Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'

Dec 6, 2012 Full story: GPB.org 432

The Mormon Church has a new website to clarify its position on "same-sex attraction" and to reach out to all of its members, including gays and lesbians, "with love and understanding." The launching of mormonsandgays.org follows persistent criticism of Mormon involvement in California's ballot measure banning gay marriage, NPR's Howard Berkes ... (more)

Full Story

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#363 Jan 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You love to dwell on the old, and forget the teachings of the new. Christ was the temple of the New Testament. Why? because he paid the price for the sins of the world. The temple from the beginning was build as a place where people paid their price for sin once a year with animal sacrifices. It was a temporary payment to God until Christ arrived and paid the full price. After Christ, the temple was no longer needed. When we accept Christ, we accept Christ dwelling within us through the Holy Spirit. The Christian is the temple of God, that is what Act 17v24 is telling us.
"After Christ, the temple was no longer needed."
God told you that huh? Can you give me the verse(s) where God or Jesus said temples for God commanded by God to be made for him are never to be made/used again after Jesus leaves the earth?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#364 Jan 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the intentional misstatement of what I said. I didn't say "THEY MARRIED TO HAVE SEX." I said "married people have sex". Now Joseph Smith certainly married them to screw them, that is without doubt. There is no "Holy" reason for one man to marry another, ask the Ten Commandments.
<quoted text>
That is because I refuse to give up my common sense. If there were only one or two claims, yes, there would be room for doubt. But we have proof from even the writings of Smith he was boning these women, and the witness of dozens of others to support it. You're being pathetic.
<quoted text>
I'm not going to make excuses for a pervert so I can pretend he is a prophet. I'm accepting the evidence, you're the one in denial.
lol...you pervert the things you read to mean what you want them to mean. You do it all the time.
Take the following for instance. "I didn't say "THEY MARRIED TO HAVE SEX." I said "married people have sex"." You realize though said in two different ways, my statement and your statement mean the same thing? You do realize that correct? See, the opposite of what I said is "They married not to have sex." And the opposite of what you said is "Married people don't have sex." Again though said differently, they mean the same thing.
When you said married people have sex, you're also stating you don't believe the opposite, that people marry not to have sex. Get it?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#365 Jan 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"After Christ, the temple was no longer needed."
God told you that huh? Can you give me the verse(s) where God or Jesus said temples for God commanded by God to be made for him are never to be made/used again after Jesus leaves the earth?
Already have, Acts 17.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#366 Jan 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...you pervert the things you read to mean what you want them to mean. You do it all the time.
Take the following for instance. "I didn't say "THEY MARRIED TO HAVE SEX." I said "married people have sex"." You realize though said in two different ways, my statement and your statement mean the same thing? You do realize that correct? See, the opposite of what I said is "They married not to have sex." And the opposite of what you said is "Married people don't have sex." Again though said differently, they mean the same thing.
When you said married people have sex, you're also stating you don't believe the opposite, that people marry not to have sex. Get it?
I don't believe the opposite. You're statement "THEY MARRIED TO HAVE SEX." is an implication that I'm claiming people marry only to have sex, that isn't what I was saying, though in Smith's case, that would be true. I was saying married people have sex.

