So, I'll be posting less often, now.

[2ndRateMind]

I'm sure some of you will be glad to hear that!

 

But I've discovered what I need to know. Let me say first, that I admire many things about the LDS faith. Particularly, I admire your sense of community. And, I admire the way you send your youngsters out into the world to challenge it's ways and beliefs, armed with nothing but their enthusiasm and a nameplate, incongruously titling them as 'elder'.

 

But I don't think I would make a good Mormon. The reason is this. Let us suppose X is things all Christians believe. Let us suppose Y is things only LDS people believe. Let us suppose Z is things only enlightened people believe. If I had the impression that X+Y=Z, then I would be inclined to lend more weight to your beliefs. But I don't get that impression.

 

What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.

 

So, I will continue to seek, elsewhere, though I may drop in from time to time, to see how you all are getting along.

 

With love, 2RM.

 

[Guest]

WHAT?  No more debates with 2RM?  How am I ever gonna survive this?  I'm gonna crawl back into bed and just be depressed now...

 

 

But seriously... there's a lot more than religion over here.  Don't abandon us!

[Guest]

Well, we are an industrious people who believe in self-sufficiency as much as is possible. It's not a core tenet of the Gospel, but it's an important part of what we believe makes us work to be better people than we were. So if that doesn't float your boat, happy trails and hopefully you'll find the truth you seek.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Eowyn

[Vort]

Like many other Europeans, you have the idea that government must be the vehicle to achieve what you call "social justice". Many Americans, especially conservatives, disagree. Latter-day Saints in particular believe that such actions must arise from the individual, not be forced by government (though a significant minority of Latter-day Saints agree with the governmentally imposed "social justice" idea).

 

I think your observations are wrong, and that you are hopelessly mired in your own prejudices and societal conditioning. But as I have pointed out in the case of others, my opinion and a dollar will buy you a dollar's worth of stuff.

[PolarVortex]

But I don't think I would make a good Mormon. The reason is this. Let us suppose X is things all Christians believe. Let us suppose Y is things only LDS people believe. Let us suppose Z is things only enlightened people believe. If I had the impression that X+Y=Z, then I would be inclined to lend more weight to your beliefs. But I don't get that impression.

 

I never did well in my religious algebra courses, but I think you might have the wrong operator.  It's X * Y = Z in my book, not X + Y. 

 

I've enjoyed your comments immensely, even though I tend to lurk in topics that set off my smoke detector.  Hope you come back often. 

[mordorbund]

 

What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.

 

So, I will continue to seek, elsewhere, though I may drop in from time to time, to see how you all are getting along.

 

With love, 2RM.

 

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:

 

What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.

 

James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.

 

And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.

 

What is the purpose of life?

Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?

What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.

What does it mean to be saved?

What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

[Palerider]

WHAT?  No more debates with 2RM?  How am I ever gonna survive this?  I'm gonna crawl back into bed and just be depressed now...

 

 

But seriously... there's a lot more than religion over here.  Don't abandon us!

Hey what she said.....:)

[Guest]

Like many other Europeans, you have the idea that government must be the vehicle to achieve what you call "social justice". Many Americans, especially conservatives, disagree. Latter-day Saints in particular believe that such actions must arise from the individual, not be forced by government (though a significant minority of Latter-day Saints agree with the governmentally imposed "social justice" idea).

 

I think your observations are wrong, and that you are hopelessly mired in your own prejudices and societal conditioning. But as I have pointed out in the case of others, my opinion and a dollar will buy you a dollar's worth of stuff.

 

I've been pinging back-and-forth with 2RM for a while now... I think people have been jumping to conclusions when he says things that sound like the American-labeled Class Warfare - to think that he seeks a governmental solution.  He is open to the idea but I don't think his philosophy requires that set-up.  I know it's easy to jump to that conclusion as Americans because that topic has been prevalent in American circles and it always has to do with politics.... but, from what I have observed of 2RM, he is not really talking about political justice but social justice.

[Leah]

 
What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.
 

 .

If you think Mormons are not compassionate, don't sacrifice for others, don't believe we are brothers and sisters beloved by our Heavenly Father, that we don't love our fellow men......then you either have serious comprehension skills or are simply refusing to see what is right in front of you. Or you had no intention of opening your mind to viewpoints other than your own.

