tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post1996401131541808941..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Recent Developments in Understanding PolygamyJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28197001819122402042014-11-27T22:07:58.648-06:002014-11-27T22:07:58.648-06:00Given current news I could not help but post here....Given current news I could not help but post here.<br /><br />Given the logic presented by the apologist, Bill Cosby must be innocent, because where are all the children.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11351444984398480472014-11-14T20:15:40.158-06:002014-11-14T20:15:40.158-06:001. This reimagining presents well known inconsiste...1. This reimagining presents well known inconsistencies. It appears to be promoted here only as some form of lifeline for those who need it.<br /><br />2. The number one difficulty with Stout’s reimagining is that it makes Brigham Young a colossal fraud. Placating the cognitive dissonance regarding the religion’s founding, while amplifying cognitive dissonance regarding successive iterations of the religion.<br /><br />3. Stout provides no clear definition of the word faithful. Apparently Stout has developed a list consisting of women in the last year of Smith’s life that somehow Emma Smith might possibly have consented to Joseph Smith have sexual relationships with, ergo not unfaithful. Any other relation therefore constitutes unfaithful relations. Polygamy alone appears to be insufficient for this definition, but rather some undefined methodology exist for constituting each relation as “faithful”.<br /><br />4. Regardless of the definition, whether it is Stout or Pierce, as always, the new lexicon applies equally as well to David Koresh. Koresh had multiple “wives” with consent of each other and their legal husbands.<br /><br />To date Mormanity and his cronies have never been able to retort the David Koresh analogy with anything other than phony chuckles. To date Mormanity’s only response has been to label the David Koresh comparison has a form of hostility, unwittingly exposing the root of such anti-pluralist which is the arrogance that comes with believing their stuff smells differently than everyone else’s.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15675679132921290032014-11-01T01:02:14.581-05:002014-11-01T01:02:14.581-05:00Thanks for clarifying your mental machinations of ...Thanks for clarifying your mental machinations of my biases. I did not realize I had this bias. I could not help but notice your difficulty in stating what your confessed bias is.<br /><br />I think we all get it Pierce, your position is pretty clear: JS was not guilty of polygamy because he was not "legally" married and he was not guilty of adultery because he was "spiritually" married. He gets to have his cake and it to. Accusing the 7 billion people on this planet that see some inconsistencies or something odd about these contorted reinvented definitions of bias is just bizarre.<br /><br />I love it . It is almost like the Bro. Jake you tube series pull his material straight from you Pierce. JS was not legally married, but it was a totally legit marriage.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39571203777562472282014-10-30T18:03:37.131-05:002014-10-30T18:03:37.131-05:00This isn't about who is biased. We both are v...This isn't about who is biased. We both are very much biased. <br />Yours, however, causes you to reinvent what adultery is, so that now it applies to couples who have mutually entered into marriage covenants in front of witnesses, and where sex may not have even occurred.<br /><br />I'm sure these zingers get the apologists every time.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18158059095046895962014-10-30T15:33:56.526-05:002014-10-30T15:33:56.526-05:00WOW, And I am the one accused of being biased. At...WOW, And I am the one accused of being biased. At any rate this is awesome, anyone who thinks they are spiritually married to someone is incapable of committing adultery. I love your religion Pierce. Makes me think of all those movies where the waitress say "sometimes" when asked if she is married.<br /><br />I can see why Mormanity doesn't like you. At least he is smart enough to not respond when his reasoning has been exposed. The more you respond it just gets better and better. This link will be shared many times.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-91810292908174547742014-10-30T12:26:43.692-05:002014-10-30T12:26:43.692-05:00"The best technique I have used to expose the..."The best technique I have used to expose the Mormon Apologist bias is the Bill Clinton analogy."<br /><br />This is the funniest thing you have ever posted. On the one hand, you have a religious leader who believes he is practicing a biblical principle by being sealed (spiritually married) to more than one woman. Some evidence suggests that a few of these marriages were most likely consummated (not adultery when you're married to the person, btw). However, the lack of children in a marriage in those times is pretty substantial evidence to be considered when the dealing with the accusation of "lust." But as far as Joseph was concerned, they were in a legitimate husband-wife relationship. A commitment was made by all involved to be joined together as husband and wife in the hereafter. <br /><br />On the other hand, you have a married man who had oral sex performed on him by an intern at work. There are clear statements by both parties that their relationship was sexual. They were in no way married to each other. <br /><br />That's your humdinger? Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75590561927260267612014-10-29T23:03:31.197-05:002014-10-29T23:03:31.197-05:00Pierce – What you are psychologically doing here i...Pierce – What you are psychologically doing here is call Projection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Your biased natured is projected on to the person challenging you. Every time I challenge a liberal ideologue, I am accused of being a Republican. Every time challenge a conservative ideologue I am accused of being a democrat. But pray tell Pierce, what is my bias that you accuse me of? Anyways, “nuances” and “context” seem to be your way of confessing your assertion was a mis-statement, but not a lie.<br /><br />BTW, one indication of bias is the creation of hypothetical universes of dubious probabilities whether it is Oak’s hypothetical universe suggesting that maybe destroying the printing press would not have violated legal threshold of freedom of press at the time or Madsen suggesting Joseph Smith could have beat an adultery prosecution regardless of the jury pool. Not that either of those two scenarios have any real bearing of the reality of suppression and adultery by definition.<br /><br />The best technique I have used to expose the Mormon Apologist bias is the Bill Clinton analogy. Apologist says that the lack of evidence of children from extra-marital sexual relations demonstrates that those relations were not about “lust”. I take no stance either way, but under that theory then Bill Clinton’s were not about lust either, because none of his resulted in children that we know of. It works for just about every scenario on the subject. JS would have beaten an adultery prosecution. BC in fact beat a perjury (related to adultery) prosecution, ergo he did not commit adultery? They are analogous situations, not opinions Pierce. For a democrat to say JS’s were bad, but BC’s were OK is bias, just as the reverse (BC’s were bad, but JS’s OK) is also bias. Apologist’s say many of JS extra-marital sexual relations (though may be not all, after all he was fallible, right?) were OK in contrast to the mores of the time period purely as a matter of faith. This fine, but this is in fact the meaning of bias.<br /><br />Just curious, why did you put “shocking” in quotation marks? Italics or caps are better if you want to emphasize something. Quotations marks make it look you are quoting me, which of course would be false.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21872324985090597272014-10-29T14:02:05.556-05:002014-10-29T14:02:05.556-05:00But I already explained those "shocking"...But I already explained those "shocking" quotations of yours in my next paragraph, if you would have cared to quote that too. By carefully omitting the context, you have yourself some great material to pick on. How stimulating. <br />Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48158348798899053512014-10-29T13:55:43.600-05:002014-10-29T13:55:43.600-05:00As always, you take no thought of the nuances that...As always, you take no thought of the nuances that don't fit your bias. <br /><br />http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Illegal/Illegal_in_Nauvoo<br /><br />Then comes the idea of who Joseph was <i>legally</i> married to. Legal marriages and spiritual marriages are not synonymous, similar to today. <br /><br />What Joseph did was not illegal, and he was never convicted of adultery. <br /><br />The anti-bigamy laws that were passed later on attempted to shut down any kind of polygamous families. <br /><br />Dig deeper before accusing people of lying. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33641897826179532352014-10-27T17:48:51.713-05:002014-10-27T17:48:51.713-05:00New LDS essay denying Pierce's assertion that ...New LDS essay denying Pierce's assertion that <i>"having multiple wives was not illegal 1. Anti-bigamy legislation started being pushed through in the 1860'-1880's in response to Mormonism. Prior to that, it was not illegal." -Pierce </i><br /><br /><a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng" rel="nofollow">https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng</a><i>" In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States." -LDS Essay</i>Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83293347586612135972014-03-24T23:00:11.781-05:002014-03-24T23:00:11.781-05:00How delightful to see this note about my Faithful ...How delightful to see this note about my Faithful Joseph series over at millennialstar.org.<br /><br />For those who don't get why Joseph would have covenanted with nearly three freaking dozen women, I'm getting to the good (or positively scary) part right now.<br /><br />Joseph could have been engaging in as much or more bangy bangy as detractors might imagine. But it is striking that there aren't any children.<br /><br />Seriously, you have to come check out the terrible stuff Bennett and his acolytes were doing. It certainly explains why no one has been willing to talk about those times.<br /><br />I certainly hope that those of us examining the history roughly 100 years after all these men and women died won't get all pucker-faced about the errors they embraced, if briefly, in 1841-1842. Several of these women (and even some of the men) not only repented, but went on to become some of the most important leaders in Mormonism.Meg Stouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01620672313029212529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47233270407858104492014-03-01T06:56:50.844-06:002014-03-01T06:56:50.844-06:00Pierce made some statements above that need some c...Pierce made some statements above that need some clarification: "No, having multiple wives was not illegal in Joseph's time."<br /><br />This simple is not true. Pierce is confusing federal law with state law. As in, there was no federal law against slavery, but in many states it was illegal. Polygamy was illegal in Illinois and probably must every state during Joseph Smith time. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was not a religious right and was always illegal going all the way back to King James, essentially declaring that it was never legal.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60874930295548909802014-02-02T16:31:47.469-06:002014-02-02T16:31:47.469-06:00Anonymous,
