"Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative "HeartSell"® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response."
- They have my family. And they wonder why I'm angry with the church!
Just checked to see if the moderators accepted the submission, and they did not. Geez...in the face of actual hard facts, they deny the truth and censor it!
Just checked to see if the moderators accepted the submission, and they did not. Geez...in the face of actual hard facts, they deny the truth and censor it!
I couldn't help but make a reference, too. I posted as DWF @ Dan Maloy | 12:10 p.m. Oct. 6, 2009.
The day before I submitted mine and my families resignations, I wrote the following on November 6th, 2007 in regard to the BoM.
I've discovered that my knowledge of the BoM is not what I though it
was. JS called it the most correct book on earth. It's supposed to
contain the fullness of the gospel. The TSCC teaches many doctrines
that are simply not recorded in the BoM. For instance, where does it
teach in the BoM that God was once a mortal man? Where does it say that
the Father has a body of flesh and bone? Where does it mention that
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers? Why is baptism for the dead not
preached once in the BoM? Since when does the BoM teach that cleansing
power of Christ's blood doesn't cover all of my sins? Why does the BoM
not cover the authority of God, being that of the Aaronic and
Melchizedek priesthoods? How come the BoM only teaches about ONE God
and not pluarilty of Gods? Polygamy was an abomination in the sight of
God in the BoM, yet it's in the D & C as the everlasting covenant.
And the list goes on and on and on.....The BoM is a fraud authored by
JS and others to perpetuate control and power over their fellow human
beings. Modern authors of the BoM have simply rewritten the hundreds if
not thousands of changes into the so-called ancient record. Why? To get
the story straight? To stop the exit flood of members? To make it more
believable? They're grasping at straws to keep the mother ship from
going down!
First point - The two books are explained on MAaD thus:
Apparently Hyrum, having an idea of his impending martyrdom went around his family and dog-eared all their Books of Mormon at the same point. The book Holland was holding belonged to Joseph F. Smith (six at the time his father was martyred). Through inspiration apparently, this book is the book designated as being the book mentioned in D&C 135. But his habit of visiting family and dog-earing their books of mormon kind of reduces the impact of his actions on the morning he went to Carthage.
Does YOUR book of Mormon have a Hyrum Dog-Eartm?
Mine does (now)
Second point:
The Church History (but not other sources) does indeed contain some vague, brief, and context-free references to testimony-bearing by the two martyrs. If you read the surrounding chapters, which contain fine detail on timings and events, the faith-promoting paragraphs stand out like dog's bollocks. For example, if you look at the history of the last day:
After Joseph wrote a letter to Emma (time noted 8.20am), and Fuller returned to the Jail at 8.30am, Wheelock returned from his errands. Then Wheelock:
Took orders for the Nauvoo legion;
Listened to a lengthy and detailed oration by Joseph which included the statement: "Our lives have already become jeopardized by revealing the wicked and bloodthirsty purposes of our enemies...";
Discussed and took down a list of witnesses to fetch from Nauvoo for the trial;
Listened to so many personal message to take to Nauvoo that Dr Richards thought he should write them down;
Listened to Joseph tell, in lengthy detail, of a dream he had earlier,
and then we find this - "Both Joseph and Hyrum bore a faithful testimony to the Latter-day work, and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and prophesied of the triumph of the Gospel over all the earth, exhorting the brethren present to faithfulness and persevering diligence in proclaiming the Gospel, building up the Temple, and performing all the duties connected with our holy religion".
In contrast to the incredible detail accompanying the other activites, which consume a number of pages. The wee faith-promoting statement is vague and devoid of contextual detail.
All that took place before the return of the lawyers at about9.40am which is the time on the P.S. on Joseph's letter to Emma which contains the information his lawyers brought to him.
As an example of the detail and context of other passages, the last few hours are detailed thus (all refs from Church History Vol 6):
3:15 P.M.The guard began to be more severe in their operations, threatening among themselves, and telling what they would do when the excitement was over.
Elder Taylor sang The Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief. (p 614)
When he got through, Joseph requested him to sing it again, which he did.
Hyrum read extracts from Josephus.