If you are looking for a religion to tick every one of your pre-determined boxes of demands, I don't believe you are ever going to find that anywhere. That is not what religion is about.

If you are looking for the truth, however...... Edited December 13, 2014 by mirkwood
fixed quote tag

[Crypto]

I have a feeling many latter day saints will agree and believe with what you are looking for, but how they would try and achieve it will be very different.

 

 

I believe the gospel and this church provide what you are looking for. (Barring human fallibility and the fallen state of human nature, which individuals sometime make mistakes because of)

 

 

 

 

What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, [however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be.] I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.

 

I see this in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I hope you might consider stopping by in person and consider what is taught. You will find a variety of opinions that differ greatly. I have spent time in this church in other countries, where the views that many here on this board have expressed will be vehemently disagreed with, yet we all agree in the doctrines of Christ and it's redeeming grace. Well wishes on your journey forward, and I hope you find a community that you seek, and the truth that you desire. Fair travels.

 

I enjoyed some of your posts, and hope to see you stop by on occasion.

 

*Some advise as you continue your search, You might find additional enlightenment of ways people act and disagree yet still to achieve the same goal.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Crypto

[paulsifer42]

You've brought up some interesting topics.  I've had a good time posting and lurking in the threads.  If you find anything else that would start up a good conversation, I'll ask you post it.  Best o' luck to you.  Obviously, we disagree with the conclusion you've come to about us (or, at least some of us do), but, of course, that's from our point of view and not yours.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd suggest that developing a perception of Mormons based on debates you've presented in an online forum is an invalid method.

[Bini]

I'd suggest that developing a perception of Mormons based on debates you've presented in an online forum is an invalid method.

I wouldn't say it's invalid but you certainly would be wiser not to base your conclusion on this one experience alone. 

[askandanswer]

When it comes to seeking and finding divine truth, honest, humble, faith filled, sincere prayer, coupled with diligent, humble, faith filled scripture study will get you more in the way of spiritual understanding than participation in online discussions. (And I've always disagreed with the implied suggestion that you have a second rate mind  :) )

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks, all of you, with kind comments for me. I'm not at all sure I deserve them! But, I didn't say I was gone forever! You may have to put up with this particular piece of grit in the wheel for some time to come, even if I'm down in frequency.

 

Specifically @ Leah: I am sure you are right; that LDS people fulfill the commandments to love God, and love each other. My issue is: what extra do Joseph Smith's writings add to this? How is it that (to judge by the responses I have had here) the debilitating effects of poverty are acceptable, indeed, preferable, to, say, an affordable levy* on the rich to eradicate them forever? What does the book of Mormon have to say about this?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*The UN estimates 4% of the world's 225 largest fortunes 

[FunkyTown]

Thanks, all of you, with kind comments for me. I'm not at all sure I deserve them! But, I didn't say I was gone forever! You may have to put up with this particular piece of grit in the wheel for some time to come, even if I'm down in frequency.

Specifically @ Leah: I am sure you are right; that LDS people fulfill the commandments to love God, and love each other. My issue is: what extra do Joseph Smith's writings add to this? How is it that (to judge by the responses I have had here) the debilitating effects of poverty are acceptable, indeed, preferable, to, say, an affordable levy* on the rich to eradicate them forever? What does the book of Mormon have to say about this?

Best wishes, 2RM.

*The UN estimates 4% of the world's 225 largest fortunes 

That is a fair question, and I think I have a fair answer:

The world has a tendency to throw scraps of colored paper at issues even though it is not the lack of colored paper that tends to be the problem.

When there was massive starvation in Ethiopia, it was not due to a lack of funding. It was due to a lack of infrastructure because of a massive war.

When someone in the US goes hungry, it is not due to a lack of funding. In 2012, the US alone provided over £300 billion to various charities. There were 1.5 million people living below the poverty line. Even assuming only 3% went to poverty-based causes, that would still be over $2000 in food alone per person. That is very conservative, and that's with current existing numbers.

Canada allows thousands of tons of food(As do many first world nations) to go rotten every year so that farmers are paid a fair and living wage for their wares. Many still go bankrupt.

The issue isn't with money. Frankly, if you want to solve this problem, you need to address the lack of will and the failure of our current economy to address fundamental concerns over its ability to do the one thing an economy is supposed to do: Allow the free and easy movement of goods and services.

