U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 01:10 AM
 
35 posts, read 44,941 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
That's a little misleading. I'm not sure if you meant it to be or not. Here are a few points that should clarify what the rules really are:

1. Yes, paying a full tithing is a requirement for a temple recommend. Any practicing Latter-day Saint who wants to go to the temple is very much aware of that, and would be unlikely to even request a temple recommend if he was not paying a full tithing.

2. Tithing settlement is not generally the time when one pays his tithing, although many give the bishop one last check at that time. The purpose of tithing settlement is essentially to make sure that all funds a member has contributed have been properly accounted for, to the member's satisfaction as much as to the bishop's. Since tithing can be claimed as charitable giving when a person files his income tax for the year, it's good to know that everybody is on the same page.

3. I've never heard of anyone's temple recommend being confiscated as part of tithing settlement. While it's true that his bishop will ask if the amount paid represents a full tithing, that's not so that an answer of "no" will result in the member having to turn over his recommend. Recommends are good for a period of two years and the temple recommend interview is not the same thing as tithing settlement at all.

4. When you say that a person is "banned from the temple until he pays in full," that implies that he must pay back tithing if he stopped paying for a period of time. This is not the case. A person must typically have paid a full tithing for a period of one year before being issued a recommend, but it's not as if there is a "past amount due" that is being held over a person's head.
While it's true that his bishop will ask if the amount paid represents a full tithing, that's not so that an answer of "no" will result in the member having to turn over his recommend. Recommends are good for a period of two years and the temple recommend interview is not the same thing as tithing settlement at all.

That's exactly what I'm saying and you are attempting to twist around:

A true mormon must hand over 10% of their income per year in order to receive a temple recommend (to do temple work or attend temple weddings). A "past do amount" IS held over until it is paid off. Temple work is required to get to the Celestial Kingdom, therefore someone that can't do temple work will NOT enter the CK. Once a temple recommend expires they can't get another one until they settle. Tithing is a MUST pay.

And yes. I know people who have been called in to the Bishops office for not paying tithing for years. This usually happens at the end of the year around Nov and Dec.

Last edited by kingbulldog; 01-23-2010 at 02:27 AM..

 
Unread 01-23-2010, 01:21 AM
 
35 posts, read 44,941 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10 View Post
Thanks for expressing your opinions.

As I see it, the best way to "learn the realities of a religion" is to study about it from that church's official media and ask questions of active faithful members in good standing. If you think it might be for you then attend their meetings and rub shoulders with active members for a while and find out for sure. If you find out sometime later that you have made a mistake and don't fit in, then, member of not, leave! It's that simple.

It is only logical that you will learn little if any truth by studying at the feet of apostates with an ax to grind to rationalize their loss of faith and abandonment of beliefs they once held sacred and people who were once friends. And it is only logical that you will learn almost nothing whatsoever that is true by studying what enemies of any religion have to say about it.

There's no big deal - you can go inactive or leave a church anytime after you've joined. Why even bother trying to discern truth from apostates and enemies who have a vested interest in trying to deceive and mislead you?

As I see it, the best way to "learn the realities of a religion" is to study about it from that church's official media and ask questions of active faithful members in good standing. If you think it might be for you then attend their meetings and rub shoulders with active members for a while and find out for sure.

Yes, that's also what Jim Jones thought.

And it is only logical that you will learn almost nothing whatsoever that is true by studying what enemies of any religion have to say about it.

Apostates and people that disagree in your religion are not your enemies. This is one of the problems that I have with the current incarnation of the mormon church, the constant and pointless feelings of persecution whenever someone disagrees or shows them proof of their inconsistancies or hypocrisy

There's no big deal - you can go inactive or leave a church anytime after you've joined.

And yet people need to prepare with the constant "come back we miss you" love bombing or constant and unwelcome missionary and home teacher visits. My brother can talk to you first hand about this.
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 01:55 AM
 
35 posts, read 44,941 times
Reputation: 19
[quote=Katzpur;12564973]

Some of "our faithful"? Who is the "we" here?
Us. Mormons. (lifelong member without blinders on)

Yes, well we believe in the old Jerusalem and in a new Jerusalem.
There is no reason why we need a new Jerusalem.

Sorry, I don't understand your question.
How convenient.