I just don't think Americans in ge...Anonymous,<br /><br />I just don't think Americans in general consider civil disobedience, with the exception of pockets of university students. But if pushed in the right way, I believe most Americans would. You're right in that it's not something we openly teach in any way. But, as demonstrated by events such as post-manifesto marriages, we can see that those Saints practiced it. It's important to point out that they also paid their debt for breaking the law. So in that way, they still honored and sustained and obeyed it while still bringing to light the injustice. <br /><br />Burton didn't necessarily rank it among sexual sin. The point of that talk (to youth and young adults) was for them to make choices that don't limit their participation in life's events. Getting a criminal record for civil disobedience demonstrations may not be worth it when compared to what the church teaches as life's priorities. In some ways I agree, in some ways I disagree.<br /><br />So if you yourself understand and believe in civil disobedience, you should not have any problems understanding why a Mormon would do it. Because I'm sure you also believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.<br /><br />I also don't think you give the Saints enough credit for how polygamy was handled. They had been indoctrinated as to the importance of answering that calling and following the command to raise up a righteous generation. So now there is a revelation showing what the American government would do if it continued, so it had to cease. For them, the principle was still real, and they were caught between living that principle and the consequence of that decision. Do you not think that this was something that would need to phase out over time? How quickly do you change your religious practice because a hostile government is threatening you? You have to consider the context and reason for the stopping of polygamy as stated in the manifesto. God didn't stop the principle, he simply showed Woodruff what would happen if it continued. <br />It's anything but childish. Children adopt new ideas almost in an instant. These people had to first weigh the consequence of disobedience, then change their family structures, culture, lifestyles, and religious practice. All because of what outside forces would do to them if they didn't comply. Those changes don't happen overnight.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4809809561855275202014-02-02T16:00:18.254-06:002014-02-02T16:00:18.254-06:00Hiero,
Jeff's post and subsequent comment was...Hiero,<br /><br />Jeff's post and subsequent comment was simply opening up a dialogue to consider the possibility that several marriages were not consummated. You start of by saying that you don't understand why anyone would expend any mental energy on this. Those words just generally don't translate to "let's talk about this and see if there's merit to it!" So you'll excuse me if I misunderstood you. You'll also have to let me know if my analytical skills just won't cut it in a conversation with you. With comments like me being taught to "recoil in horror from discussions about 'conjugal relations,'" you may just be over my head.<br />Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38213131140023470242014-02-01T10:03:23.665-06:002014-02-01T10:03:23.665-06:00Pierce,
I don't discourage anybody from havin...Pierce,<br /><br />I don't discourage anybody from having an open dialogue. I question the motives of people like Jeff for choosing to engage in a particular dialogue and for entertaining the idea that Joseph Smith didn't have relations with some of his plural wives. If you mistake questioning motivation for discouraging discussion, your analytical skills are too impaired to participate in a meaningful exchange. Hieronymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87927341879104474422014-01-29T01:33:15.169-06:002014-01-29T01:33:15.169-06:00I, personally, believe in civil disobedience, but ...I, personally, believe in civil disobedience, but I don't think Mormons in general do. Without opening a whole new can, the modern church currently frowns on it, in principle and practice. L. Tom Perry spoke out against it in a BYU devotional, and as recently as 2009, Elder Burton ranked it alongside sexual transgression and drug abuse in a conference talk.<br />But that wasn't my point. My point, and perhaps I don't express it well, is that the church leadership says one thing and does another. The second example I mentioned, but which you passed over, was the continued practice of polygamy by church leaders even after the practice had been outlawed and condemned from the pulpit. Polygamous marriages were performed in secret, illegally, and against church law as well. I find this puzzling and hard to justify. How do you rectify this problem? This goes beyond disobeying a law of the land, it's disobeying a law issued directly to the membership of the church by the very leaders who then went on to participate in more polygamous marriages. To me, post-Manifesto polygamous marriage ceremonies seem like the actions of children. Leaders trying to get away with as much as they can before they're caught a second time. <br />This brings me