Still waiting for the "Holy" reason one man should marry another man's wife.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#367 Jan 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Young didn't admit to anything of the kind. Not a single wife spoke of having sex with Smith in any diary.
Where is it written that something is a lie unless it is found in a diary? That's just silly.
I realize that you as a fool take second hand information as facts, but as I said a fool does that, not a wise person. A wise person will wait for actual evidence that's incontestable before making a judgement call.
A first hand statement from one of the person involved in a court of law is considered "actual evidence".
Take the following for example. I got it from a web site discussing Smith's polygamy.
...
"This is taken from IN SACRED LONELINESS, by Todd Compton...
Nauvoo stake president Wililam Marks suggested in 1853 that Smith came to have doubts about polygamy before his death:
When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church... Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for abut three weeks prior to his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, "Bro. Marks, we are a ruined people." I asked, how so? he said, "this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and prcticed among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been decieved,' he said, " in reference to its prcatice; it is wrong, it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church."
....
Now you would take the stake president's words as God's own utterance and that his words are facts that Smith regretted the polygamy he instituted.
Now I on the other hand won't take his statement as correct or incorrect. Why? Because it's called "second hand information." Person A is saying what they claim person B said. But person B isn't around to verify this nor are there any written statements by person B affirming this information is true.
In this case, person A, he's against polygamy. He believes it's wrong. That would mean he speaks against it when given the chance. With that set forth, I find it more than coincidence that a man against polygamy, would recall a conversation with Smith ten years after the death of Smith that fits his very disbeliefs of polygamy. To tell others that Smith realized polygamy was wrong and evil and not of God, that Smith came to this realization after he had already knew those things concerning polygamy, that it was wrong and evil and not of God, that Smith had told him those things...way to convenient of a memory I believe.
Good for you. But I didn't even bring up this statement. You are only setting up a strawman argument to debate against. Believe or don't, I don't care, this statement isn't part of the evidence.
Especially when Smith never spoke against polygamy a single day of his living life in all the writings he wrote. Smith never said an ill word of polygamy. And if you read what Smith wrote about polygamy, in many instances he supported it.
So I remain neutral of this being a true statement of remembrance by this stake president.
You on the other hand would declare it's God's truth because a Mormon said it.
And that's our difference.
And much ado about nothing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#368 Jan 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to delete some of your post to have room to write.
Everything you listed is an account of what someone said someone else said.
Let's take one item and go through it.
"- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)"
1. Why was Lott testifying about private sexual matters? Did she testify about all private sexual matters she ever engaged in?
2. Why would she in a court of law want God and everyone to know her "supposed" sexual undetakings? Why would she want that personal information to be had by so many?
3. Who was the person that approached a very old woman and asked if she'd talk about her sex life? What was their reason for wanting to know about her sex life?
4. Why was she so willing to talk about her sex life?
5. Did she get paid to reveal/state this information?
.....
I know it's unimportant information to you as you take any statement against Smith to be God's own very words, but wisdom tells me to ask questions. Why, when, what purpose, etc.
Can you answer my questions?
Something about, "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

Heresay Evidence wasn't admissible evidence in either in Testimony or Affidavits of the period.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#369 Jan 6, 2013
Smith preaches: "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down;"

SOURCE: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 4, p.445

Three women testify that Assistant President John C. Bennett and Apostle William Smith taught them that Smith approved of "spiritual wifery" wherein several men have sexual relations with the same woman. The women testifying were Margaret and Matilda Nyman and Catherine Fuller Warren. The report of the Nymans was later printed in the 29 May 1844 Nauvoo Neighbor. The sisters said that Elder Chauncy Higbee had advised them that Smith approved of "spiritual wifery" but gave instructions to keep the matter a secret because "THERE WAS NO SIN WHEN THERE IS NO ACCUSER." Catherine Fuller Warren in her 20 May 1842 testimony responded to charges of "unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with John C. Bennett and others" by admitting to having intercourse not only with him but with Chauncy Higbee and the prophet's younger brother, Apostle William Smith. Speaking in her defense, however, she insisted that the men had "taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women and that the heads of the Church also taught and practised it which things caused her to be led away thinking it to be right."

PLACE: Nauvoo, IL

SOURCE: Minutes of The High Council of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 24 May 1842, Nauvoo Neighbor 29 May 1844 edition

"THERE WAS NO SIN WHEN THERE IS NO ACCUSER."
So, as long as you keep it quiet or to yourself, nothing is a sin, according to Smith. Justifications of a sexual predator.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#370 Jan 6, 2013
Pior to his marriage to Newel Whitney's 17 year-old daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney, Joseph Smith recevied and recorded a revelation on polygamy, which remains in LDS church archives. Although recorded in the official "Revelation Book" of the time, the revelation was not canonized as scripture.

In this revelation, the Lord reveals a plural marriage ceremony, which would later be altered and become the sealing ceremony in the temple.

From copies in archives at the Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah:

Verily, Thus Saith the Lord, unto My Servant Newell. K. Whitney
A Revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, and Joseph Smith Elizabeth Ann Whitney, and Sarah Ann Whitney

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your Family [his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney] and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of the lineage of my Preast(sic) Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you saith the Lord."

"These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your Daughter Sarah Ann. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say 'You both mutually agree," calling them by name,'"to be each other's companion SO LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE PRESERVING YOURSELVES FOR EACH OTHER AND FROM ALL OTHERS and also throughout all eternity reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times passed.' If you both agree to covenant and do this then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my Holy Progenitors, by the right of birth which is of Preast(sic) Hood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living. God obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck(sic) Jethro and other of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those Powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Amen."