You're pretty antagonistic for a member of the mormon church. As you are apparently on the membership rolls of the Church yourself, you ought to know that no one who receives the ordinance of baptism by proxy after death is added to the membership rolls of the Church. If that were the case, our membership would be in the hundreds of millions by now.
Antagonistic because I tell the truth and correct erroneous information? And hundreds of millions is incorrect. In order for the mormon church to baptise hundreds of millions it would need access to the records of the catholic church, so far the longest christian church, who has blocked the mormon church from accessing their files.

Who was sugarcoating it? I made a statement of fact. How was I supposed to anticipate your response? That's right, non-tithe paying members cannot hold temple recommends. They know that and their children who choose to get married in the temple in spite of the fact that their parents will not be able to attend know that. Nobody finds out when he or she shows up at the doors of the temple on the wedding day, and while young people are encouraged to have a temple marriage, it's ultimately their choice. If they wanted to take the feelings of their inactive parents into account, they could be married civilly and sealed a year later. That's not what the Church leadership would encourage them to do, but it is an option.
First, the mormon church has always said that civil marriage is equal to living in sin and that if a couple marries civilly BEFORE going through the temple, they will never get the full blessings given to couples that marry in the temple first. Seconds, that's a choice couples should never have to make. My church or my parents? How many levels of wrong is that!

Jeesh! What's eating you, man?
It' a fact man, face it. Check the studies. Truth is more powerful than propaganda.

This is not an inflated number. It represents the actual number of people who have been baptized into the Church, regardless of whether they are "active" or "inactive." That is the same for any church. No church's membership is based on how many of its adherents actually attend services every Sunday.
Wrong. I know for a fact the catholic church counts membership on how many people are members of their parish. And their membership expires every year which parishoners must renew. Which means that if the catholic church counts people as members when they are baptized it means they would be including people from 2,000 years ago, which thankfully they don't. Parish membership is not required for any active catholic for them to attend their mass. Only required for baptisms or confirmations. There are active catholics who haven't has parish memebership in over 20 years. My cousin-in-law was a catholic who did this. YOU should know that as a former catholic.

And you have the decency to not accuse me of lying when every word I've said is true. I can't possibly be expected to antipate people's follow-up questions and respond to them before they are asked. And if I were using this board as a missionary opportunity, you'd find that my posts elsewhere on the forum would reflect that. Look through the other active threads. You will find that I don't even mention what religion I am unless it is clearly necessary in order for my answer to make sense.

Look, you think you know, but you really have no idea. This is common with converts. To your credit, converts sometimes obey the Word of Wisdom more closely than other lifelong mormons. But that's about it. Converts still have blinders on. It's not your fault.

And as you know, as a former LDS missionary, I can tell you -- Every Opportunity, is a Missionary Opportunity.
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 02:11 AM
 
35 posts, read 44,941 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10 View Post
I'm sorry you lost your faith Hueff, it happens.

Your link is to an anti-Mormon website complete with the usual order forms for anti-Mormon literature and a link to donate to their "ministry" to 'save' the poor deluded 14,000,000 Mormons, and possibly to profit financially from the lucrative anti-Mormon publishing industry.

The topic you were addressing is the curiousity or concern some people apparently have with the reason why Mormons who have served in an LDS temple wear special undergarments and the purpose for wearing those garments. There is a tendency to make fun of Mormons who think the garments will protect them from physical danger. (And there may be some who do, though I don't think that is a common belief.)

But that belief among some is in the realm of folklore and is not doctrinal. The official statement you quoted pointed out correctly that the real purpose of wearing the garment is to help protect the wearer against "tempation" and "evil".

No mention is made of physical injuries, though in my opinion having faith in almost anything can on occasion be helpful.

I'm sorry you lost your faith Hueff, it happens.

Why is this the GO-TO statement when mormons are provided with proof of their errors regarding just about ANYTHING pertaining to the church? This and the following that I have heard other ward members tell inactives or families trying to resign from the church:

"Satan is trying to make you lose your testimony"

"The Spirit has left you"

"Please pray for the Spirit to come back, if you open your heart, you will know the church is true."

"You have been overcome by Satan" (when my brother planned to divorce his wife after SHE cheated)







 
Unread 01-23-2010, 02:25 AM
 
35 posts, read 44,941 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
14 million is miniscule. It makes you wonder why anybody would even be concerned with us. A lot of people appear to be spending a lot of time and energy fretting over a small Christian denomination that constitutes something like 1/15 of 1% of the world's population.
It's simple.

Prop 8. FLDS. Viewed as cult. Strange beliefs. Government in Utah run by the church. LDS being tax exempt when the church can't respect the separation of church and state. Mitt Romney and the 2012 election, People dissapointed with the GOP.

Pick one. It's not because everyone else has a tiny insterest in joining, most people in the USA ad Europe are becoming Agnostic and have realized organized religion isn't necessary for them. They are therefore leaving religion completely, by droves, and are living happier without it in their lives.

But I think it's because maybe that 1% is taking 10% of their members income, which for some people, in this worldwide recession is probably better off going to their pockets instead of members going on welfare and govm't aid. Remember, money talks.
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,107 posts, read 1,161,012 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamere10 View Post
Thanks for expressing your opinions.

As I see it, the best way to "learn the realities of a religion" is to study about it from that church's official media and ask questions of active faithful members in good standing. If you think it might be for you then attend their meetings and rub shoulders with active members for a while and find out for sure. If you find out sometime later that you have made a mistake and don't fit in, then, member of not, leave! It's that simple.

It is only logical that you will learn little if any truth by studying at the feet of apostates with an ax to grind to rationalize their loss of faith and abandonment of beliefs they once held sacred and people who were once friends. And it is only logical that you will learn almost nothing whatsoever that is true by studying what enemies of any religion have to say about it.

There's no big deal - you can go inactive or leave a church anytime after you've joined. Why even bother trying to discern truth from apostates and enemies who have a vested interest in trying to deceive and mislead you?
Excuse me...I am an apostate and I have a vested interested in telling the truth. I do not deceive! In my post about the garments, where is the deception? I have written the truth. Me, an apostate. I told the readers more truth about the garments than they have read from any active member on this thread, than anything they could find by combing through every page on lds.org.

The site I quoted from, you dismissed, but by golly, every word I quoted from them was the truth.

People wanting to know all about Mormonism need to go beyond the correlated manuals of the Church. I suggest they go to original sources whenever possible, and I don't mean the sanitized and censored priesthood and relief society manuals, I mean original sources like the Journal of Discourses, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, diaries of Joseph Smith's contemporaries (both those of enduring believers and those who became unbelievers), etc. [And don't think that just because someone became an unbeliever, they are then a liar; that is a non sequitur]. Yes, one must consider possible bias by both the believers and non-believers. But, when multiple sources (believers and non) are all reporting the same thing, or when true believers report things that don't paint Joseph in a good light, one would be reasonable to suspect there might be some truth to it.

The modern church censors its own history in a self-serving bias with the intent to promote faith in it. Apostle Boyd K. Packer has stated that LDS scholars and historians are in peril of damnation if they choose to reveal the whole truth about the LDS church:
"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer… "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful
"The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…
"That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!" (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks concurred:
"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)
The Church has excommunicated historians for revealing unflattering truths from original sources. No, the Church has proved itself not a reliable source if one wants to know the truth about Mormonism. I suggest that any true inquirer into Mormonism should read everything they can get their hands on: original sources, modern church correlated manuals, apologetic sources like FAIRLDS and FARMS, and critical sources. Now, one is sure to find some crap in all of that - distortions that are both pro-Mormonism and distortions that are critical of Mormonism. But, I trust that the inquirer has a brain and can weigh the evidence appropriately.

I have learned to distrust anyone who discourages me to hear or read what the opposition has to say. Communist and Fascist governments do that. Cults like Scientology and others do that. If you have the truth or the best ideas, you can withstand any criticism. Only those with something to hide (and Mormonism has a lot to hide) don't want you looking at uncorrelated material.

PS - I did not "lose" my faith. That is an offensive phrase. It is like telling a woman, "I am sorry you lost you trust in your husband," after she recently divorced her husband for cheating on her. I did nothing wrong. I did not lose my faith out of carelessness or neglect. I discovered Joseph deceived us. Don't blame the innocent party when they expose the adulterer and divorce him. I know you don't agree with me, but don't punish the victim of a fraud.

You make it sound so easy and pain free to simply leave the Church. That is bull, unless you were never really that invested in the Church in the first place. Really put yourself in our place. How would you like to have your whole worldview flipped upside down? How would you like many of your long-time church friends judge you, suspecting you must have done some great evil, or pity you for your lack of belief. Who knows how your family would respond? Your in-laws will most likely view you differently as somehow less than before. It might destroy your marriage or your relationship with your kids who still whole-heartedly believe, but attach all the negative attributes of an apostate upon your head. You will be accused of destroying your eternal family. People will try to guilt you or withhold their affection or association from you, and yet you know you are still the same wonderful person you have always been. You have done nothing wrong except learn that you have been deceived all your life, yet you are punished for it.

