Mormon Coffee

by Sharon

On Tuesday USA Todayposted an article by journalist Jill Lawrence: “Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House?” There are some unexpected revelations in the article related to the doctrines and history of the LDS Church. They are grouped under the headings of “Theology,” “Polygamy,” “Racial History,” “Secrecy,” “Discipline,” and “Proselytizing.” This makes the USA Today article unique in that Ms. Lawrence discusses some of the real concerns Christians have with Mormonism rather than dismissing all critics as “bigots,” “ignorant,” or “misinformed.”

Another section of the USA Today article I like is this:

The ex-governor [Mormon Mitt Romney] says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. “I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t smoke, I don’t drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe,” he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred “temple garment” resembling abbreviated long underwear.

“I do attend the temple of my church…and people can learn about that by contacting the church,” he says, adding: “I’m sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what’s entailed.”

An inquirer will not learn much about the LDS endowment ceremony from the Mormon Church. In the sections about temples on two official LDS web sites (lds.org newsroom, the “official resource for news media, opinion leaders, and the public” and mormon.org, an informational site for non-members) the endowment ceremony is not even mentioned.

But Mr. Romney is correct that those who really want to know “can find every single aspect of what’s entailed” on the internet. All one need do is Google “LDS Endowment Ceremony.” There are almost 66,000 results from which to choose.

To make it a bit easier for those of you who want to learn about the endowment ceremony performed in LDS temples, here are some links to sites I believe are trustworthy.

For overviews and commentary:

• The LDS Temple Ceremony by Bill McKeever
• Temple Ritual Changed…Again by Sandra Tanner
• Mormon Temples: “The Gates of Heaven” by Sharon Lindbloom

For transcripts of the entire endowment ceremony (including past and current versions):

• The Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony, Revised in 1990 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at the Mormons In Transition web site
• The Endowment Ceremony at the Concerned Christians web site

For related topics:

• Masonic Influence in the Endowment Ceremony by Bill McKeever
• LDS Endowment and Masonic Initiation by James David
• The LDS Temple Ceremony - Sacred or Secret? by Bill McKeever
• The Garments of the Holy Priesthood by Bill McKeever
• Temple “Worthiness” and the Bible by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

For everything you always wanted to know about LDS temples but were afraid to ask:

Comments (4)

The newspaper in my town, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, ran an article about Mormon missionaries over the weekend. Along with the article was a revealing companion piece: “Young missionaries live by rigid rules.” Drawn from a “four-page list of rules for male Minnesota missionaries,” the article listed twenty-seven for Star-Tribune readers.

The LDS Church wants its representatives to be recognizable (conform) and above reproach; therefore, many of the rules have to do with a clean-cut appearance or avoiding potentially compromising situations with children and people of the opposite sex.

The ‘appearance rules’ include things like the appropriate length of sideburns (above mid-ear), tie styles (no pink or purple), and hair cuts (no buzzes). While appearance rules are understandable, the necessity of this one baffles me:

All missionaries wear a part and comb their hair to the side. You will be the minority and feel out of place if you do not.

The ‘cautionary rules’ listed state that the missionaries should not become too familiar with children; no tickling, hugging, or allowing children to sit on a missionary’s lap. In addition,

Always obey the Rule of Three: In order to enter a home to teach or visit a member or nonmember, there must be three men or three women 16 or older present in the same room. A person in the next room does not count. … The only exception to this rule is that you may enter the home of a person of the opposite sex who is 70 or older. If a person 70 or older is home with someone younger than 70, you must follow the normal Rule of Three.

There is wisdom in setting up these sorts of rules. They are a hedge against false accusations.

Several of the other rules have to do with safety or cleanliness: wear a bike helmet; clean the apartment for an hour every prep-day; dry clean suits often; do all bike repairs outside. When remembering that the missionaries are young men only 19-21 years old, any mother would say these sorts of rules are a must.

But we should also remember that the LDS Church claims these young men have received a personal calling from Almighty God to go into the mission field. They have been individually prepared and equipped for their service: “Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies,” said LDS President Harold B. Lee (quoted in Ensign, November 1995, 50).

Because of this, some of the missionary rules seem out of place to me. Consider a few:

• You may only call other missionaries within your district.
• You may call home [only] on Mother’s Day and Christmas for 45 minutes.
• Missionaries may only access mldsmail.net, lds.org, mormon.org and josephsmith.net.
• Internet usage [allowed only one day a week] is only permissible if companions can see each other’s screens. No exceptions.
• Missionaries may only e-mail family.
• The following music is approved: Especially For Youth, church-produced music, LDS hymns, Mormon Tabernacle Choir, appropriate Christmas music (i.e., no rock) and classical music.
• Please strictly follow the Elbow Rule: Always be near enough to your companion to hear him at a whisper while outside of the apartment. Do not separate for long periods of time within the apartment.
• Missionaries may watch “The Other Side of Heaven” [a movie by Mormon filmmaker Mitch Davis] on preparation day only.
• 100% on the plan: Out of bed by 6:30 a.m. (not 6:31). One full hour of personal and companionship studies (not 59 minutes). Out of the apartment by 10 a.m. (not 10:01). One hour for lunch at the most. One hour for dinner, the latest time being from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Be out of the members’ houses by 6 p.m. (not 6:01). Be in by 9 p.m. If you are teaching, you may be out until 9:30 p.m. at the latest. Plan the next day’s activities starting right when you get in the apartment. Be either in your bed or praying by 10:30 p.m. (not 10:31).

Rather than supporting the idea that these young men “have been set apart for [their] sacred calling with the promise that the Spirit will be given as [they] meet the requirements set by the Lord” (Preach My Gospel, 4), these rules reflect an assumed immaturity (social and spiritual), plus a lack of trust in the missionaries’ judgment and inspiration.

They’re told who they may (and may not) email, what music they may (and may not) listen to, when and who they may (and may not) call on the phone and how long they may talk, how long they may linger over a meal, and what time they need to be in bed. Don’t these missionary rules sound like something given to middle-school kids as they head off to summer camp? These young men, set apart and equipped for a “sacred calling,” are not trusted to have the ability to make good choices regarding even the most basic stuff of everyday life.

I don’t doubt that the Mormon Church’s long experience with their missionary program has necessitated the institution of such rules. What I don’t get is why we’re supposed to believe these kids have power and authority from God when even the LDS Church doesn’t seem to believe it.

Comments (3)

The Hollywood version of the gruesome Mountain Meadows Massacre is finally slated to hit the silver screen. From the movie’s web site:

On September 11, 1857, in an unspoiled valley of the Utah Territory — and in the name of God — 120 men, women and children were savagely murdered.Who ordered the massacre, and why, has been hidden in a cloak of secrecy and conspiracy.

And the reputation of one of this nation’s mightiest religious figures has been preserved and protected.

On May 4 the truth will be revealed.

With typical Hollywood hype, the September Dawn web site and trailer (available there for online viewing) is designed to get people interested, to perpetuate the feeling of “secrecy and conspiracy.” I’m guessing the film’s producers want that interest to build from now until May 4th, which should result in a strong showing at the box office.

Rumor has it that the film implicates LDS Prophet Brigham Young, portraying him as an integral part of the unprovoked attack perpetrated against these non-Mormon pioneers. Some think the film will depict Brigham Young ordering the massacre, but September Dawn’s writer-director Christopher Cain says the film sticks close to the historical record. There is no proof that Brigham Young ordered the massacre; Mr. Cain says the film portrays Brigham Young as condoning what happened, not ordering the attack.

On Tuesday LDS Church-owned KSL-TV reported:

A movie that hasn’t even been released yet is drawing strong reaction from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Internet previews of the film portray the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre and strongly suggest direct involvement by then church President Brigham Young.The writer-director of “September Dawn” told us his portrayal is historically accurate. The church calls it a distortion, and some, but not all, historians agree.

KSL asked eight board members of the Utah Westerners what they thought about Brigham Young’s involvement in the massacre.

In a show of hands only three of the eight agree that Young ordered the massacre, and one more said Young condoned it. All eight agreed he covered up the facts.

It’s no surprise the LDS Church is not happy about this movie. It will raise a lot of questions in people’s minds and it threatens to mar the carefully cultivated squeaky-clean image the Church has been working to achieve.

According to KSL,

The LDS Church issued a statement today [February 6] which said, “From what we know of this movie, it is a fictional portrayal before, during, and after the tragic events at Mountain Meadows in 1857. This film is a serious distortion of history.”

That’s a pretty broad blanket condemnation/dismissal, especially since there’s no indication that the Church has seen the movie or read the script. It appears as if this judgment has been formed based only on the 90-second movie trailer.

The day after the above was reported by KSL, the station presented another report. This one suggests the source for September Dawn was an award-winning documentary by University of Utah Film Studies Professor Brian Patrick.

Burying the Past, a documentary about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was produced in 2004 and has enjoyed high acclaim from historians and film critics alike. Winner of 11 awards, the film has been praised for being “brilliantly honest,” “beautifully produced,” and “astute and brave.” Nevertheless, this film was not welcomed by the LDS community either. From the website of Burying the Past comes this news report dated August 4, 2004:

There is a huge uproar over a film that was set to be shown next week at the “SpudFest” Film Festival in Idaho. Gilligan’s Island actress Dawn Wells (”Mary Ann”) has been promoting her Film Festival “SpudFest” which is taking place in Victor, Idaho August 3-8. The film in question is a documentary entitled “Burying The Past — Legacy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.” The film has won 10 awards and has played in over 15 film festivals. “SpudFest” organizers received numerous phone calls from angry Mormon protestors planning to carry signs and picket all three screenings of “Burying The Past” that were scheduled for August 4th, 5th, and 7th. The Mormons also notified festival directors that they were advising all members of the Mormon faith to boycott the entire festival. The protestors are Mormon Church Authorities, Bishops, and Church members who have never even seen the film, but are nonetheless offended.

Burying the Past is known for its careful and even-handed treatment of the Mormons, the Massacre descendents, and the LDS Church; yet it was denounced as pressure was brought to bear to keep the film away from public viewing.

I suggest that the LDS Church and the Mormon people are not compelled in their concerns about September Dawn by any specific content of the movie; rather, it is the topic — the Mountain Meadows Massacre — that they wish would remain unknown.

The readers’ comments on the KSL web site are pretty interesting. Many of them make excuses for the Mormons who murdered the pioneers from Arkansas, and express the idea that the film is produced for no other reason than to persecute the Mormon Church. But one summing-up comment of a different flavor caught my eye:

First the LDS church puts out a press release condemning the content of this film, apparently based solely on its trailer. Now, the flagship television station of church-owned Bonneville Communications makes accusations of plagiarism. Both actions seem like transparent public relations moves….

For those who would like to learn more about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the September Dawn web site offers several resources. Also, check out an article I wrote a few years ago: “In the Line of Duty: Mountain Meadows.”

Comments (1)

It was 130 years ago today that LDS recorder L. John Nuttall, by order of Brigham Young, transcribed the Lecture at the Veil in the St. George, Utah Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lecture at the Veil was a lesson at the end of the LDS endowment ceremony which summarized important theological concepts that had been taught throughout the ceremony.

From the time the Lecture at the Veil was first recorded in 1877, until it was removed in 1990, it had been an important element of the endowment ceremony. The content of the lecture in modern times did not include some of Brigham Young’s important teachings from the nineteenth century, the lecture having been revised during the intervening years.

The official transcription of Brigham Young’s veil lecture is not available, but John Nuttall recorded much of the same information in his private journal. In recognition of this 130th anniversary of Brigham Young’s Lecture at the Veil, an excerpt is provided here.

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem. “This is life eternal that they might know thee, the on[l]y true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read “from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.

Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

And when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael, who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assi[s]ted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child.

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve — this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses’ dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life — Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man — Now in the law of Sacr[i]fice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood…

Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.

(as quoted in David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, 111-112. Paragraph breaks not in the original — inserted here to aid online reading.)

So reads the headline of a recent Reuters article written by Religion Editor Tom Heneghan. The article, which discusses the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead, appeared today on the Reuters web site.

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was baptized at birth and will most likely be baptized again one year after his death, not by his Roman Catholic Church but by a Mormon he never met.The Mormons, a U.S.-based denomination officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), encourage members to baptize the dead by proxy in the belief they are helping the deceased attain full access to heaven.

Church members are told to focus on their ancestors, a rite understandable in a relatively new denomination founded in 1830. But so many now perform the rituals for celebrities, heroes and perfect strangers that the practice has spun out of control.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, King Herod, Al Capone and Mickey Mouse have all appeared for a short time in the International Genealogical Index for proxy baptisms, said Helen Radkey, a researcher specialized in the IGI.

Journalist Tom Heneghan suggests it is reasonable to expect Pope Benedict to be baptized by proxy in an LDS temple a year after the Pope’s future but inevitable demise, citing “a centuries-long list of popes Mormons have baptized” already. Mr. Heneghan thinks it strange that Pope Benedict will be baptized LDS given the fact that, when he served in the capacity of “the Vatican’s top doctrinal authority,” he ruled that Mormon baptisms are not Christian.

LDS Church spokeswoman Kim Farah responded:

“There is no reason theologically why a former Pope or any other church leader shouldn’t be offered the same opportunity given to the rest of mankind.”

In fact, theologically, perhaps the Pope is more in need of this kind of Mormon intervention than the rest of mankind. According to past LDS apostles, the Catholic Church was founded by the Devil and all authority residing within that Church is only that “which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her” (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1884, page 205).

In explaining a passage from the Book of Mormon, late LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote,

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it” and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10)He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this church was the “mother of harlots;”… (1 Ne. 13:24-42)

Nephi beheld further that this church was the “mother of abominations,” and “the whore of all the earth”… (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, page 130)

Later in the same book Apostle McConkie expanded on the doctrine a bit:

…speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, [Nephi] designated the Catholic Church as “the mother of harlots” (1 Nephi 13:34; 14:15-17), a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches.” (ibid., page 315)

Given the view of the Catholic Church expressed by LDS apostles, maybe that explains why Pope John Paul II was vicariously baptized in a Mormon temple four times (and Pope Pius XII three times); maybe “the same opportunity given to the rest of mankind” — usually just one proxy baptism per person — isn’t sufficient for the worldwide leaders of Satan’s great and abominable church.

Interestingly, the Reuters article points out that the public version of the LDS Church’s International Genealogical Index available online is a “purged version,” which does not show the temple ordinances that have been performed for the individuals on the list; that information is only available to Mormons. Furthermore, the article says the name of Pope John Paul II has been removed from the online IGI, though his now-anonymous files remain in the database.

Names are purged from the public IGI after being found and publicized. Pope John Paul I and Pope Paul VI were both baptized and were listed on the online IGI in December but removed after Reuters asked about them, [LDS Church spokeswoman] Farah confirmed.

Researcher Helen Radkey claims, “They remove any names that could potentially cause criticism.”

I wonder if that’s the same reason the current edition of Mormon Doctrine no longer designates the Catholic Church as the “whore of all the earth.” While Bruce McConkie’s exposition of 1 Nephi was clearly in line with the teachings of earlier LDS leaders, subsequent editions of the book (after 1958) have “purged” from its pages the controversial identity of Catholicism as “the Church of the Devil.”

Comments (2)

by Sharon

There’s a rather odd story coming out of the South Pacific today. Published at stuff.co.nz is “The growing fear of Pacific gang life” from Fairfax Media.

Al-Qaeda and fellow international terrorists are said to threaten failing Pacific states but as Michael Field reports the real menace comes from the streets of America and south Auckland.

They’re shadowy and amoral; big and vicious men, now living in every village in Polynesia.

They learned their trade with American street gangs like the Sons of Samoa and the Tongan Crip Gang (TCG).

Samoan Warriors Bounty Hunters, Tongan Crip Regulators, Tongan Style Gang and the Baby Regulators fill out the world of hoods, hand signals, graffiti and crime.

And, according to the article, “they are mostly from Latter-day Saint families.”

The claim is that these young people once lived in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. When they became uncontrollable they were sent “home” to the Pacific Island nations to be rehabilitated. But these kids brought the “skills” they learned in the inner cities of the U.S. with them, resulting in a burgeoning gang problem in the South Pacific.