4 P.M. The guard was again changed, only eight men being stationed at the jail, whilst the main body of the Carthage Greys were in camp about a quarter of a mile distant, on the public square. (p 615)
4:15 P.M. Joseph commenced conversing with the guard about Joseph H. Jackson, William and Wilson Law, and others of his persecutors.
Hyrum and Dr. Richards conversed together until quarter past five.
5 P.M. Jailor Stigall returned to the jail, and said that Stephen Markham had been surrounded by a mob, who had driven him out of Carthage, and he had gone to Nauvoo.
Shortly after the account continues with the men sharing a bottle of wine, and the attack by the mob. Just before Joseph was shot, Talyor's watch was struck and stopped at 5 o'clock, 16 minutes, and 26 seconds
-----------------
So the context-devoid account of testimony bearing in the Church history is very unsatisfying from an evidentiary point of view. Read the account from the time of order to destrhy to Expositor and you should see what I mean.
Why waste so much paper on accounts of dreams and Joseph's analysis of the mistakes leading up to the incarceration, when surely the richer treasure was the testimonies of the martyrs?
Then, when switching back from the small vague faith-promoting paragraph to the detailed account, we find that Hyrum is now read reading from Josephus! With less than two hours to go before martyrdom!
So, no, I do not see an uncontextual and vague, three-line, unreferenced anecdote as convincing evidence of the events Elder Holland describes at Carthage.
"perhaps no other book in religious history has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart as has the Book of Mormon. Yet it still stands "because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young learned translator."
It still stands, sure, propped up with willful neglect of outside examination of things that destroy its credibility.
First and FOREMOST... see this link, which in my opinion, is the penultimate Book of Mormon killshot: Donofrio: Book of Mormon Tories
Then consider the rest, which is mere fodder in comparison:
anachronisms
plagerized passages taken directly from a late 18th century KJV bible
all the hotly debated theological topics of the early 19th century are "solved" inside the pages of the book of Mormon.
Early Amerindians really spoke like that? "Wo unto you, thou shalt be dragged down by the cunning one by a flaxen chord"???? seriously?
Paul's conversion matches sons of Mosiah (fall to the ground, cant see, unconscious, taken to... )
Moroni's main discourses match many of Paul's in concept, language and sequence.
Nephi= Moses in life experience, call to ministry, trials, wandering, deliverance etc
Nephi cutting off Laban's head matches a story in the apocrypha (Judith & Holefernes) and the apocrypha was in the Smith family KJV bible when the BOM came to light...
I mean, read Grant Palmer for primer on all this.
then, after Palmer, read Southerton about the problem of no semitic DNA in south America that would, by any stretch of the imagination, lead to a conclusion that a lost semitic civilization existed in S.A.,
then talk to the new Mormon movement for LGT.
..... people, I cannot reconcile Holland's definition of how a thing, in his mind, is to be classified as "True". If a thing is to be classified as "True", it should therefore be the best, most accurate, most closely held representation of what most likely constitutes reality from fiction.
~Noggin
There are those who think the Book of Mormon is still wiggling.
Forgive me for maybe being a little dense, but I have never, never, ever heard anyone teach that Hyrum read to JS out of Ether just prior to them dying. Ever. I have never read that anywhere in church history either.
So was Holland telling the truth on that actually happening? And if so, are the apologists now saying that Hyrum went around to all his family members and dog eared the same page in all of their books? And if so, that means there are several copies out there with the same page dog eared?
Someone please educate me before I go off the hook.
Forgive me for maybe being a little dense, but I have never, never, ever heard anyone teach that Hyrum read to JS out of Ether just prior to them dying. Ever. I have never read that anywhere in church history either.
So was Holland telling the truth on that actually happening? And if so, are the apologists now saying that Hyrum went around to all his family members and dog eared the same page in all of their books? And if so, that means there are several copies out there with the same page dog eared?
Someone please educate me before I go off the hook.
As far as omitted bits of church history goes, this is rather a *yawn*. Danna's post just above does the play-by-play pretty nicely, if you're interested.
