The "oneness" Of The Father And Son

[a-train]

Dr. T, PC, Maureen,

So, it sounds to me that there is virtually NO difference between your view of 'what' God is and the LDS view.

The differences are not what or who God is, but they come with what God HAS (the Father having a corporeal body in the LDS view), and perhaps God's history (the Father HAS endured human life as the Son in the LDS view). The LDS would take: 'The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise' (John 5:19) quite literally.

As far as Jesus of Nazereth is concerned, it sounds like the LDS view and yours are the same.

As far as the Holy Spirit goes, likewise.

On the 'oneness of God', again, it seems likewise.

Would this be correct?

Now help me out here. Is there an appropriate term, or terms, that I should understand that will differentiate this view of the Godhead, from the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three manifestations of a single Being? LDS usually use the term Trinity to describe the latter, but more and more I see that this would be incorrect. Any help on that?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Yes - that's what Constantine thought - but he wasn't even Christian... but he did threaten to kill those Christians, including Bishops, that didn't agree with him. Needless to say, they agreed with him.

That is one interpretation of the events surrounding Nicea. Some historians will agree, and certainly LDS scholars, such as Dr. Robinson. Of course, the other view is that, whatever the manueverings that might have taken place at that Council, the results were ordained of God, and remain Orthodoxy for nearly every sect of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

[prisonchaplain]

Dr. T, PC, Maureen,

So, it sounds to me that there is virtually NO difference between your view of 'what' God is and the LDS view.

My understanding is that God is absolutely, essentially one, but in three distinct persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three persons alone are eternal, having never been created. There has never been, nor will there ever be any other God or god. Further, that the Father has always been what he currently is, and iwll always be. Likewise, the Son has always been God. With the incarnation he did take on humanity as well, and retains his flesh. Likewise, with the Spirit--eternal, unchanging.

Additionally--and this helps us see the distinction in God's nature--humanity is finite, having been definitely created at our conception. Thus, we are not eternal, and can never become what God is. We will surely be glorified, we will understand as God sees--we will become godlike. But we remain forever his grateful creation, and He our God.

By saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not merely distinct persons, but really having separate natures--in essence, three gods in one godhead, there is the appearance, in our view, and indeed in the view of some LDS thinkers, of polytheism.

Now help me out here. Is there an appropriate term, or terms, that I should understand that will differentiate this view of the Godhead, from the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three manifestations of a single Being? LDS usually use the term Trinity to describe the latter, but more and more I see that this would be incorrect. Any help on that?

-a-train

"Monarchial Modalism," or more popularly "Jesus Only" is the latter view. It is most commonly found in the United Pentecostal Church, and is considered a heresy by trinitarians. To put the difference real simple:

Trinity = God as three in one.

Modalists = God as one in three.

LDS: God is three in three, working together as one.

Hopes that helps.

[a-train]

By saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not merely distinct persons, but really having separate natures--in essence, three gods in one godhead, there is the appearance, in our view, and indeed in the view of some LDS thinkers, of polytheism.

OK, now this is over my head. What are we talking about when we say 'seperate natures'? If I understand, you are saying that the LDS position holds that they possess 'seperate natures', but the Trinity view does not. Help me out here. What are we talking about?

Now, can Modalism be considered a form of Trinity? I think a lot of people say Trinity (both LDS and non) when they really mean Modalism. Do you find that to be common?

OK, also: 'essentially one' What are we talking about there? I have heard 'of the same essence' or 'of one essence', but I guess I don't know what that means. In conjunction with that, I have also heard 'of the same substance'. Perhaps you could help me here as well? I initially think: 'Isn't all of mankind made of the same substance, or substances?' Perhaps the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are made of a substance that only God is made of? Man of one substance, fish of another, giraffe of another, God of another. Am I even in the ballpark here?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Modalists, Oneness Pentecostals, "Jesus Only"--these folk all openly deny the Trinity. They say that Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit--that the one God, one person, manifests himself in three ways.