LOCATION: Nauvoo, IL

SOURCE: Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2, also The Historical Record 6:222 (1887 edition.), also In Sacred Lonliness, p. 348-349

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#371 Jan 6, 2013
D&C 132
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

What trespasses would she be angry about if it wasn't adultery?
Max

Pekin, IL

#372 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have, Acts 17.
You are posting another lie:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

It says no such thing.

And remember, this thread is discussing efforts by a church to reach out to its members with same sex attractions. It is NOT a thread for your defamation and fiction. You are obsessed with hate.
Max

Pekin, IL

#373 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
D&C 132
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
What trespasses would she be angry about if it wasn't adultery?
You are delusional, filled with hate, and again off topic. You make a fool of yourself trying to read your hate into something that isn't there.

You are obsessed with hate and defamation and your defamation is just as ugly as antisemitism, though granted it appears to be a projection of your own guilt.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#374 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have, Acts 17.
No, you didn't. So I'm going to ask a really stupid question on my part and I'd like some credible links of credible scholars.
Please describe to me what exactly Paul was speaking about and why he said it.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#375 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe the opposite. You're statement "THEY MARRIED TO HAVE SEX." is an implication that I'm claiming people marry only to have sex, that isn't what I was saying, though in Smith's case, that would be true. I was saying married people have sex.
Still waiting for the "Holy" reason one man should marry another man's wife.
Umm, you need to face this fact and accept it as the fact it is. Smith never, ever, legally married any other female accept Emma. She was his only "legally" recognized wife.
So when you say Smith married other women, when anyone states Smith married other women, in the context of a legal marriage, Smith married but one female, not 20 or 30 or 40 etc.
As to your question, I know anti-Mormons on the web that understand why Smith preformed his own "version" of a "holy marriage" to these other women. So why do they get it and you don't? That's the real question. They know from what they have read that Smith married those women for the "here after". They know that Smith didn't marry those females to have a relationship in the here and now because for most of those females he married, there is no existing evidence to show he married them and had a marital relationship with them. They know that for most of those females he married, there is no evidence he consummated those relationships as he did so with Emma.
They do speak of the rumours spread by a few of the wives and some of the rumours spread by people that knew Smith or the wife. But many acknowledge wisely there exists no factual evidence to prove Smith had sex with any of them.
But being wise doesn't seem to suit you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#376 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is it written that something is a lie unless it is found in a diary? That's just silly.
<quoted text>
A first hand statement from one of the person involved in a court of law is considered "actual evidence".
<quoted text>
Good for you. But I didn't even bring up this statement. You are only setting up a strawman argument to debate against. Believe or don't, I don't care, this statement isn't part of the evidence.
<quoted text>
And much ado about nothing.
What is wrong with you? You're thinking is so twisted.
The writing in a diary is usually personal and usually not written to state pathetic lies to deceive who ever might read it before or after their death.
Smith was "pro-diary". He told his people to keep and maintain diary's. Diary's of early Mormons have given us much, much information about what went on in the early days of the church. And when different individuals write of a similar experience, that's called strong circumstantial evidence of something having taken place. Like the personal diary writings of those Mormons that went through the Haun's Mill massacre. They corroborate certain things that took place.
Well these wives had diary's. Not a single one ever wrote of what they later considered was one of the most important events in their life that happened to them. A marriage, legal or illegally done. They didn't record it. They didn't say it had been consummated. They didn't write of liking it, hating it, feeling raped, feeling used, feeling elated, feeling glad, not anything!
And after Smith was dead most wonder what kept these wives from writing detailed accounts of their marriage and consummated relationship with Smith. He was dead and there were no repercussions to be had. The fact that some would speak of having children and having consummated the relationship in court proves nothing held them back from recording such an eventful experience. But we have nothing. And as usual you don't ask why.
Of your reply about a court recorded statement, are you telling me you believe no one lies in court for their own need/purpose or for the need/purpose of someone else? Is that what you're telling me? You're saying in your mind, these women told the God's honest truth and nothing but the truth? That is your belief???
And the statements given by these women aren't a straw-man argument. THE JUDGE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEM! According to you if you believe those women were telling God's truth, then you can't disbelieve that the Judge called them inn a nice way LIARS. He didn't believe them. He didn't believe any polygamous consummated relationships took place from the evidence presented to him.
Deal with that bit of fact for a change :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#377 Jan 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Something about, "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
Heresay Evidence wasn't admissible evidence in either in Testimony or Affidavits of the period.
And that's the difference Dana doesn't understan.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#378 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
SOURCE: Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 4, p.445
Three women testify that Assistant President John C. Bennett and Apostle William Smith taught them that Smith approved of "spiritual wifery" wherein several men have sexual relations with the same woman.
From the web...