There are kookier bits by far, too. One of my favorites is this one from the Journal of Discourses from Heber C Kimball:
"In England, when not in a situation to go, I have blessed my handkerchief, and asked God to sanctify it and fill it with life and power, and sent it to the sick, and hundreds have been healed by it; ... I have know Joseph, hundreds of times, send his handkerchief to the sick, and they have been healed."
Sorry I am so late to the party. Looks like my post on the Deseret News article drew the ire of one of the readers. I've been carefully crafting my response. See my original post titled Burden of Proof | 11:49 p.m. Oct. 5, 200. Personally, I was shocked how much name calling there was from the members of God's "True" church. While I'm sure Holland would be pleased, I'm pretty sure that Christ would be displeased and would have a few choice names for them as well. Such as Hypocrite! Pharisee! Never-the-less, here is their response, and my subsequent reply.
Their Response:
Re: Burden of Proof | 10:00 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
What if you got that proof and you still denied it? Would it be benficial to you
to have that "proof" you are looking for? If not, why do you need
proof?
Sign seekers need solid proof. Sign seekers will receive no such
"proof." I guess that's why faith works so well. I don't
claim to know more than anyone else. I don't claim to know the truth to
make money, make war, boast of myself, or even to put myself over anyone. I
simply bear the truth because I sought it through faith in Jesus Christ.
If we should rely on our bodily senses, why are they so imperfect? When one
becomes old, shouldn't ones natural eye sight get better instead of worse.
Can anyone tell me that science has ALL the answers. Or will there be more
discoveries years from now. Our bodily senses can deceive us far more than our
"inner senses." To the author of Burden of Proof, I'm sure the
"proof" has displayed itself before you, you were probably asleep when
it came by.
My Reply (Not sure if Deseret News will post it):
Re: Re; Burdon of Proof 10:00 a.m. Oct. 6, 2009
Your response has clearly proven what I was pointing out. By arguing from
ignorance, see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/, you have
proven what I was trying to point out. Therefore, I again repeat, the burden of
proof lies on the promoters of the Book of Mormon to prove it is true, not on
the disbelievers to prove it is false. By saying that no one can conclusively
prove it is false, therefore it must be true, you have committed the logical
fallacy of arguing from ignorance. The default is to reject the hypothesis, not
accept it unless it is conclusively proven true. Please read up on logical
fallacies, and then post again. I would love to hear your rational as to why
you feel the Book of Mormon is true, as well as present my case for why I feel
it is false.
One more thing. Please refrain from more ad hominem
attacks. You obviously don't know me from Adam, and are completely unaware
of what “proof” I have seen and experienced through out my life.
Maybe Jeff Holland was trying to give an untestimony of the BoM? (1) He mentions the names Spaulding and Ethan Smith whom many members would never have heard of. By doing this he opens up their curiosity to go and check these names out. (2) He uses the wrong BoM copy and identifies it as the very copy read by Hyrum Smith before the mob came. Is there a strange possibility? He seemed crazy enough. Maybe it was the only way of doing it without losing his job?
Just checked to see if the moderators accepted the submission, and they did not. Geez...in the face of actual hard facts, they deny the truth and censor it!
Censorship is alive and well in SLC. Just read Craigslist SLC Rants and Raves for a few days and you'll see how much flagging and removal of entries goes on. One person said they had never seen this kind of censorship in other city's CL Rants sections. It really makes people angry! They repost and repost and repost. And the posts get removed, removed, removed.
Your response has clearly proven what I was pointing out. By arguing from
ignorance, see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/, you
One more thing. Please refrain from more ad hominem
attacks. You obviously don't know me from Adam, and are completely unaware
of what “proof” I have seen and experienced through out my life.
Robin - DesNews has a little blurb above the comment box: Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic,
misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be
posted.
This applies to the body of the Church and to its leaders.
How would you (anyone) KNOW that Joseph and Hyrum wouldn't or didn't make it up?
Did he come to you in a dream?
Did he appear in the temple to you?
Did you read it off a rock in the bottom of a hat?
What? Cough up the proof behind the manipulative, leading statements already.
Bottom line - You don't know. And admiting that you don't know anything, is terrifying. Therein is the big secret of life boys and girls...nobody "knows" anything.
"The Glory of God is Intelligence" right? Per your sign down at BYU... Start using your brain before you spout off platitudes of how God wants someone else to be. Why?