Perhaps a way of understanding God as one essence is to know that LDS theologians deny it. They inform us that God is three essences, one purpose. They do so, because, if both the Father and the Son have bodies, it would seem nonsensical to claim that they were one essence. However, if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are alone in their eternal nature, and only the Son became flesh--then they could be one essence, since their spirits remain as one.

It might help further to understand that Trinitarians are fanatic in our claim to also be monotheists. It is with honor that we count ourselves amongst the world's three great monotheistic religions. We become flustered when Jews and Muslims question our claims. Objectively, academics do include Trinitarians under the banner of monotheism.

Amongst LDS, I've found authors like Stephen Robinson, who seem to want to keep the monotheism identity. Yet others, here, have found it an unnecessary and burdensome label, arguing instead that polytheism is true, but that LDS are monotheistic in their worship of the Godhead.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yes - that's what Constantine thought - but he wasn't even Christian... but he did threaten to kill those Christians, including Bishops, that didn't agree with him. Needless to say, they agreed with him.

That is one interpretation of the events surrounding Nicea. Some historians will agree, and certainly LDS scholars, such as Dr. Robinson. Of course, the other view is that, whatever the manueverings that might have taken place at that Council, the results were ordained of God, and remain Orthodoxy for nearly every sect of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.

Well no PC - it is not an interpretation of events, it is a matter of historical record. Constantine, a mass murder, killer and non-Christian, called convened and conducted Nicea. I don't know what Robinson says but history says that he participated in the proceeding and was in fact the one who proposed the "essence" theory - homoousious. Constantine held very strong views that the Church was subordinate to himself and tells us "my will must be considered binding." Constantine backed up his dominance over the Bishops by demanding, under threat of exile and even death that all accept the rulings that came out of his council.

Now you may believe that God used such a evil pagan to bring about the creed that described His nature, and in fact define orthodoxy, but that idea has absolutely no basis in historical or provable fact is is purely a matter of belief and belief only. On the other hand, as I mentioned, the events described above are simply a matter of history.

[a-train]

Modalists, Oneness Pentecostals, "Jesus Only"--these folk all openly deny the Trinity. They say that Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit--that the one God, one person, manifests himself in three ways.

OK, this I can understand.

Perhaps a way of understanding God as one essence is to know that LDS theologians deny it. They inform us that God is three essences, one purpose. They do so, because, if both the Father and the Son have bodies, it would seem nonsensical to claim that they were one essence. However, if the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are alone in their eternal nature, and only the Son became flesh--then they could be one essence, since their spirits remain as one.

This, I am still not getting. What is 'essence'? If I understand, you are saying the LDS position of individual bodies for the Father and Son respective would be contrary to a statement that they are 'one essence', but I don't know why or how. If we say the Father and Son are 'one essence', what ARE we saying?

Amongst LDS, I've found authors like Stephen Robinson, who seem to want to keep the monotheism identity. Yet others, here, have found it an unnecessary and burdensome label, arguing instead that polytheism is true, but that LDS are monotheistic in their worship of the Godhead.

Certainly, LDS persons believe they are 'monotheistic'. However, the term seems to carry different meanings with different people and is therefore ambiguous in this regard. The universal understanding and use of the term is perceived as both impossible and relatively low in importance by many therefore. If by definition, 'monotheism' says that there can be only a single Divine Being, then only the Modalists would be true monotheists among Christians. I can therefore see the Islamic complaint.

I personally see no need for us (LDS) to spend too much effort in defining the LDS theology one way or the other. Not that I don't see the need to understand God, but that I don't see any need to reconcile our understanding of God to one term or the other. You see?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Snow: You've driven me to a corner of having to research. I'll have to start with my notes from Christian Tradition...so I'll get back with you on Constantine's role as a Christian/pretender and his influence on the Nicene Creed.

Atrain: You may have answered this discussion, inadvertently. Reconciling LDS beliefs with monotheism is simply not important to you. I would suggest that such is the view of your Church institutional, as well.

On the other hand, Trinitarians strongly insist that we are believers in the one true and living God. We would shout with Jewish fervency the schema (Dueteronomy 6:4): Hear Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (my paraphrase).

