, this one not excluded. I think we should emphasize that they are our brothers and sisters, and that they're more likely to understand our beliefs than many other churches.

Build bridges, don't stomp on the cracks in old ones.

No one is burning bridges...nor attempting to break big rocks into little rocks...

I'm am though, contantly amazed at how you and others will bend over backwards for "other faiths"...but will smack around all things LDS...On another thread...this site has allowed folks to smack around the Roman Catholic faith...and little to nothing has been said...

[MrNirom]

Then again, the 1838 version Joseph gave us also leaves some things out. There is evidence from other versions that other angels were witnessed, for example. And the attack from Satan is more descriptive in some of the earlier versions.

You know.. I got married the other day. When I was talking to my sister about it.. I knew she liked details.. So I told her all the things I could remember.. How my wifes eyes sparkled etc.

When I spoke with my Brother.. telling him about the ceremony.. I did not include all the same details. I knew that my Brother wasn't interested in that.

Now if I wrote down these two accounts.. people would wonder if I am talking about the same ceremony.

Joseph did the same.. he adjusted the story.. or the details.. depending on who he was talking to.

Make sense? He learned over time.. that people did not respond well to the "all the churches are an abomination" and so he did not offer that detail... or toned it down a bit. Maybe he noticed that people got turned off.. when he mentioned the evil spirit that overcame him... and so.. he decided not to mention that part when telling the story.

Each time someone tells a story.. it is really never the same when you are speaking to different crowds.

[HiJolly]

You know.. I got married the other day. When I was talking to my sister about it.. I knew she liked details.. So I told her all the things I could remember.. How my wifes eyes sparkled etc.

When I spoke with my Brother.. telling him about the ceremony.. I did not include all the same details. I knew that my Brother wasn't interested in that.

Now if I wrote down these two accounts.. people would wonder if I am talking about the same ceremony.

Joseph did the same.. he adjusted the story.. or the details.. depending on who he was talking to.

Make sense? He learned over time.. that people did not respond well to the "all the churches are an abomination" and so he did not offer that detail... or toned it down a bit. Maybe he noticed that people got turned off.. when he mentioned the evil spirit that overcame him... and so.. he decided not to mention that part when telling the story.

Each time someone tells a story.. it is really never the same when you are speaking to different crowds.

Good example!

HiJolly

[Maureen]

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless?

I suspect the Trinity does not make sense to you is because you don't actually know what the Trinity doctrine is.

Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me.

He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)

I think it is quite obvious that the Son (Jesus, 2nd person of the Trinity) was praying to the Father (1st person of the Trinity). I don't see how that is so difficult to understand.

M.

[rameumptom]

The problem with the Trinity is that NO ONE can understand it. It is by definition a mystery.

Too many "Trinitarians" do not believe in the Trinity, but in modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as heresy. Modalism is easier to understand. The description Maureen gives is a balance between a Trinity and modalistic viewpoint. Most I've spoken with, however, give modalist descriptions.

John 17:3 tells us that eternal life is to know the Father and the Son. How can we know them if by definition, the Trinity is "unknowable" and "incomprehensible."

For my mind, I must logically be able to understand what and who God is, or I could never know him for salvation's sake. This is why the Calvinists are convinced it will be a limited atonement, because we cannot know God, except he forcibly changes us into one of his chosen (free will is not an option).

[Dale]

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless? Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me. Josephs prayer opened Heaven once again and a flood of truthwashed away alot of confusion.

With the Trinity idea don't misunderstand it as saying Jesus prayed to himself. Jesus the man was praying to God. And within the divine being three distinct centers of personal consciousness exist. So the distinct parts of God are aware of the other parts.

The idea of three separate beings does not fit the historic mono-theism of the current version of the Old Testament. (Deut.6:4:Isa.43:10) Try as i might i cannot see the 2nd person in the Godhead as claiming to be anything in the Old Testament , but what would make himself the very same Father he prayed to. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 merely expands upon the one God concept to treat the one God the Father and one Lord Jesus as the same Old Testament God.

With the Book of Mormon in Ether 3:15 it has a pre-incarnate spirit form for Jesus. The text left some ambiguity intact as it does not say the Father had similar spirit form. Certainly from my study of the Book of Mormon i do not get the idea they felt God and Christ were separate beings. They never taught more than one God. They never taught God the Father has a body, but only the Father we now know as Jesus now having a body. Though the text does make distinctons within that being they considered God that can fit the Trinity idea or the idea of distinct beings.

Joseph Smith can indeed see the personage of the Son in the First vision. Though his personality has to if they are one God as in the Trinity idea not be separate from the Fathers. In the Trinity idea a part of God is in Jesus created spirit form and physical body , but not the whole being of God. God in the Trinity idea as to his being is supposed to be everywhere present. But i do not see the idea of Joseph Smith seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision as contradicting the idea of the Trinity. Only Gods omni-present spirit part has to be uncreated and omni-present, and it would not prevent God from having adding to Jesus uncreated personality a pre-incarnate form.

As a member of the Community of Christ following the teaching of the 1835 Lectures on Faith see the Father as a personage of spirit. The lectures was published by the church in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Through common consent of our members in the RLDS Church we kept that above teaching. In the 1890's we held the idea of the plurality of Gods officially as an idea of man. We had some members that favored a bit of the idea and a decision needed to be made about it. Based on literal readings of Psalm 90:2 and Isa.43:10 we felt a need to teach only one uncreated God that never became God. By affirming that idea we rejected any idea that the Father can be seen with a physical body. We never interpreted the First Vision as Joseph Smith seeing two supreme Gods with bodies as that would conflict with Biblical mono-theism.

The RLDS who favored the idea of distinct persons in God simply equivocated on Jesus Deity. By doing that it was felt possible to make the Father alone the true and only supreme God Joseph Smith saw in his vision. It gave Jesus Christ the title of God, but did not make him more than one God which we felt would conflict with Book of Mormon teaching. So a book i have by an member of my church said Joseph Smith saw two personages in his vision but not two Gods. (Godhead V.H. Fisher, reprinted by Restoration Bookstore) Though i recall the same book calling Jesus a God as one of the Godhead.

The idea of Joseph Smith seeing a personage may, or may not preclude a Trinitarian idea of God. The Father could have assumed temporary form for the occasion. He could have also had created for himself a spirit form like was created for the pre-incarnate, pre-mortal Jesus. None of what i know about what he saw requires me to believe God had a beginning as God, or was once a man. Feeling Joseph Smith turned apostate in Nauvoo we just do not base our ideas of God on his King Follett sermon, or his speculative writings LDS later canonized with their edition of the D.&C. We felt such ideas did not clearly fit our canonized scripture so never got mixed up in such ideas as part of our official teaching.

Our difficulty was that the scriptures do not equivocate on Jesus Deity. Since we rejected some of Joseph Smiths later ideas as being of man, or the Devil we had to make a theological decision. We aready rejected the ideas i mentioned above that originated in the Nauvoo period of church history. To me if one wishes to hold God and Christ as two beings, but not to supreme Gods one has to equivocate on Jesus deity. But if your testimony becomes that such equivocation is improper when compared with the scriptures it only left us with the option of the Trinity idea. The only other option we felt that we rightly rejected through our study of the scriptures would be embracing a basic plurality of Gods idea.

With my church we have leading critics of our church like Ed Decker, and Hank Hannegraff who accept us as Trinitarian. To me although i favor the idea of the Father and Son being distinct persons i see wisdom in my leadership teaching the Trinity. It then wisely leaves room for having common ground with other Christians in atleast that one area. LDS can't get critics like we do who consider us almost Christian. LDS always through having to be different about God through that idea make God an easy target for Anti-Mormon mocking. My church through our views of God hardly if ever get our beloved God mocked.

Though Anti-RLDS critics try and say Joseph Smith through error about God could not have earlier been a true prophet. Though i do not see Deut.13:1-5 as precluding a true prophet from getting into other Gods later in life. The plurality of Gods idea teaches a different God than Moses would have considered his only God he knew about.

[VisionOfLehi]

The idea of three separate beings does not fit the historic mono-theism of the current version of the Old Testament. (Deut.6:4:Isa.43:10) Try as i might i cannot see the 2nd person in the Godhead as claiming to be anything in the Old Testament , but what would make himself the very same Father he prayed to. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 merely expands upon the one God concept to treat the one God the Father and one Lord Jesus as the same Old Testament God.

No, but it fits very well with ancient Jewish knowledge.

I've done some looking up on Trinitarianism. Probably not enough, but it still doesn't fit. There's no reason for God to exist in three personalities or consciousnesses like that. There just isn't.

It's nice to think about, and it's one way to try and reconcile Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but it doesn't make sense. I'm a pretty good abstract thinker... but it still doesn't fit. It seems more like a concept designed to please more people, and to keep them from asking too many questions (back in the day, anyway.)