If all you do is take 4% of the worlds budget, you will change who is made rich and who will starve. That's it. Because it's not the money that's causing starvation and it isn't the money that is suffering from starvation.

What needs to change is the economy. What's the answer? I don't know. I haven't been able to come up with a better answer than the free market even with all the pain it causes. There has to be one, but it would take a better man than me.

Centralized wealth redistribution breeds corruption and political toadying, discourages innovation and has left whole nations starving under their ideology. The Free market is a wolf, taking down anyone it deems weak because that person does not have the friends and/or family to lift them up when they have fallen(For any reason at all). Centralized wealth redistribution is a fat tyrant giving gifts to all its friends and growing steadily fatter on the largess of workers until they're crushed under its corruption and bureaucratic bulk. Capitalism is a hungry werewolf whose only real advantages over the other is that it devours fewer people and forces those others to move faster.

There is a better way. But it'll take a better man than me to figure it out.

[Guest]

Thanks, all of you, with kind comments for me. I'm not at all sure I deserve them! But, I didn't say I was gone forever! You may have to put up with this particular piece of grit in the wheel for some time to come, even if I'm down in frequency.

 

Specifically @ Leah: I am sure you are right; that LDS people fulfill the commandments to love God, and love each other. My issue is: what extra do Joseph Smith's writings add to this? How is it that (to judge by the responses I have had here) the debilitating effects of poverty are acceptable, indeed, preferable, to, say, an affordable levy* on the rich to eradicate them forever? What does the book of Mormon have to say about this?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*The UN estimates 4% of the world's 225 largest fortunes 

 

Joseph Smith's revelations add to this immensely by proclaiming that there is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more to life than mortality.  So much so that this life here on Earth is really just a blip in the Plan of Salvation.  Nowhere else in Christianity do you see Pre-Mortal Existence taught.  Nowhere else in Christianity do you see Spiritual Progression in the after-life taught.  Nowhere else in Christianity do you see Eternal Families taught.

 

This is very important in the consideration of "levy against the rich" as a solution to poverty.  Or any solution to any of the mortal world's ills for that matter.

 

I was just watching Exodus: Gods and Kings over the weekend and Rameses in that movie yelled out at Moses, "Is this your God?  A God that kills infants?" and Moses responded, "No Hebrew infant was killed.".  And I'm like, c'mon Moses, this is the perfect time to have taught your borther that Mortal Life is just a phase in the Plan of Progression.  There is still a lot more progress to be made in the after-life and those infants lives were not nullified...

 

Anyway, we've been trying to explain this in your "debates" but I don't think you really considered them because it doesn't fit your world view.

[skalenfehl]

I'm sure some of you will be glad to hear that!

 

But I've discovered what I need to know. Let me say first, that I admire many things about the LDS faith. Particularly, I admire your sense of community. And, I admire the way you send your youngsters out into the world to challenge it's ways and beliefs, armed with nothing but their enthusiasm and a nameplate, incongruously titling them as 'elder'.

 

But I don't think I would make a good Mormon. The reason is this. Let us suppose X is things all Christians believe. Let us suppose Y is things only LDS people believe. Let us suppose Z is things only enlightened people believe. If I had the impression that X+Y=Z, then I would be inclined to lend more weight to your beliefs. But I don't get that impression.

 

What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense.

 

So, I will continue to seek, elsewhere, though I may drop in from time to time, to see how you all are getting along.

 

With love, 2RM.

 

I believe you would make an ideal Mormon. We all fall short. I know I do. But if we were truly practice what we believe, we would, as Moses taught in our scripture, have one heart, one mind, live in righteousness and have NO poor among us. We would as the Lord commanded us in our scriptures to have all things common, to live the law of consecration, to be equal in all our temporal things, this not grudgingly.

 

We would, as King Benjamin taught, not judge the beggars who put up their petition, for we are all beggars and undeserving of the greatest gift available to us all. We would impart of our substance according to their needs and wants and turn them not away. In the Bible, the rich man went away sorrowing because he would not do the final thing told him by Jesus Christ: Go and sell ALL that thou hast, give to the poor, then come follow Me. We must learn to abase ourselves to be ministers to others who are less fortunate than us just as Christ who is greatest among us, descended below us all to minister to all of us. 