As for what it means to say God is one essence, all I can do is offer a synonym and another contrast. Trinitarians believe that God is three persons, one being. LDS teach that God is three beings with one purpose, and that it is the Father who receives primary adoration (if I've understood correctly).

[a-train]

As for what it means to say God is one essence, all I can do is offer a synonym and another contrast. Trinitarians believe that God is three persons, one being. LDS teach that God is three beings with one purpose, and that it is the Father who receives primary adoration (if I've understood correctly).

Uh oh, now I am totally lost again. Now this 'one being' has me back to Modalism. Are we saying that the 'Three Persons' of God are all the same Individual living as three distinct persons simultaneously? I don't see the difference here from Modalism. Or, are we saying that this 'one being' does not mean a single consiousness, but a single existance (if that makes any sense)? Would this simply mean the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the only eternal? In otherwords, would the Trinity therefore include Ex Nihilo in its definition, saying the only thing that is eternal is the Trinity itself? Perhaps I'm totally out of bounds right now.

I can certainly see the difference between Modalism and the LDS view, but the Trinity has me baffled. Most of the time I am unable to even see any difference between the Trinity and the LDS view (so long as the Trinity does not include Modalism and I still wonder if a great deal of Trinitarians are Modalists unaware).

What can I put my finger on to really differentiate the Trinity view from the LDS view that will not suddenly imply Modalism?

-a-train

[shecker]

I don't know about you all, but I was taught that 'according to the first vision of Joseph Smith Jr.'

God, the father; and Jesus Christ ,the son; each have a body but they are in complete agreement, or WILL and MIND, about the Plan of Salvation, the reason for the creation of this world and many like it. And if I am not mistaken, we agreed to this plan. If any one cares to check, I believe they will find that in the Jewish scriptures Genesis begins with the phrase "In the beginning the Gods...." I could be wrong here but not about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s First Vision. SHARON

[Dr T]

Hi Sharon,

I don't know if you've read the other posts in this thread but that is the differences in our understanding of God the Father "having a body" or "being a spirit."

[prisonchaplain]

Well no PC - it is not an interpretation of events, it is a matter of historical record. Constantine, a mass murder, killer and non-Christian, called convened and conducted Nicea. I don't know what Robinson says but history says that he participated in the proceeding and was in fact the one who proposed the "essence" theory - homoousious. Constantine held very strong views that the Church was subordinate to himself and tells us "my will must be considered binding." Constantine backed up his dominance over the Bishops by demanding, under threat of exile and even death that all accept the rulings that came out of his council.

Now you may believe that God used such a evil pagan to bring about the creed that described His nature, and in fact define orthodoxy, but that idea has absolutely no basis in historical or provable fact is is purely a matter of belief and belief only. On the other hand, as I mentioned, the events described above are simply a matter of history.

I found this great intergrative essay, written circa March 1995, by one known here as PC. In it I rediscovered a Council of Nicea that was indeed influenced politically by Constantine. However, it was also riddled with regional strife, with competition between religious leaders, and, of course, with serious doctrinal and theological debate. I concluded then as I do now that God worked through fallen humanity, and ordained the winners. Romans 13 commands us to obey government authorities, saying they are ordained by God. Paul had in mind, not Bush, not H. Clinton or Romney, but an occupation Roman empire--one with paganism as an official state religion! If God could ordain that, he could use Constantine and contentious bishops, cardinals and theologians.

Uh oh, now I am totally lost again. Now this 'one being' has me back to Modalism. Are we saying that the 'Three Persons' of God are all the same Individual living as three distinct persons simultaneously?

These three individuals are the same GOD, living as three distinct persons, simultaneously.

I don't see the difference here from Modalism. Or, are we saying that this 'one being' does not mean a single consiousness, but a single existance (if that makes any sense)? Would this simply mean the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the only eternal? In otherwords, would the Trinity therefore include Ex Nihilo in its definition, saying the only thing that is eternal is the Trinity itself? Perhaps I'm totally out of bounds right now.