You feel bad for all the times you worked to deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law, or made people feel guilty for not trying their best to keep all the commandments and invest fully in the Church.

You may see all these pains as the just consequences for leaving the true church. I would have called you brother 4 short years ago. The membership of the church is cruel to the apostate. Just like Scientologists are to those that leave their church, and the FLDS are to the lost boys.

Investigators deserve a fair and complete answer to a fair question, whether it is faith promoting or not.

You accuse apostates of having an agenda, and I suppose I do; but active members are taught to have an agenda as well. We all know one is not going to get the complete story from anyone with an agenda. So, I would recommend that an investigator not just listen to members and the Church, nor should they just listen to those of us that are critical of the Church, but both.

Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 01-23-2010 at 07:52 AM..
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
13,410 posts, read 8,143,248 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonrise View Post
The Mormons teach this about Jesus: He was/is the son of God. He was/is the spirit brother of Satan. He was/is the spirit brother of man. He is not God.
Once Lucifer/Satan was cast out of Heaven, he lost the right to ever be known as one of God's children again. Therefore, his relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ was severed. That means that he no longer has any relationship at all with Jesus Christ, nor Jesus Christ with him.

Quote:
The Bible teaches this about Jesus:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)
And that's exactly what the Mormons believe. We believe that Jesus Christ (i.e. the Word) was with God in the beginning and that He was God in the beginning. He just wasn't God the Father -- not in the beginning, not now, not ever. He is one with the Father. We also believe that. I just see the word "one" in the scripture you posted. Do you have another example in which the Father and the Son are described as "one substance" or "one essence." If not, then your interpretation of what the word "one" means is no more biblical than ours is.

Quote:
Since these teachings are mutually exclusive, Mormons are either calling Jesus a liar, claiming the Bible fallible or are lying themselves.
Or maybe you're just lying about us. Don't you think it would be a better idea to tell people what you believe and let Mormons tell people what they believe instead of you attempting to do both?
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
13,410 posts, read 8,143,248 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingbulldog View Post
That's exactly what I'm saying and you are attempting to twist around:

A true mormon must hand over 10% of their income per year in order to receive a temple recommend (to do temple work or attend temple weddings). A "past do amount" IS held over until it is paid off. Temple work is required to get to the Celestial Kingdom, therefore someone that can't do temple work will NOT enter the CK. Once a temple recommend expires they can't get another one until they settle. Tithing is a MUST pay.

And yes. I know people who have been called in to the Bishops office for not paying tithing for years. This usually happens at the end of the year around Nov and Dec.
First off, it would be nice if you learned to use the quote function. It would make reading your posts a lot easier.

The "past due amount" is not "held over." That's absolute nonsense. I did not pay tithing for a period of several years. I did not seek a temple recommend during that time, even though I had held one previously. A year after I started paying tithing again, I attended tithing settlement, told the bishop I was paying a full tithing, and then shortly thereafter had a temple recommend interview with both my bishop and my stake president and received a recommend.

If people had to pay a "past due amount," no one who had stopped paying tithing for several years would ever be able to go to the temple again. People who are have been totally inactive in the Church for 20 years and have never paid a dime in tithing end up deciding that they want to become active again and go to the temple. If you are trying to convince the people reading this forum that these people would have to pay back tithing on 20 years worth of income, you are taking them for a bunch of idiots.
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
13,410 posts, read 8,143,248 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingbulldog View Post
How convenient.
No, not convenient at all if you'd actually like an answer. I responded to your other questions and comments. Why would I have asked for a clarification on this one point if I really understood it but just didn't want to answer?


Quote:
Antagonistic because I tell the truth and correct erroneous information? And hundreds of millions is incorrect. In order for the mormon church to baptise hundreds of millions it would need access to the records of the catholic church, so far the longest christian church, who has blocked the mormon church from accessing their files.
Those records were not blocked until recently. Besides, it's definitely not the only source of information for geneologists. You ought to know that. And all of that is really beside the point. The point in that proxy baptisms are not included in Church membership records.