 

There would be no idlers. We would buy milk without money and without price. There can be no price paid by us for Jesus Christ paid that price and only He had the power to do so. Please reconsider and not judge our faith according to our failings, but rather what the Lord has taught His covenant people in the scriptures, which are the standard of our truth. I invite you to study King Benjamin's words in the Book of Mormon, which are found in the Book of Mosiah chapters 2-5, but the key chapter is chapter four, here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4?lang=eng

[2ndRateMind]

So, we have two reasons not to save the world, by making the 225 richest of us 4% less rich than they were before.

 

@Funkytown, if I may paraphrase. It just wouldn't work. There are wars, and corruption, that would destroy the project before it could effect it's goals. Well, yes, there are wars. And yes, there is corruption. But, also, there are places where there are no wars, and corruption is not a major issue, and still poverty is rife. Why shouldn't we work with these places first, while we wait for the wars to end, and corruption to fail, as end and fail they must, if only because God has stamped on all our hearts 'I want justice'?

 

@Anatess. if I may paraphrase. It's because this world doesn't matter. The spirit world, pre and post mortem, matters more, and this world matters only as it affects the spirit world. Well, I admit this doesn't fit with my world view. So far as I am concerned, the spirit world matters only insofar as it affects this world. For me, this world is the world were good and evil conduct their campaigns, and what happens here determines whether good or evil will eventually triumph. We have the deciding factor, called love, those of us know it. But that love must be universal and impartial, or it is not love, just sentiment.

 

@Skalenfehl. I will get hold of a book of Mormon, when my budget allows!

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited December 15, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[skalenfehl]

 

@Skalenfehl. I will get hold of a book of Mormon, when my budget allows!

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Message me your mailing address and I will personally send you one as my gift to you. Or you can read it free online and/or download it on mp3 as I have done and listen to daily:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng

 

Downloading options are on the right. 

[FunkyTown]

 

So, we have two reasons not to save the world, by making the richest of us 4% less rich than they were before.

 

@Funkytown, if I may paraphrase. It just wouldn't work. There are wars, and corruption, that would destroy the project before it could effect it's goals. Well, yes, there are wars. And yes, there is corruption. But, also, there are places where there are no wars, and corruption is not a major issue. Why shouldn't we work with these places first, while we wait for the wars to end, and corruption to fail, as end and fail they must, if only because God has stamped on all our hearts 'I want justice'?

Oh, I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not saying that it will fail because of wars and corruption, I'm saying that the attempt to push through social justice from a centralized standpoint will cause wars and corruption.

If you want every man, woman and child to be fed - That's a laudable goal. But it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't require a centralized control. Centralized control allows the corruption in most people's hearts. Look at the most powerful nations in the history of the world.

How incorruptible were their leadership? How often did they use their ability to resolve issues to shore up their own power?

Rome. The British Empire. The United States. The Soviet Union. Babylon. Egypt. The various Chinese dynasties.

All had incredible power and a centralized bureaucracy behind them. All of them had powerful forces for good on their side - The Code of Hammurabi, the Mandate of Heaven, Social Justice, Civilization, Freedom - Their various rallying cries could have changed the world.

Men are, at heart, wicked creatures. If you want to change the world, you want to change the heart. If you did, then it wouldn't matter if it were government or charity that you had distributing needs. If you change the heart, the rest will follow.

It will require social evolution to achieve what you are looking for, not bureaucratic evolution.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I think that is fair comment. I would far prefer our richest 225 to come together, and use their undoubted skills, contacts, experience and resources voluntarily to end hunger, and people dieing out of poverty. But, failing that, I would not rule out a levy. And, failing that, it's for the rest of us to step up to the challenge, ideally voluntarily. But I think the world, as it is currently constituted, is skewed towards the interests of the richest 1 billion. Failing all voluntary resolutions, I would not be averse to seeing a legal reorientation towards the interests of the poorest 1 billion.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

 

Yes, I think that is fair comment. I would far prefer our richest 225 to come together, and use their undoubted skills, contacts, experience and resources voluntarily to end hunger, and people dieing out of poverty. But, failing that, I would not rule out a levy. And, failing that, it's for the rest of us to step up to the challenge, ideally voluntarily. But I think the world, as it is currently constituted, is skewed towards the interests of the richest 1 billion. Failing all voluntary resolutions, I would not be averse to seeing a legal reorientation towards the interests of the poorest 1 billion.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Perhaps there's a better way of doing that. It isn't the money that's the problem. Money is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As stated: Money isn't starving.

If people need food, perhaps you could start something easier. In England, there are allotments where people grow food together. There are "Earth Ships" where dependency on the local energy grid is minimized and output is maximized for their area. Best of all, most of it is made from recyled junk that people would pay you to take.

Have you considered that rather than depending on somebody else's wealth to change things, you could help people become self-sufficient?

For instance:

www.earthship.com

What if you pushed to have the local council(I believe you're British, correct?) allow those and you helped people build them? You would reduce dependency upon the government, the local energy grid, you would help reduce the need for public energy, which in turn would reduce the costs of ownership. They're simple, easy to maintain.

This is a concrete, simple step you could take tomorrow to help make the world a better place. Simply juggling numbers on a spreadsheet will not do that.

Of course, helping people build homes that would, in turn, allow them to become wholly self-sufficient and reduce poverty on a measurable scale is much harder work than simply passing a law, but helping people to be self-sufficient will change lives. Real lives.

Heck, if you're interested, I'd support you on that: Spend a few weekends packing sand in to recycled tires. Lay down solar panelling(Which the government is even now allowing tax breaks for).

That's just one idea. You remember the American ideal I mentioned? "Who plans for who? Do I plan for myself or leave the planning to you? We need plans by the many, not by the few." Making small, measurable, sustainable gains is the way to save the world.

[estradling75]

Yes, I think that is fair comment. I would far prefer our richest 225 to come together, and use their undoubted skills, contacts, experience and resources voluntarily to end hunger, and people dieing out of poverty. But, failing that, I would not rule out a levy. And, failing that, it's for the rest of us to step up to the challenge, ideally voluntarily. But I think the world, as it is currently constituted, is skewed towards the interests of the richest 1 billion. Failing all voluntary resolutions, I would not be averse to seeing a legal reorientation towards the interests of the poorest 1 billion.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

And it is only when you step away from the voluntary... and step into the coercive means do you run into problems with us.

 

Scripturally the LDS theology teaches that https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.25?lang=eng#24

 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

 

God has commanded us to have faith in him and help out our brothers and sisters and the other goals you have in mind.  Those are commands...  But the test for each individual is will they choose to follow.  If people don't have a choice in the matter then the whole plan of God becomes frustrated.

 

Now because God has given us a choice (For a purpose that he must deem wise) this creates a very real possibility of people choosing to hate, be mean, to withhold.

 

How does God respond to that?  In Moses 7 we read of the Lord Talking to Enoch about it.  I am going pick a few verses but you can read the whole thing here https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7.29?lang=eng#28

 

 29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

 

 32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

 

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

 34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

 

The problem that faces us with any of your ideas is the same problem God has...  What do you do with those that choose not to help?  God has options that we do not.

 

Should we kill those that disagree with us?

Should we jail them?

Should we rob them?

Should we cast them out?

 

Us mortals who are trying to do right by all of God's children, have neither the wit nor the wisdom to decide. If in our efforts to try to over come the disadvantage one group we have simply end up creating another (different) disadvantaged group then we have still failed.

 

This is not going to change until we have a Christ-like ability to deal with those that "Choose Different."  Now 2ndRate you have not even tried to address this fundamental issue.  The closest you have come is "If the majority votes for it"...  But if you think that majority equals fairness you must have never been in a minority position and watched as your rights, liberties, and property get taken away for the "greater good" 

[2ndRateMind]

I agree that we have we have freedom, God given. And that must involve the freedom to sin, if that is what we prefer, or our freedom is in name, only. I just feel that, in a civilised society, that freedom extends precisely up to the point where we harm someone else. And if I have an excess of wealth, and some child in Africa or Bangladesh or Colombia has none, and if the legal system upholds my right to that wealth, beyond that child's need for one square meal a day, then I think society has a right, indeed, a duty, to limit my freedom to sin, and uphold that child's best interests, and that legal system needs reform.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2014 by 2ndRateMind