Because you aint Him, Her, It, whatever and you don't know anymore than anyone else does which truly is ZIP.
BS
Well said. I particularly like the quote about rulers. Got a cite for that?
Rock
Adolph Hitler...a real shing star of the community, look what he did with that piece o wisdom.
What's really insulting about people like Mr. Holland and TBMs like him is that they assume that people who have left or are in the process of leaving the LDS Church do so because of some weakness or evil on their part. The fact is that people like me, leave because of having discovered the truth. I didn't set out to disprove the LDS Church. I set out with the intentions of strengthening my so called testimony, so that I would be able to answer the critics. But what I discovered was that the LDS Church is really just a fraud. And when I look upon the mountain of evidence against the LDS Church it boggles the mind that I didn't see it earlier. As one steps farther and farther away from the LDS Church and its indoctrination, the true picture becomes more and more clear. The fact is that TBMs are mostly afraid to take up the challenge to investigate for themselves. They just don't realise it.
PJ:
What's really insulting about people like Mr. Holland and TBMs like him is that they assume that people who have left or are in the process of leaving the LDS Church do so because of some weakness or evil on their part. The fact is that people like me, leave because of having discovered the truth. I didn't set out to disprove the LDS Church. I set out with the intentions of strengthening my so called testimony, so that I would be able to answer the critics. But what I discovered was that the LDS Church is really just a fraud. And when I look upon the mountain of evidence against the LDS Church it boggles the mind that I didn't see it earlier. As one steps farther and farther away from the LDS Church and its indoctrination, the true picture becomes more and more clear. The fact is that TBMs are mostly afraid to take up the challenge to investigate for themselves. They just don't realise it.
I am getting this from my entire family right now. They can't accept that there is not something wrong with me, my marriage or my children. They can't accept the reality that I simply don't believe it because it is unsupportable by available information. The also believe I have lost faith or somehow I don't have enough faith. Or I am putting my faith in the arm of the flesh etc.
They can't accept the reality of my simple unbelief because to do so would bring them uncomfortably close to the truth of the church itself.
My tbm sister lives in College Station tx and said that she love holland and his "fire". She just told me that he was speaking out there a year ago and was literally baning his hands on the pulpit. like hard. and raising his voice the dude is nutso
Lloyd Dobler:
My tbm sister lives in College Station tx and said that she love holland and his "fire". She just told me that he was speaking out there a year ago and was literally baning his hands on the pulpit. like hard. and raising his voice the dude is nutso
Holland's mannerisms kind of reminded me of when Dwight Schrute on the Office gave his talk to the paper convention after getting public-speaking tips from Jim. Someone should find that video and do a side-by-side comparison on YouTube.
Forgive me for maybe being a little dense, but I have never, never, ever heard anyone teach that Hyrum read to JS out of Ether just prior to them dying. Ever. I have never read that anywhere in church history either.
So was Holland telling the truth on that actually happening? And if so, are the apologists now saying that Hyrum went around to all his family members and dog eared the same page in all of their books? And if so, that means there are several copies out there with the same page dog eared?
Someone please educate me before I go off the hook.
Yes, it was a surprise for a lot of people. But there are two dodgy little insertions in History of the Church. Neither indicates a primary source, which is probably why no one has touched them since now. No other accounts that I have found, anyway, mention Book of Mormon testimony bearing.
Elder Holland is attemping to innoculate the saints against alternative theories on the origin of the book of Mormon. By his reasoning, if Joseph was part of a fraud, he would not have done to his death with the Book of Mormon on his lips, so to speak. He would probably have turned to the bible. Or as actually happened to the Masons (google the last words of joseph 'oh lord my god – and add – is there no hope for the widow's son). He also had a magical Jupiter Talisman in his pocket.
Elder Holland's reasoning is faulty on a few points. First of all the Spalding theory includes the possibility that Sidney Rigdon was carrying out a pious fraud. He may actually have believed he was channelling a real ancient prophet (whose scripture he inserted into Spaldings tale of a lost Israelite tribe in America. He may have convinced Joseph to help develop a 'back story' for what they both believed was real scripture to make it more convincing to the public. So even if Jospeh had died with BoM scripture on his lips, it wouldn't make a difference other than to support the pious fraud version of the theory.