Trouble became apparent last November 16th when riots erupted in the Tongan capitol of Nuku’alofa. When all was said and done, eighty percent of the business district of the city had been destroyed and eight people were dead. Since then, the police have been working hard to find the people responsible for what has come to be known as “Black Thursday.” Fairfax Media reports:

Around 1100 people have since been arrested — with New Zealand police help — and over half are TCG who are mostly from Mormon Latter Day Saint (LDS) families.

LDS makes exaggerated claims to have 46,000 followers in Tonga and hundreds of families over the decades have gone to Salt Lake City in Utah, the church’s headquarters.

Salt Lake has turned into a gang melting pot and [University of the South Pacific educator] Dr Taufe’ulungaki claims Mormon children, who joined TCG, have since been deported back to Tonga. Joined by disaffected youth from New Zealand they destroyed Nuku’alofa.

When I first read this article I thought it sounded a bit far-fetched. But then I found “The Gangs of Zion” which appeared in the Utah publication High Country News in August of 2005. According to journalist Tim Sullivan,

Polynesian kids don’t seem to fit the profile of gang members, however. Most Pacific Islander families are the picture of stability. And most Polynesian families in Utah belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the pillar of family values and respectability. Because of the Mormon Church, in fact, Utah is home to the largest Tongan, Samoan and other Pacific Islander communities in the United States outside of Hawaii and California.

Yet while Islanders make up only about 1 percent of the Salt Lake Valley’s population, they comprise 13 percent of the documented gang members. Detectives say that Polynesian gangs stand out due to their violence. Because of their intimidating physical size, their members often serve as enforcers for other gangs that traffic in drugs. They’re known for their brutal fistfights, and for shooting at their rivals and at law enforcement officials.

Polynesian parents find it hard to believe that their churchgoing children are involved in the American scourge of gang violence. Their communities are supposed to embody everything this valley has stood for: family, faith and a new beginning.

But the “happy valley” in the heart of the Mormon Zion has become a crowded battleground. The Polynesian Saints traveled thousands of miles from one group of islands only to find themselves in another. On the west side of Salt Lake city, ethnic communities are islands unto themselves, surrounded by a sea of white suburbia; from the vantage point of West Valley City, Kearns, Taylorsville and West Jordan, the mountains that edge this valley only increase the sense of isolation.

Utah has a serious gang problem. I would even say the LDS Church has a serious gang problem. But apparently the Church would disagree with me. Tim Sullivan wrote:

Yet the Polynesian and law enforcement communities have had to work to get the church brass to listen. At one point in the mid-1990s, Isi Tausinga bluntly laid out the issue for members of the church First Presidency and General Authority. The church now has a representative on a local gang project committee, and has donated money to the Gang Unit’s annual conferences, but 20 years into the gang problem, top church officials don’t necessarily see themselves as having a role in solving it. Church spokeswoman Kim Farah says the Church prefers that local leaders like Purcell address the issues within their wards. That is not enough for Dorothy Fa’asou, who works on intercultural communication issues with Laie Association Utah. “The church has got to face up to these gang issues. It is too big for the community alone,” she says. “We came here for the church, and the problems happened here, in Utah, in the church. For too long, they have ignored it.”

The people of the Pacific Island nations are understandably frustrated. The imported gang members are negatively influencing Islander kids. Fairfax Media says these gang members

“live within villages and indoctrinate the young, the youth of the country. They are not isolated; they live together with the village people. They are in every community…

“They have no commitment, they are totally amoral, they have no commitment to anybody, no affiliation, they have no loyalty to anybody and they come with a great deal of hatred because they have been sent away from the people they know from their own environment to live with people they have never seen before in a totally alien environment.”

Labelled ‘remittance children’, they are the off-spring of hard working migrant parents with two or three low paying jobs in the alien societies. The children grow up on working class streets picking up bad habits.

They are turned into gang members by their host societies, not by the Pacific countries. They should not be deported back to the Pacific which cannot cope.

“It’s not our problem… We need to work with the countries, Australia, New Zealand and the US, not to deport their home grown problems into the Pacific, as a first step.”

The parents of these kids aren’t able to rescue them. The problem is too big for Utah communities to deal with. The LDS Church doesn’t see these troubled member-children as a problem that requires its resources. The Pacific nations can’t cope with the influx of Mormon gang members. Who will help these kids?

Comments (2)