Single adults and law of chastity

[Red]

True marriage is in the temple under authorization. In most countries one can just go to a magistrate and pay a few dollars for registration and the marriage is done and the church accepts it.

This part bOthers me bc it's not true entirely. The church doesn't wholly accept an LDS couple being married without going through the temple "first." Case in point, friends of mine who did nothing to violate church standards were married civily because the man was a convert. He had been a member for a year, yet because they married civily because of his non-member family and elected to go through the temple after the ceremony, they were denied the temple recommends needed to go in and were told they had to wait a year. They didn't even realize this would happen until after the fact. What difference does their obtaining a piece of paper and having a civil ceremony make on the "worthiness" to enter the temple? Nothing. They were as worthy as anyone else I've ever known but denied it because they had a party before and a piece of paper that says they're married?

[Matchmaker]

I agree with Spaced Out that if one breaks the Law of Chastity and drives away the Holy Spirit, he or she will pay, pay, and pay for it, in one way or another, for a long time to come. If I ever find myself single again, I don't think I will risk dating, unless it is a group date or a visit to Church or the temple - no more close dancing or date movies for me. I'd rather stay single than risk my membership again.

Contact or skin hunger is real though and creates its own set of problems. I remember once when I was a single middle adult, with no children of my own, and no living parents, close friends, or siblings in the area, I went years without touching another human being - not even hugs or handshakes. It was its own kind of hell, and one most married men and women can't relate to.

Is the HG REALLY driven away? Or is the fear created by the church the real feeling we experience? In my experience, it was the church that created the ill feeling, not the absence of the HG.

From what I understand, the Holy Spirit will not dwell within an individual who is willfully, and in some cases rebelliously, breaking the commandments.

[Rose Garden]

No, they are different from member to member, and completely okay for temple worthiness.

The law of chastity is clear.

I don't believe it is. Is it no sexual intercourse outside of marriage or no sexual relations outside of marriage? If it's no sexual intercourse outside of marriage does that mean pretty much everything else is acceptable? Oral sex, petting, making out, just so long as you don't actually put a penis and vagina together? If it's sexual relations, what constitutes "relations?" Where do you draw the line? Is kissing okay? How about massages? At what point do you break the law? These are questions I was constantly exposed to growing up and for which the answers were very unclear. No one wanted to spell things out.

I haven't read the manual, but what if "no sexual relations outside of marriage" simply means don't commit adultery? It's like the Oxford comma, there's meaning in interpretation. Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma.

That's one hell of a comma.

[Red]

I was curious about what the "manual" actually said. After reading it, I began to realize how thoroughly American the text was. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of different cultures and I began thinking that the manual is simply a reflection of purist American ideology. Makes sense though, the church was founded in America. So then I did some reading on the church in Europe. While I have not spoken to many European members, the ones I do know don't fuss over semantics the way Americans do. What I read, though, indicated that Americans are puritan prudes because European LDS (and I would imagine African and South American) aren't bothered by nudity. Different things I read said that when European LDS watch conference, they typically acknowledge that a lot of the comments made are directed toward kids going to BYU or American LDS in general. They comment that it's extremely difficult to find long shorts or sleeved tops and so usually they just forgo the standard. I've always known Americans to be ridiculously prude, but apparently even European LDS aren't even bothered by the nudity in their surroundings. They have a different attitude toward the body. Except America, most countries don't sexualize the body. It's only a body. It's only sexual if you MAKE it sexual.