The Spalding theory resurfaced lately when a statistical study of the words used indicated that both Sidney and Spalding wrote portions of it. Surprisingly the study indicated that there were more than those two involved, so the theory has expanded to include Joseph and others having input as well (remember Oliver's attempt to translate related in the D&C? - if you think of 'translate' as meaning 'channel a dead prophet by revelation', you may get the idea). The expansion now means that the Spalding theory is now not in opposition to investigators like Metcalfe and Vogel who have found convincing traces of Joseph in the text (I don't think they are convinced yet though). I personally think the Spalding theory wraps up a number of existing theories and ties off a few loose ends, but it needs more research before I'd sell the farm).
Hyrum dog-earing Ether is from D&C 135. A different issue to the testimony bearing in Carthage, as he supposedly read Ether before leaving Nauvoo. D&C gives no indication that Joseph was involved as well. That is straight out of Holland's patooie. This must be some sort popular family myth, because now at least two books with the dog ear have been reported through official Church channels (see my photos and stuff above).
A MAaDite tells us the family are aware of the problem and they explain it by saying Hyrum left a testimony with more than one branch of the family. The book Holland waved about belonged to Hyrum's son, so it has been the designated THE book. But who knows, and it isn't really important other than to make Holland look a little silly as Church News published an account of the other book only two years ago. I just think it is an illustration of LDS myth-making at work. The whole dog-ear incident may be a myth, but on hearing it members of Hyrum's family rushed out and dog-eared their books.
So Holland's over-blown performance starts to look just silly in light of the facts. But look at the effect it has had on believers who have non-believing family!
Maybe Jeff Holland was trying to give an untestimony of the BoM? (1) He mentions the names Spaulding and Ethan Smith whom many members would never have heard of. By doing this he opens up their curiosity to go and check these names out. (2) He uses the wrong BoM copy and identifies it as the very copy read by Hyrum Smith before the mob came. Is there a strange possibility? He seemed crazy enough. Maybe it was the only way of doing it without losing his job?
It is crazy, but he has had an hugely positive result from TBMs.
He didn't necessarily use the wrong BoM, but he has highlighted the fact that there are more than one floating around, which points to the absudity of Mormon myth-making. The hilarious bit is that when two people who claim the have THE book meet, they compromise by saying that Hyrum dog-eared more than one book. So everybody keeps their little faith-promoting trinkets 'real'.
Maybe Jeff Holland was trying to give an untestimony of the BoM? (1) He mentions the names Spaulding and Ethan Smith whom many members would never have heard of. By doing this he opens up their curiosity to go and check these names out. (2) He uses the wrong BoM copy and identifies it as the very copy read by Hyrum Smith before the mob came. Is there a strange possibility? He seemed crazy enough. Maybe it was the only way of doing it without losing his job?
It is crazy, but he has had an hugely positive result from TBMs.
He didn't necessarily use the wrongBoM, but he has highlighted the fact that there are more than one floating around, which points to the absudity of Mormon myth-making. The hilarious bit is that when two people who claim the have THE book meet, they compromise by saying that Hyrum dog-eared more than one book. So everybody keeps their little faith-promoting trinkets 'real'.
It doesn't matter whether he used the wrong or right BoM, the fact still remains that his statement was not based on factual knowledge. The Church presented another copy claiming it was THE book, so it proves either way that they can't lay claim to any BoM being THE book since they are making contradicting claims. At best Mr. Holland was ill informed but I seriously doubt it since he's a GA.
PJ:
What's really insulting about people like Mr. Holland and TBMs like him is that they assume that people who have left or are in the process of leaving the LDS Church do so because of some weakness or evil on their part. The fact is that people like me, leave because of having discovered the truth. I didn't set out to disprove the LDS Church. I set out with the intentions of strengthening my so called testimony, so that I would be able to answer the critics. But what I discovered was that the LDS Church is really just a fraud. And when I look upon the mountain of evidence against the LDS Church it boggles the mind that I didn't see it earlier. As one steps farther and farther away from the LDS Church and its indoctrination, the true picture becomes more and more clear. The fact is that TBMs are mostly afraid to take up the challenge to investigate for themselves. They just don't realise it.