Quote:
First, the mormon church has always said that civil marriage is equal to living in sin and that if a couple marries civilly BEFORE going through the temple, they will never get the full blessings given to couples that marry in the temple first. Seconds, that's a choice couples should never have to make. My church or my parents? How many levels of wrong is that!
That's a lie and you know it. A sealing is a sealing is a sealing. The Church encourages couples to be sealed in the temple when they first get married. As a matter of fact, I know that the pressure can be tremendous and the social pressure almost overwhelming. That's unfortunate, in my opinion. I personally think that there are times when a civil ceremony makes more sense. If either my parents or my husband's parents had been unable to attend our wedding, I'd have probably made the decision to be married civilly so that they could be a part of the event, and then be sealed later. Fortunately that wasn't necessary in our case. You see, I am sort of left of center myself when it comes to certain Church policies and practices. I will generally speak my mind, even if my fellow Church members may see me as a heretic sometimes. But that's different that outright lying. When you say that the Church considers civil marriages to be the same thing as "living in sin," you are either totally uninformed or else you are lying.


Quote:
Wrong. I know for a fact the catholic church counts membership on how many people are members of their parish. And their membership expires every year which parishoners must renew. Which means that if the catholic church counts people as members when they are baptized it means they would be including people from 2,000 years ago, which thankfully they don't. Parish membership is not required for any active catholic for them to attend their mass. Only required for baptisms or confirmations. There are active catholics who haven't has parish memebership in over 20 years. My cousin-in-law was a catholic who did this. YOU should know that as a former catholic.
Excuse me, but I'm not a former Catholic. If any church were to include in its membership records people who have been dead for 2000 years, there be more people today who belong to one church or another than there are people in the world. You are starting to look very, very foolish. Demographics studies show that 2 billion people in the world today are Catholics. Do you believe that 2 billion people in the world today are participating members of a Catholic parish?


Quote:
Look, you think you know, but you really have no idea. This is common with converts.
I'm not a convert. I am 61 years old and have been in the Church all my life. Maybe you should not only learn to use the quote function; maybe you should also learn to distinguish between posters.
 
Unread 01-23-2010, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,107 posts, read 1,161,012 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
The "past due amount" is not "held over." That's absolute nonsense. I did not pay tithing for a period of several years. I did not seek a temple recommend during that time, even though I had held one previously. A year after I started paying tithing again, I attended tithing settlement, told the bishop I was paying a full tithing, and then shortly thereafter had a temple recommend interview with both my bishop and my stake president and received a recommend.

If people had to pay a "past due amount," no one who had stopped paying tithing for several years would ever be able to go to the temple again. People who are have been totally inactive in the Church for 20 years and have never paid a dime in tithing end up deciding that they want to become active again and go to the temple. If you are trying to convince the people reading this forum that these people would have to pay back tithing on 20 years worth of income, you are taking them for a bunch of idiots.
I do have to side with Katzpur here, with a few exceptions. Yes, most people never have to pay a past due amount on their tithing to get a temple recommend.

The only time I ever heard of people paying a past due amount was when a person really wanted to attend the temple for a child's marriage ceremony, but they had only been active and paying tithing for a few months. The Bishop agreed to give them a recommend if they paid in one lump sum what they would have paid had they been paying their tithing all along for the past year. So, let's say they have only been active for the last 4 months, they had to back pay 8 months of tithing. But, that was definitely an exception not the rule.

Another time people might pay tithing that was due from a while back would be at tithing settlement, when in order to become a full tithe payer, they owed a lot for the year. Perhaps they had been paying consistently for the last 9 months, but not before. Then they would pay for those first three months at once. Technically, Mormons would not consider that past due, as it is not required to pay tithing each paycheck, although that is recommended. It is "due" each year in December during tithing settlement. So, as long as we are in the same year, it is not past due.

Bishops will not go seeking after tithing that is over a year old. At least, I have never heard of it.

Bishops have to declare a status (full tithe payer, part, or non) for each member whether they come to tithing settlement or not. Bishops are encouraged then to meet with each member, so the executive secretary usually sets up some kind of schedule for the members to meet with the Bishop. Depending on the secretary, he may be quite persistent in "bugging" the members to come to tithing settlement. Some members may object to tithing settlement as they may perceive it as an attempt to shame them into paying a full tithe. It can be intimidating to sit in front of the Bishop and say in front of your spouse and kids that you are not a full tithe payer. And if you refuse to go, you may be thought less of by the Bishop and the excutive secretary and your spouse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:43 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top