[JohnnyL]

I was curious about what the "manual" actually said. After reading it, I began to realize how thoroughly American the text was. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of different cultures and I began thinking that the manual is simply a reflection of purist American ideology. Makes sense though, the church was founded in America. So then I did some reading on the church in Europe. While I have not spoken to many European members, the ones I do know don't fuss over semantics the way Americans do. What I read, though, indicated that Americans are puritan prudes because European LDS (and I would imagine African and South American) aren't bothered by nudity. Different things I read said that when European LDS watch conference, they typically acknowledge that a lot of the comments made are directed toward kids going to BYU or American LDS in general. They comment that it's extremely difficult to find long shorts or sleeved tops and so usually they just forgo the standard. I've always known Americans to be ridiculously prude, but apparently even European LDS aren't even bothered by the nudity in their surroundings. They have a different attitude toward the body. Except America, most countries don't sexualize the body. It's only a body. It's only sexual if you MAKE it sexual.

Yes and no. It's a typical excuse, but it sure hurts the church, its members, and investigators--seen it many times. Open up the classified ads from 20 years ago in a big city newspaper, you'll find likely 7 pages on sexual seekers.

[zionminded]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

[JohnnyL]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

Marriage is not the panacea, but it is the only way, even for nonmembers--it's still the law of chastity, a commandment of God, and one that brings blessings by obedience and cursings by disobedience. You won't find peace by breaking it.

[Serragon]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

[zionminded]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

[Red]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

Zionminded, I agree with you, I was just showing my agreement in a different way.

[Sarah]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

[Finrock]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

[Sarah]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

I don't fully understand it myself, but anytime the Lord gives a man the opportunity of offering his gift - the marriage offer or ordinance, - the Lord in essence "gives" that woman to that man. I say this because in one of my Truman Madsen videos, he makes the point that in one of the revelations given to Joseph (and I'm not sure which one that is), Joseph is told by the Lord that He has "given" Emma to Joseph to be his wife. Truman Madsen then says that this shows how marriages are "made in heaven." But did the Lord just hand over Emma? No, she had her own freedom to choose to give herself to Joseph, so I look at it like this - If the Lord says you are free to marry a woman and give yourself to her, and then the woman also gives herself to you, the Lord has essentially given you your wife. So Joseph was given these women in the sense that he was given authorization to marry them. All the men in and out of the Church at that time who did not have permission by the Lord to take more wives were not given wives as gifts from the Lord, but took what they felt they deserved. So one is selfishly motivated, and one is motivated by love for the Lord.

[Sarah]

In the Lord's eyes, the behavior itself is not so much a moral issue, but the motivation behind the behavior is more important and what essentially makes something right or wrong, moral or immoral. That's why I kept disagreeing with Amonhi in some of his threads, because I felt like he was trying to say that some behaviors are always going to be immoral, and our real test is to see if we stand up to God when he commands us to do an immoral act. This is not the case. Sex for instance is a specific behavior, but in one instance it is good, and another it is bad. What makes it bad is if selfishness is the motivation behind it. And if you are having sex outside of marriage, even if both of you "love" each other, that still is selfish because you are taking something that is not authorized for you to have. God has told us when we can give and receive sexual intimacy, and that is only within the bounds of marriage. If you obey that command you are showing love to God. If you don't obey his command then you are acting selfishly. And then within marriage, you have the choice to have sex with selfishness as your motivation, or with the motivation to love your spouse. The man has the greater test here, because he has to come to realize that if he is having sex at the expense of his wife - expecting her to sacrifice for him - he too is being selfish.

Taking a life is a behavior. I think you can argue that both God the Father and Jesus engaged in this behavior with the death of Jesus. They both could have stopped it from happening but let it happen, and actually Jesus was laying down his life to fulfill the will of his Father. But it was all motivated by love, and that makes the behavior holy. We learn that Abraham and Issac probably had all the same feelings. It was the ultimate sacrifice to give up one's own life or the life of your child to demonstrate love.

[brianj]

This part bOthers me bc it's not true entirely. The church doesn't wholly accept an LDS couple being married without going through the temple "first." Case in point, friends of mine who did nothing to violate church standards were married civily because the man was a convert. He had been a member for a year, yet because they married civily because of his non-member family and elected to go through the temple after the ceremony, they were denied the temple recommends needed to go in and were told they had to wait a year. They didn't even realize this would happen until after the fact. What difference does their obtaining a piece of paper and having a civil ceremony make on the "worthiness" to enter the temple? Nothing. They were as worthy as anyone else I've ever known but denied it because they had a party before and a piece of paper that says they're married?