back to Joseph. Consider, for a moment, that he was driven by the thrill of sexual conquest. I know I've already lost you with that point, but that's how the world sees him. It's easier and more believable to accept that he was a passionate man than that god was constantly threatening his life at the point of a sword if he didn't take yet another wife, no matter who she was. <br />I'll understand if you don't want to continue this, and I apologize to Jeff for dragging this out. These are things I'm genuinely curious about, and I find the reasoning of the faithful on these matters very enlightening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3819359083764127322014-01-28T22:55:19.141-06:002014-01-28T22:55:19.141-06:00Thank you Rod. I feel like I'm just kind of r...Thank you Rod. I feel like I'm just kind of running my mouth sometimes <br />:-/Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27512633367961536882014-01-28T22:54:08.370-06:002014-01-28T22:54:08.370-06:00Anon,
I actually think that your question is a go...Anon,<br /><br />I actually think that your question is a good one and loosely relates to this issue. My belief is that private institutions should be in charge of marrying people, and government can recognize those for their programs, statuses, etc. This would put power over marriage back where it belongs and from whence it came--the churches. As it stands, however, the reverse is true. <br />So in this case, the people have banded together, created government, and that government has certain programs and statuses for those who are married. That government is the ultimate authority on who is legally married. It thus becomes incumbent upon the people to define what marriage is. The LDS church decided that it would promote its belief in what marriage is--a union between a man and woman--and encouraged members to participate in defining what society considers marriage to be. Why not "let people feel and act how they think best?" We do. It's not a question of controlling people's actions. People are free to associate with whomever they want to, and the church currently does not promote legislation to prohibit that right. <br />The real question is: why would the LDS people define marriage in a way that is opposite of what they believe in? <br /><br />"... makes me wonder even more at the justifications used for this article of faith"<br /><br />I just don't understand what is difficult about understanding this. Do you personally believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law? If yes, is there a limit to your obeying? Do you believe that laws can be unjust or unconstitutional? If so, do you believe in the principle of civil disobedience? If not, why? If so, do you not still believe in the concept of law?<br />That's all there is to it. I believe that the American founding fathers believed in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law even though they led a revolution. The laws and taxes and statutes carried out by King George were immoral, so they disobeyed them by throwing tea into a harbor. Yet these men wrote the Constitution after the war. Did Martin Luther King believe in the law? Yes. Did he and Rosa Parks and others practice civil disobedience to unjust laws? Yes. How about Ghandi? Same thing. This conundrum is not unique to Mormonism. I really hope by now that is clear. I don't see how it could be that foreign of a concept or why you will only apply it to Mormons.<br /><br /><br />Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31737349806679769272014-01-27T13:58:19.557-06:002014-01-27T13:58:19.557-06:00Pierce,
Just thought I'd tell you I enjoyed r...Pierce,<br /><br />Just thought I'd tell you I enjoyed reading your thoughtful posts here. :)<br /><br />-RodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88602776847232441672014-01-27T11:55:09.634-06:002014-01-27T11:55:09.634-06:00The point of my dialogue is this: I like to hear h...The point of my dialogue is this: I like to hear how Mormons justify and explain their beliefs. <br />I'll let it go at that, but I would question something on point #2, which I acknowledge is completely off-topic. If the government has no business in marriages, then why the fuss over prop 8, gay marriage, etc? If it's a sacrament, and the gov't has no business regulating a sacrament, why not just let people feel and act how they think best? Sorry for the de-rail, just a thought.<br />As for #3, it's a matter of saying one thing and doing another. "We believe in obeying the law, but we don't obey it." The church hierarchy's continued practice of polygamy at the beginning of the 20th century, even after they themselves proclaimed the practice was outlawed, makes me wonder even more at the justifications used for this article of faith.<br />Thank you for your answers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4811724554848868992014-01-27T09:57:10.984-06:002014-01-27T09:57:10.984-06:00Anonymous,
I'm trying to understand the point...Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm trying to understand the point of your dialogue with me. No, having multiple wives was not illegal in Joseph's time. <br />1. Anti-bigamy legislation started being pushed through in the 1860'-1880's in response to Mormonism. Prior to that, it was not illegal.<br />2. If you're concerned about the "law," then no, Joseph did not seek to have the State recognize these sealings aka. marriages, so far as I know. I don't have any bones with calling them a marriage, but I used that term to demonstrate that the State has no business regulating a religious ceremony like this, which is what a marriage is. As a side note, I have talked with couples who have said that they believe themselves to be married even though they had no religious ceremony nor a marriage certificate from the state. It was just something they believed. Do you think that the courts should attempt to regulate belief like that? There is a difference between what you do privately/religiously and seeking to get that marriage approved by the State.<br />3. Why is it lip service and what do you mean by outsiders? Is my explanation really that hard to understand? There is a context to that article of faith like there is to everything. For example, we believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. That does not mean you can say "oh, you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity then." <br />State and Federal laws are not the highest law. And just because a bureaucrat passes a law or ordinance or interprets a law a certain way doesn't mean we reverence it like it was scripture. Laws are overturned all the time because they are unconstitutional and we are not morally obliged to follow those (again, all this is my own viewpoint. Certainly other LDS who would disagree with me). It doesn't mean I don't believe in the principle of law. When we say we "believe in" it, the given is that the law is constitutional and serves to protect the rights of society. <br /><br />I'm sure you view it the same way. If not, please explain.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32007997255897893442014-01-27T00:41:44.199-06:002014-01-27T00:41:44.199-06:00Pierce,
1. Having multiple wives wasn't agains...Pierce,<br />1. Having multiple wives wasn't against the law? Marrying someone else's wife wasn't against the law?<br />2. Are you saying these weren't marriages, but "religious ceremonies"? Then why did they call them marriages?<br />3. So the articles of faith are lip service to outsiders?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22701123625301539822014-01-26T20:52:49.105-06:002014-01-26T20:52:49.105-06:00That's a good question. I would start off by ...That's a good question. I would start off by saying that it is indeed a belief of ours to obey, honor, and sustain the law. 3 things there:<br />1. Joseph didn't break the law. The age of consent was actually about 10 years old back in that time (I'm not including my opinion on that, just saying how it was and how it was viewed). <br />2. A religious ceremony like a sealing is not something that is regulated by the law, nor should it be. Even amidst the anti-polygamy laws in force today, fundamentalists have one legal spouse yet consider their sealings to be equal. Same is true of polyandry.<br />3. My opinion only: While we believe that article of faith, we do not hold the "law of the land" to be the highest law, nor is it worshiped by us. Many unethical and unconstitutional laws are passed that don't deserve our devotion. In some cases, it is acceptable to practice a civil disobedience. <br /><br />So yes, I believe he did. And considering the terrible abuses instigated and perpetuated by local and federal governments, I would say that he practiced it better than most could have.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25745824985417641932014-01-26T12:43:19.475-06:002014-01-26T12:43:19.475-06:00So, Pierce, how do you square what the article of ...So, Pierce, how do you square what the article of faith states versus the way Joseph lived? Did he obey, honor, and sustain the law of the land when he married women who were already married, or when he married children?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40541591111982612872014-01-25T17:42:05.826-06:002014-01-25T17:42:05.826-06:00I didn't say that there were no sexual activit...I didn't say that there were no sexual activities in polygamous marriages. I said that there actually a lack of evidence that supports sexual activity occurring in most of Joseph's sealings. In your haste to rip on Gospel Doctrine class (which is not called Detailed Church History class, you skipped over what was actually said.<br /><br />"When information from a variety of plausible sources is available, and it flies in the face of what's being taught each Sunday, who is to be believed? The person who has never once doubted a shred of what's been presented, or the mountains of actual evidence that contradicts the official church record?"<br /><br />And what is the official church record that you speak of, and what is the official statement regarding polygamy that is blown away by "plausible sources?" <br /><br />Now I will be the first one to agree that we could do a better job with the materials being taught in our manuals, for a variety of reasons. And the church will not thrive in the information age without getting ahead of the issues and providing more information than critics. But if you haven't looked past a Gospel Doctrine manual to learn more about church history (if it interests you), then that is your fault. I actually am very interested in it and have spent a pretty good deal of time reading from some plausible sources (that don't rely on assumptions), and the consensus from my studies is what I stated above. It has nothing to do with Gospel Doctrine--which I'll emphasize again--deals mostly with doctrinal principles in a cursory manner and serves to edify, rather than controversial historical details of one aspect of the early church. <br /><br />I live in Arizona, and I have never known a person to have grown up in the church and not heard of polygamy. People may not know the details of these marriages because 1. they are murky and 2. the church hasn't included them in Sunday school lessons. But I don't think it's as common as you make it out to be, despite some of the one-off stories that might be floating around.<br /><br />Piercenoreply@blogger.com