You may be on to something here--especially with the last portion. Trinitarians almost universally assume that creation is ex nihilo, and would indeed argue that only God is non-creation and eternal.

What can I put my finger on to really differentiate the Trinity view from the LDS view that will not suddenly imply Modalism?

-a-train

Trinitarians believe that God is three in one, not one in three, and not three working together as one. That, and there distinction as the only eternal non-created beings.

[a-train]

Wow,

Thanks. I think I'm getting somewhere.

So I read some wiki on the Trinity and on Modalism and some others including Unitarianism. Trinitarianism would say that God is a Single Divine Being simultaneously living as three seperate individuals. Modalism says that the one Divine Being changes modes and at one time or another acts as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

Now, would Trinitarianism say that God has a single consiousness or multiple consiousnesses? Or do Trinitarians claim to know either way? Another way to ask this is: How does the Trinity address the seperate wills of the Father and Son manifested in 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42) I guess I am extra baffled at how the Modalists answer that.

And, I still have another question though. Why would a body for the Father be problematic for the Trinity? If the One Divine Being is capable of simultaneously living three seperate lives, could He not have multiple distinct bodies? Perhaps the answer would be that He could, but He doesn't? But, you said it would be nonsensical so perhaps there is something preventing multiple bodies that I don't see yet.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

I would guess that God is three counsciousnesses--since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

By the way, if you wish to study modalism's view of the godhead, primary sources are the best. See the following:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp

If the Father and Son had separate bodies it would seem silly to say that they were one essence, one being. They would indeed be entirely separate, only working together for corporate purpose.

[Snow]

I found this great intergrative essay, written circa March 1995, by one known here as PC. In it I rediscovered a Council of Nicea that was indeed influenced politically by Constantine. However, it was also riddled with regional strife, with competition between religious leaders, and, of course, with serious doctrinal and theological debate. I concluded then as I do now that God worked through fallen humanity, and ordained the winners. Romans 13 commands us to obey government authorities, saying they are ordained by God. Paul had in mind, not Bush, not H. Clinton or Romney, but an occupation Roman empire--one with paganism as an official state religion! If God could ordain that, he could use Constantine and contentious bishops, cardinals and theologians.

Yes - it is possible that God decided to specify his nature, contrary to early teachings in the Church through the machinations of a murderous fiend, just a it is possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls where stored up by an ancient cult of prophetic Nazis - it just isn't very reasonable to so believe. God is a God of order, not chaos. If God wanted to reveal something important, he would do it through his duly appointed servants, not a pagan.

I'll open a new thread on the matter.

[Traveler]

We can blame the lack of clarity on knowing the “oneness” of G-d on the ancient Hebrew word “ehad”. The problem is that ehad has dual meaning, one singular and the other plural. According to the experts the determination of the interpretation of ehad is context. Simply put the meaning of ehad is always determined by the context in which it is used. And the use of the word ehad cannot by itself determine plural or singular context.

I have learned that this issue can be debated till h--- freezes over with no real resolution. I have yet to see debate settle this issue. I believe there is historical precedence to no solution through debate. The very reason for the Trinity Creed was to end the discussion based on debate and force the upper hand in the issue. The momentum of this spirit of force generated in the creed has resulted in awful tertiary in the dark debatable Christian rule of Constantine, Theodosius and Charlemagne.

Traditional Christian rule survived for hundreds of years in religious bigotry and violent prejudice. It was not until 1649 that any Trinitarian Christian society passed a law or attempted by force of law to prevent murder in the religious name of G-d. Putting someone to death for refusing to be converted to a particular Christianity ideology was considered an act of Faith and a defense of the faith or contending for the faith according to interpretation of scripture. It was not until 1829 before any law was passed to protect, in a traditional Trinitarian Christian society, a non-Trinitarian view of G-d from being deprived of home, possessions and life.

At this point I would honor those Trinitarian Christians that through a change of heart are willing to apologize for the awful history of abuse of those that would disagree with the Trinity Code. Somehow, I am convinced that this type of effort of reconciliation is far more effective than debate – at least it is far more convincing to me.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

If the Father and Son had separate bodies it would seem silly to say that they were one essence, one being. They would indeed be entirely separate, only working together for corporate purpose.

Interesting idea. Does not a Kingdom imply corporate purpose to which we also should be "one" if we expect to live peaceably there?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Yes - it is possible that God decided to specify his nature, contrary to early teachings in the Church through the machinations of a murderous fiend, just a it is possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls where stored up by an ancient cult of prophetic Nazis - it just isn't very reasonable to so believe. God is a God of order, not chaos. If God wanted to reveal something important, he would do it through his duly appointed servants, not a pagan.

I'll open a new thread on the matter.

So, what if we found out that a coalition of anti-Mormon ministries were going to support Romney for President, based on his social values. Would we then oppose Romney because of the people backing him?

First, Constantine did not author the Nicene Creed, he supported the position that was already dominant. Second, infidels endorsing truth does not detract from that truth. Isn't that what Jonah taught us?

Interesting idea. Does not a Kingdom imply corporate purpose to which we also should be "one" if we expect to live peaceably there?

The Traveler

The Kingdom is God's. You seem to be suggesting that God himself is a kingdom. There are many citizens united in God's kingdom. There are not many gods united in the Godhead. That, of course, is imho.

BTW: Traveler is certainly right that atrocities have been committed throughout history, in the name of religion and ideology. Trinitarians, being a large camp, have committed our share, to be sure. Such was wrong, and the history does indeed bring shame to Jesus. Christianity was born in persecution, not power. When we got power, we handled it poorly.

Your point does not so much stand as a condemnation of trinitarians, but rather as a defense of my signature line. :-)

[Snow]

]

So, what if we found out that a coalition of anti-Mormon ministries were going to support Romney for President, based on his social values. Would we then oppose Romney because of the people backing him?[/

First, Constantine did not author the Nicene Creed, he supported the position that was already dominant. Second, infidels endorsing truth does not detract from that truth. Isn't that what Jonah taught us?

Bad analogy.

Constantine not only presided at the council, he participated in the deliberations and proposed a key part of it.

Further, he said that his will must prevail and threated those that did not agree. Beyond that, he personally appointed bishops to be bishops.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Interesting idea. Does not a Kingdom imply corporate purpose to which we also should be "one" if we expect to live peaceably there?

The Traveler

The Kingdom is God's. You seem to be suggesting that God himself is a kingdom. There are many citizens united in God's kingdom. There are not many gods united in the Godhead. That, of course, is imho.

I am implying that G-d's kingdom is corporate in which the oneness is defined and established. But at the same time you are correct. The oneness within the corporation of the Kingdom - If that defines G-d; then it would also apply to all that are one within that corporate purpose hold equal shares. Or in other words if it is the oneness of the corporate and seperate entities is that defines G-d then all that are one - must by defination share or hold title to that corporate - or they are not one G-d.

BTW: Traveler is certainly right that atrocities have been committed throughout history, in the name of religion and ideology. Trinitarians, being a large camp, have committed our share, to be sure. Such was wrong, and the history does indeed bring shame to Jesus. Christianity was born in persecution, not power. When we got power, we handled it poorly.

Please understand I am not trying to condemn any individuals or any Christian doctrine. All that I am saying is that prior to 1829 I cannot find record or any Trinitiaran Society that made any effort to allow any non Trinitarian belief or religion exist within their society.

I do understand that there are some since then - for which I am both thankful and greatful. I also find it rather odd that this date coinsides with the LDS restoration. I am also wondering if you can help me in my research and provide a society that offered protection within their society for those that did not wish to believe in the Trinity. I can find all kinds of bad examples up until 1829 - Are there no good examples in over 1500 years of history? I am looking for something here - if anyone knows. Now I do realize that ideas were evolving - but we are talking about the teachings of Jesus - These ideas should not evolve that much - I don't think.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I may delve into this question at some point. However, I'm not sure how virtuous it is for a Church, or religious society, to shelter heretics within their ranks. Burnings at the stake are wrong, of course. However, "coming out from amongst them and being separate" is sometimes the only course.

As I said previously, my own church, in 1917 more or less removed spiritual protection from non-Trinitarians. The result was a schism within pentecostalism. The ration of that schism today is probably similar to that of the COJCOLDS vs. the other Joseph Smith-believing sects.

IMHO both my church and yours approach heretics appropriately--we do not physically attack them, but we do not bless them with membership either.

[a-train]

I would guess that God is three counsciousnesses--since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

By the way, if you wish to study modalism's view of the godhead, primary sources are the best. See the following:

http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp

If the Father and Son had separate bodies it would seem silly to say that they were one essence, one being. They would indeed be entirely separate, only working together for corporate purpose.

OK,

Now for the personal question. How did you personally come to believe the Trinity rather than Modalism, Unitarianism, etc.?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

I came to believe in the Trinity the way most come to believe in their faith--through church education and mentoring. We had our Foundations of Faith class in 7th grade. Ironically, I firmed up my understanding by reading Christian apologetics books in my teen years. In seminary (grad. school) my study of church history strengthened my beliefs.

Christian faith and doctrinal formation are compelling to me because they are not "too neat." We have flawed personalities, and sometimes even our greatest heroes stumble badly. (As FYI, one of the founding leaders of the Assemblies of God strayed into the Oneness movement for a couple of years).

Ultimately, I find the doctrine Scripturally supported, historically enduring, and containing enough that is easily understood with that element of mystery that strikes me as very much in line with the way God often works--showing us great miracles and truths, yet allowing us to move about in the midst of much that is unknown and unseen.

[a-train]

Another question:

How important is it to you that one would understand the specific doctrine of the Trinity? In other words, if a man is a humble and devout believer in Christ, but cannot decide whether he believes the Trinity or otherwise, is it necessary that he come to a conclusion before meeting the LORD? Is it OK for him to say: 'Whether they be one or three, I know not, but I intend to be faithful and obedient and when I arrive in His Presence I shall know.'?

Also, If it is possible that the Trinity may by Three distinct Persons having distinct consiousnesses, could the Person of the Father possess a body as also the Son? You said this would be nonsensical, but why is it so?

-a-train

[Traveler]

Traveler, I may delve into this question at some point. However, I'm not sure how virtuous it is for a Church, or religious society, to shelter heretics within their ranks. Burnings at the stake are wrong, of course. However, "coming out from amongst them and being separate" is sometimes the only course.

As I said previously, my own church, in 1917 more or less removed spiritual protection from non-Trinitarians. The result was a schism within pentecostalism. The ration of that schism today is probably similar to that of the COJCOLDS vs. the other Joseph Smith-believing sects.

IMHO both my church and yours approach heretics appropriately--we do not physically attack them, but we do not bless them with membership either.

Thank you PC for your comments. You state, with much conviction that heretics living among us should not be burned at the stake. You recognize that even the idea of harsh treatment based of religious doctrine is somewhat foreign to Christ. I am glad that you say that publicly - and I agree. But what I am asking is - when in history did this thought seem to take hold in traditional Christian societies - in practice?

Jesus turned the world of his day upside down with his concept of the Samaritans. To the Jews there were no worse heretics than the Samaritans and when asked who was a neighbor to the Jews he give the now famous parable of the Good Samaritan or dare I say the kind heretic?

Jesus never suggested that we accept the doctrinal deviations of the Samaritans but that we should allow them to live among us and to even care for them as we do those of our own faith during their hour of need. I really believe that Jesus was trying to teach us that we are closer to the “oneness” of G-d when we behave as did the good Samaritan (heretic) than we may think we are by forcing (even correct) doctrine down the throats of the unbelievers.

I was once told by a Muslim that I could live very happy and comfortable in a truly Islamic society with my religious beliefs. So I asked him if there was such a Islamic society where I could go and live today. He said he knew of none.

I responded that in my travels I had found a few places – and interestingly enough those few places are societies of the very poor. I spoke in another thread of blessings. Of all that I have ever known of wealth only my father I knew to be happy – and he lived as though he was poor.

The Traveler