It depends on where you live. In some countries (United Kingdom, New Zealand, maybe others) will not permit marriages to be solemnized within a temple. In those areas the church allows people to go to a temple to be sealed within 24 hours of their marriage or they have to wait one year. And there are even exceptions to this rule. I understand that if a couple marries and one of the two hasn't been a member for a year, they can be sealed once that person hits their year mark.

It wasn't always like this. In the 1960s the church enacted the current policy as a way of encouraging sexual purity and worthiness amid the moral decline of that era. Before then you could get married outside of the temple and be sealed after your honeymoon, though many chose marriage within a temple. It's an imperfect solution, but it was enacted with divine approval as a way to encourage us to remain worthy. The gospel is perfect, but the church isn't perfect. It is an imperfect entity run by imperfect people, but it will help us become perfect.

And don't think I'm some kind of fan boy regarding this policy. I am a convert, the only member of my family to accept the gospel. I would give almost anything to be able to have a marriage ceremony in a nice location, even on the grounds of a temple, then go inside and be sealed. That way my wife would be sealed to me immediately and my family and friends could be in attendance. When the immorality of homosexual marriage was forced upon the nation I heard people speculate that one day the church might be forced to either marry gays or lose their authority to conduct marriages. In response to that idea I thought, "That's terrible, but I hope it happens."

[gkearney]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

[brianj]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

[gkearney]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

[Lizzy60]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

A young man marrying a convert just did that in my ward. I don't know how "secret" they kept the temple sealing, but the day after they were sealed, the Stake President officiated their marriage in our ward building. Both families seemed very happy about the arrangement.

[brianj]

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

I don't think this approach will work. Keep the sealing private and you will upset the temple worthy relatives who think they have a right to be present. And I totally understand that position. It is hurtful to parents who are not church members to be denied access to their child's marriage over something they don't understand, and it would be just as hurtful to the parents who do have temple recommends to be denied access to their child's sealing when they know that the sealing is the real marriage and a subsequent ceremony is just theater.

If I were getting married and I had the money, I would absolutely insist on being married in New Zealand. Take an overnight or weekend trip to Ottawa or Calgary (staying in separate hotel rooms, of course), go to the New Zealand embassy or consulate, acquire your marriage license, then fly with both families to Auckland and make everybody happy with a public marriage and a subsequent sealing. And, as an added bonus, if you charter say 20 or more seats between a US gateway and Auckland an airline would probably give you a pair of upgraded seats for the newlywed couple. Of course, buying a bunch of seats and hotel rooms, probably also having a few guests expect you to cover the cost of their rental car, passports, and food, is cost prohibitive to probably 90% of the population or more. And then, if you are from a big church family or marrying into one, then you'll have another 200 people who are upset you didn't also fly them out.

Under the current policy, no matter what you choose you just plain lose unless every invited guest has a temple recommend.

[Ezra]

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

I don't think this approach will work. Keep the sealing private and you will upset the temple worthy relatives who think they have a right to be present. And I totally understand that position. It is hurtful to parents who are not church members to be denied access to their child's marriage over something they don't understand, and it would be just as hurtful to the parents who do have temple recommends to be denied access to their child's sealing when they know that the sealing is the real marriage and a subsequent ceremony is just theater.

If I were getting married and I had the money, I would absolutely insist on being married in New Zealand. Take an overnight or weekend trip to Ottawa or Calgary (staying in separate hotel rooms, of course), go to the New Zealand embassy or consulate, acquire your marriage license, then fly with both families to Auckland and make everybody happy with a public marriage and a subsequent sealing. And, as an added bonus, if you charter say 20 or more seats between a US gateway and Auckland an airline would probably give you a pair of upgraded seats for the newlywed couple. Of course, buying a bunch of seats and hotel rooms, probably also having a few guests expect you to cover the cost of their rental car, passports, and food, is cost prohibitive to probably 90% of the population or more. And then, if you are from a big church family or marrying into one, then you'll have another 200 people who are upset you didn't also fly them out.

Under the current policy, no matter what you choose you just plain lose unless every invited guest has a temple recommend.

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

[brianj]

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

A marriage isn't just between the man and woman. It's between families, and families should be involved. Within the LDS church we have never been taught that husbands and wives exist independently. They are each sealed to their parents and their children are sealed to them. A sealing doesn't just join two people, it joins two families. Therefore the families should be able to attend, assuming they are worthy. The cold hearted attitude you express would be very divisive.

[Ezra]

Or you could just not care about the world or worldly aspects of getting married. You know those vain and foolish traditions of our fathers.

A marriage is between a man and woman not for the world and everyone in it.

People call it a shotgun wedding. And I could care less what they call it Or feel about it. A wedding Is not for them. Its to commit to someone's significant other.
If that couple decided to share that with others. Others should be glad about it. If they don't. Tuff. Waaaah. Want me to call you the wambulance. Or do you need some tryactin? Tryactin like a man?

It's ridiculous to live your life in fear of what others think.

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

A marriage isn't just between the man and woman. It's between families, and families should be involved. Within the LDS church we have never been taught that husbands and wives exist independently. They are each sealed to their parents and their children are sealed to them. A sealing doesn't just join two people, it joins two families. Therefore the families should be able to attend, assuming they are worthy. The cold hearted attitude you express would be very divisive.

You didn't understand what I'm saying.

Modern marriages have become a monster. Spending $1000s of dollars on it. People go into debt to pay for a fancy wedding.
That's the vain and foolish tradition of our fathers. Not the marriage. And if 2 people being sealed in the temple upsets others. It's not their responsibility to make them happy.
No one no matter what they do can make someone eles happy unless that person chooses to be happy.
You can only beat your head on a wall for so long befor it starts to kill you. It's a futile effort to try to make other people happy. And if your looking outward to find happiness you will never find it.
That's the real problem. People don't know where to find happiness. They look to others, to wealth, to status, to belongings to the action of others. They look everywhere except the only place they can find it.

So it's not harsh to say if it upsets them they can get over it.

If you ever find yourself accusing others of being selfish. You are being selfish to make that accusation.

[shadow]

If marriage is a vain and foolish tradition I wonder why Joseph Smith stated that marriage "should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose." (Times and Seasons vol 3 p 939)

You should quote the rest so everyone knows he wasn't referring to an eternal marriage.

"According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

It's also important to note that there was no Temple at that point, it was being built. It was also a response to the secret wivery Bennet was teaching.

[Finrock]

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

I don't fully understand it myself, but anytime the Lord gives a man the opportunity of offering his gift - the marriage offer or ordinance, - the Lord in essence "gives" that woman to that man. I say this because in one of my Truman Madsen videos, he makes the point that in one of the revelations given to Joseph (and I'm not sure which one that is), Joseph is told by the Lord that He has "given" Emma to Joseph to be his wife. Truman Madsen then says that this shows how marriages are "made in heaven." But did the Lord just hand over Emma? No, she had her own freedom to choose to give herself to Joseph, so I look at it like this - If the Lord says you are free to marry a woman and give yourself to her, and then the woman also gives herself to you, the Lord has essentially given you your wife. So Joseph was given these women in the sense that he was given authorization to marry them. All the men in and out of the Church at that time who did not have permission by the Lord to take more wives were not given wives as gifts from the Lord, but took what they felt they deserved. So one is selfishly motivated, and one is motivated by love for the Lord.

I'm not sure I 100% agree, but I appreciate the response and what it is you are saying.

-Finrock