I am getting this from my entire family right now. They can't accept that there is not something wrong with me, my marriage or my children. They can't accept the reality that I simply don't believe it because it is unsupportable by available information. The also believe I have lost faith or somehow I don't have enough faith. Or I am putting my faith in the arm of the flesh etc.
They can't accept the reality of my simple unbelief because to do so would bring them uncomfortably close to the truth of the church itself.
The fact is that leaving something that one believed in so strongly is tough and not weak. It's much easier remaining in the Church than leaving it. Leaving the Church causes so many stresses and anxieties. It can be overwhelming. I take my hat off to those who have been able to resign despite their former beliefs. It takes strength and integrity to do so. I'm thinking of resigning as well but it's not that easy as I have other considerations to think about. But whether one resigns or not, it doesn't seem to matter to the Church as you are still counted among its members. It really only affects how you feel.
Your response has clearly proven what I was pointing out. By arguing from
ignorance, see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/, you
One more thing. Please refrain from more ad hominem
attacks. You obviously don't know me from Adam, and are completely unaware
of what “proof” I have seen and experienced through out my life.
Robin - DesNews has a little blurb above the comment box: Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic,
misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be
posted.
Control Zee: Thanks for pointing that out. After two failed attempts to post, I finally RTFM, removed the URL, then posted once again.
Their Post:
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
The REAL Burden of Proof | 10:01
a.m. Oct. 7, 2009
No, the burden of "proof", or
conclusiveness, of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is on
God.
Period.
However, each of us, as God's children,
have a responsibility to do what we can to find out if it is true,
then as God for His witness.
Latter-day Saints have NOTHING to
prove about the Book of Mormon no more than any non-LDS Christian
"has to" prove that the Bible is also God's word.
The
burden of finding out and of disciplining our lives to be in
accordance with it's teachings is EVERYONE'S responsibility but
proving it?...that is God's chore.
The REAL Burden (typo fix) | 10:03
a.m. Oct. 7, 2009
Sorry, that's supposed to be to "ask
God"...
My Response:
RE: The REAL Burden of Proof | 6:58 a.m. Oct. 8, 2009
Your post is very fascinating, and a perfect example of what is wrong with the
common type of thinking in the LDS church. The whole promise as put forth by
the Book of Mormon begs the question, please google logical fallacies
“begs the question”. In other words, it puts forth a question in
the form of a challenge that already gives you the answer you should expect .
Thus it predisposes the person asking to receive the answer that has already
been preprogrammed. This is hardly an objective approach, and therefore should
be dismissed outright. As such the Burden of Proof squarely falls on the LDS
church, the very ones who are promoting the Book of Mormon as the Word of God.
I didn't set out to disprove the LDS Church. I set out with the intentions of strengthening my so called testimony, so that I would be able to answer the critics. But what I discovered was that the LDS Church is really just a fraud.
That may be the entire crux of why Holland did his mad rant.
Because too many members in running about trying to apologize or prove the church true...and by their very research, they make discoveries they "shouldn't"...(As per Russell M. Ballard's "Some things that are true aren't very useful...")
So Holland jumps up and down squeaking that members must believe or else.
(Or else what?? More apostasy??)
Therefore...the speech is a call to "stop" all research...and just listen to the Heads of the church....no need to look up anything, to research anything...just hear only what they tell you this week....and believe.
- They have my family. And they wonder why I'm angry with the church!
Sign seekers need solid proof. Sign seekers will receive no such "proof." I guess that's why faith works so well. I don't claim to know more than anyone else. I don't claim to know the truth to make money, make war, boast of myself, or even to put myself over anyone. I simply bear the truth because I sought it through faith in Jesus Christ.
If we should rely on our bodily senses, why are they so imperfect? When one becomes old, shouldn't ones natural eye sight get better instead of worse. Can anyone tell me that science has ALL the answers. Or will there be more discoveries years from now. Our bodily senses can deceive us far more than our "inner senses." To the author of Burden of Proof, I'm sure the "proof" has displayed itself before you, you were probably asleep when it came by.