While Bennett was mayor, he was caught in private sexual relations with women in the city. He told the women that the practice, which he termed "spiritual wifery," was sanctioned by God and Joseph Smith, and that Joseph Smith did the same. When discovered, he privately confessed his crimes, produced an affidavit that Joseph Smith had no part in his adultery and was disciplined accordingly.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#379 Jan 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
Pior to his marriage to Newel Whitney's 17 year-old daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney, Joseph Smith recevied and recorded a revelation on polygamy, which remains in LDS church archives. Although recorded in the official "Revelation Book" of the time, the revelation was not canonized as scripture.
In this revelation, the Lord reveals a plural marriage ceremony, which would later be altered and become the sealing ceremony in the temple.
From copies in archives at the Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah:
Verily, Thus Saith the Lord, unto My Servant Newell. K. Whitney
A Revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, and Joseph Smith Elizabeth Ann Whitney, and Sarah Ann Whitney
"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your Family [his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney] and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old & young because of the lineage of my Preast(sic) Hood saith the Lord it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the Holy promise which I now make unto you saith the Lord."
"These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your Daughter Sarah Ann. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say 'You both mutually agree," calling them by name,'"to be each other's companion SO LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE PRESERVING YOURSELVES FOR EACH OTHER AND FROM ALL OTHERS and also throughout all eternity reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times passed.' If you both agree to covenant and do this then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my Holy Progenitors, by the right of birth which is of Preast(sic) Hood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living. God obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck(sic) Jethro and other of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those Powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Amen."
LOCATION: Nauvoo, IL
SOURCE: Original manuscript of Kirtland Revelation Book, Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2, also The Historical Record 6:222 (1887 edition.), also In Sacred Lonliness, p. 348-349
Did you wonder about the meaning of the following at all?
"... calling them by name,'"to be each other's companion SO LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE PRESERVING YOURSELVES FOR EACH OTHER AND FROM ALL OTHERS and also throughout all eternity... "
How do you think Smith was to preserve himself for Sarah while being attached to Emma when the command was that he was to be separate from all others(meaning other wives)while being preserved for Sarah?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#380 Jan 7, 2013
Max wrote:
<quoted text>You are posting another lie:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
It says no such thing.
And remember, this thread is discussing efforts by a church to reach out to its members with same sex attractions. It is NOT a thread for your defamation and fiction. You are obsessed with hate.
Yes it does:
24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#381 Jan 7, 2013
Max wrote:
<quoted text>You are delusional, filled with hate, and again off topic. You make a fool of yourself trying to read your hate into something that isn't there.
You are obsessed with hate and defamation and your defamation is just as ugly as antisemitism, though granted it appears to be a projection of your own guilt.
Can you say "hate and defamation" again? It's like an 80's song that keeps getting replayed over, and over, and over, and over...

Do you still think that the Jews aren't a race? LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#382 Jan 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you didn't. So I'm going to ask a really stupid question on my part and I'd like some credible links of credible scholars.
Please describe to me what exactly Paul was speaking about and why he said it.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
He was talking about the nature of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ to a people who didn't him:

26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said,‘We are his offspring.’

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Feel free to find your own scholars. I don't play fetch.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bob McDonnell: Mitt Romney will win Virginia (Apr '12) 20 min swedenforever 9
Romney Leads Scattered 2016 GOP Field, Clinton ... 3 hr Go Blue Forever 40
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 9 hr Here Is One 934
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 12 hr barefoot2626 12,316
On third endorsement, Cain backs Romney (May '12) 16 hr Bee Eff Dee 24
Cain says he won't drop out of GOP race (Nov '11) 16 hr Bee Eff Dee 266
Romney Has Zero Percent Support From African Am... (Aug '12) 18 hr Swedenforever 827

Mitt Romney People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE