Jump to content

Kevin Christensen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,011 Excellent

About Kevin Christensen

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 04/28/1954

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Canonsburg, PA

Recent Profile Visitors

21,270 profile views
  1. Rather than fret about changing doctrines, and giving examples that suggest that one has built their house on sand, I look at 3 Nephi 11:31-40, talking about faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, concluding: "And who shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock: but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell shall stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them." Rather than assume that it's obvious what a prophet is or should be, I troubled to gather 28 Biblical Tests for True and False Prophets. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets Part of the study involved looking at the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting true prophets. It turned out that these boiled down to people saying, "It's not what I think," or "It's not what I desire." What a person thinks should be so, their orthodoxy, is what they fear, the mental framework that shapes their thinking. So there is a correspondence with the sacrifice of a broken heart (desires) and a contrite spirit (what they think). It also turns out that the Biblical recommendations for what a person should do to see truth amount to a process that puts their fears and desires on the altar. That is, to follow what the Bible recommends we do to see truth quite literally involves the sacrifice of what we think and what we desire. When I put this together, I saw that anyone could have done it but no one had. Why? The answer is that if I decide to measure a prophet against what I personally think and what I personally desire, it's easier to control the answer. If he does not measure up to what I think and what I want, how can he possibly be a prophet? And that leads to "with what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (3 Nephi 14:2). The admonition that "By their fruits shall ye know them" refers not to a subjective assessment of what I assume is good, but rather, our knowledge of the defining characteristics, as distinctive as figs compared to thistles, or grapes to thorns. A beautiful thistle is not better here than even a bruised or wormy fig. A perfect thorn is not better here than a grape that has been pecked by a bird. I notice that the guarantee on prophets in the D&C involves the word "expedience." And it turns out that will do. The kind of thinking that produced the 14 Fundamentals is a human strategy for dealing with complexity. In a human society, we will have such people. They correspond to Position 2 of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. Their existence is one reason why I find it useful to look up the word "sustain" in a good dictionary. Meanings include, suffer, endure, allow, permit. But rather then dwell on them, I look to the example of Joseph Smith who by precept and example urges me on to Position 9. Eventually, here: FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  2. I clearly see the reasons for faith crisis for so many. I have been exploring the experience and narratives for 45 years. But rather than step aside and let the destructive process play out without comment or effort, or just deciding that what Othello needs most is sympathy and understanding rather than to challenge his views, I am offering exactly what Jesus calls New wine and New bottles. A different approach to the same kinds of experience that can be mind expanding and soul enlarging rather than shattering. Patrick Carnes draws on Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces to observe that "Heroes face their fears; villains nurture their resentments." That is the difference between Harry Potter and Voldemort, between Thor and Loki, between Luke and Darth Vader. Othello is not being heroic when he strangles his innocent wife. Rather, he has embraced his resentments, and given in to his fear of looking bad in public. That is the difference between the George Bailey whose personal frustrations make his life a living hell and and the George Bailey whose appreciation of the significance of his personal relationships allows him to let go his resentments and embrace "A Wonderful Life," saying, "Isn't it wonderful? I'm going to jail." A George Bailey who focused on just how personally frustrated he was, how much disappointment he had to endure, how much he had to sacrifice, how much bad advice he was given, how much pain the people who claim to love him inflict on him, then, would quite understandably have a miserable life. But he has options, a different path, different wine offered, if he will put it in the new wine bottle. The choice can be his. A wonderful life, or, he can choose to be a victim, and wallow in his very understandable pain. For instance, rather than resent changes in church history, I consider what happens to all histories. In Playing to an Audience, I quote Kuhn at greater length than this: I've never seen anyone make the same complaints about changes to scientific histories, deciding, "How can I trust science anymore!" My understanding of everything changes when I take a closer look. Not just LDS history, but everything. What happens to LDS histories in a natural process, part of the growth of knowledge in every field. Should I resent that, or accept it? Should I shatter, or expand? https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/ I very much like what J. K. Rowling illuminates with Harry's journey. She has established all sorts of reasons for Harry to admire and idolize his father and Dumbledore. He comes to hate Sirius Black, but learns better. He has countless reasons, abundant reasons, ample justification to resent Snape and Malfoy. But there is the Pensive and Rita Skeeter's books, and King's Cross. So what happens when he obtains a bit of pure knowledge? Does that permanently shatter Harry's faith in his family and leaders? Or does he learn to make allowances for human weakness in his father, Dumbledore, and Sirius? Is that a mistake on his part, or human growth, the choice of a hero or a villain? Harry chooses to let his soul expand, at first understandably troubled by things he learns about those he admired, but he adjusts his expectations for their humanity, allowing their imperfection to exist along with their virtures. And of course, the Pensive also provides pure knowledge of Snape and eventually, Harry has to realize that all of the justifiable and abundant reasons he had to hate him, to even want to kill him for what seems the most insistently plain, eye-witness, irrefutable facts, were not the most important things to know, that the same facts that had seemed so damning when he first encountered them could have a completely different significance given further light and knowledge. Pure knowledge, D&C 121 says, enlarges the soul. Harry even gets pure knowledge of Malfoy. And even Voldemort, and he pities him, rather than hates him. Voldemort holds on to fear of death and personal resentments to the end. Harry faces his fears, including death, and lets go all of his resentments. One a villain, one a hero. If pure knowledge enlarges the soul, what of impure knowledge? That is all fiction, but like the best fictions, like Othello, it points to reality, and therefore, is not just fiction. If, as a child, I ran out into the street to follow a ball, I might not be thinking carefully of all potential consequences. I was taught, I learned, I grew. I sometimes made mistakes of various kinds, and had to learn from negative experiences. Whether I knew better or not, the same principles apply, cause and effect. I once turned my bike too sharply on gravel, and broke a leg. Well, it hurt and took time to heal. Should I blame someone else? It was my fault, my mistake. What good would resentment and scapegoating do? A scripture I was taught when a youth was, "There is a law irrevocably decreed before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." This is true whether I act in ignorance or awareness. Jesus encourages me to remove the beam from my own eye first. Self criticism, self reflection, self examination. "Then shall ye see clearly." I see clearly a way to navigate the same information and circumstances that cause other people crisis. At the very least, I want them to know they have a choice. I can do no more than that. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  3. Of course, there was Jacob 1:14, where a first generation record keeper explains that Lamanites from that time on will be a political designation, rather than lineage, a label applied to those who "seek to destroy the people of Nephi" and that Nephite from that time forth refers to friendlies. So much trouble could have been avoided by reading carefully what we had, checking our own eye for beams, rather than hasty conclusion jumping. There is a lesson there, for those whose choose to learn, and for those who want self justification, leverage and a place to stand. New Wine and New bottles and enjoyment, or new wine in old bottles, moaning about the bottles bursting and spilling. Should I take a lesson from Jesus, or not? Should I consider D&C 1 on "mine authority, and the authority of my servants" that "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest," or not? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  4. Yes. You are correct. California Boy has not yet grasped the metaphor. Perhaps he will, and perhaps not. Best, Kevin C.
  5. When I read the CES letter, I felt like it was Tanner's Lite for the Twitter generation. Old news simplified, summarized, recycled. Paul says, "If ye are prepared ye shall not fear." I was prepared, not by the institutions, but my individual effort in seeking out of the best books. It never even occurred to me to ask a local leader, or that conference talks should have everything. I've had bishops who were doctors and custodians and boat salesmen. I noticed, somehow, that they did not necessarily know the answers. They were good men, but not scholars. They were trained in other fields, had other talents. Faithful and good, but obviously, not the ones to ask. But there were people who did know, and it was not hard to tell who had the best information. Madsen began enlightenment, and Nibley opened a whole new world. My Interpreter responses dealt with specific questions, and included footnotes, and pointed to sources where people can get even more detailed responses. FAIR has been astonishingly rigorous and detailed. To overlook that is itself like a personal attack on FAIR. We address literally everything, and offer solutions, and we do understand it is hard for some people. The understanding is why we bother. School is hard. Homework is hard. Jobs are hard. Exercise is hard. Relationships are hard. Parenting is hard. Putting oil in our own lamps is hard. Doing whatever it takes is hard. Complaining and moaning and feeling self entitled, and victimized is easy. Nowadays, it's even Presidential. For all that we try to blaze trails, clear the weeds, plant the crops, and provide a bountiful harvest of answers, we cannot force people to search click, read, think, ponder. Life is a banquet, as Auntie Mame says, and most poor suckers are starving. The feast is available. But we can only invite people to come. We cannot make them eat. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled. What about those who just sit and complain that everything is not just handed to them? What promise do they have? FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  6. When Othello has his faith crisis, he's not just facing the hard cruel facts, and objectively following them to their inevitable, irrefutable conclusion. He's buying into a narrative frame in which to interpret those facts. He's not particularly self reflective, but rather, more concerned about his personal pride than his personal relationships, more concerned with emotion and self justification than faith, hope, and charity. One inescapable obvious fact that ought to be accounted for, and that happens to be the foundation of my own response to Runnells, is that the same facts can easily be accounted for by a different narrative. Jesus talks about new wine and new bottles. Kuhn talks about paradigms. So, how should I react if I discover that various LDS leaders made errors in assertions about the New York Cumorah, or what ever else bothers you? Should I shatter like glass if I run across something that counters my traditions? (That happens to be Joseph Smith's apt metaphor in discussing an LDS weakness in dealing with information that counters their traditions.) Or should I first examine my own eye for beams, and consider not what I did expect, but rather always be willing to ask "What I should expect?" If I come across Othello strangling Desdemona, should I sympathize with him, and say, "I feel your pain. Why shouldn't you feel betrayed and angry? You are completely justified in your actions. No one should criticize you because that is adding insult to injury." I happen to think Desdemona is innocent. I think Othello is making a huge mistake. I think the same information that he believes is faith shattering can be accounted for in another, more reasonable, enlightening, and plausible way. I think that it is important to point that out, and that any embarrassment he might feel about his misplaced interpretations and expectations is far less important than the prospect of his later having to face the damage he has done to an innocent and to his own soul. And might it not be a good idea to talk about how new knowledge and different perspectives might actually expand our minds and enlarge our souls? Shouldn't I give the new wine and new bottles a chance? When I become a man, should I not put away childish things, including a view of authority that LDS scriptures explicitly deny? It's important to deal with changing information. It's not just a Mormon thing. The Tanners titled their most famous book, The Changing World of Mormonism, based on the entirely dubious foundational premise that any change is inherently scandalous. Notice what happens to the scandal if the subject is the Changing World of Science, or Astronomy, or Computing, or Politics, or History, or Education, or Music, or Botany, [Page 149]or Paleontology, or whatever . It turns out that in most fields of learning and areas of life, the fact of change is not at all scandalous. We expect it. It would be nice if all church manuals and church art were better, but I have to ask, does God really want me to grow up sure in the knowledge that everything my teachers and formal leaders say is absolutely correct and unchanging and all I have to do is sit and listen to approved thoughts? If that is where I end up, have I really grown up? https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/ It's also a human development thing, which is why I keep citing the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. It's also a recovery thing, which is why I mention "dismantling the grievance story." FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  7. Do you remember God saying anything in the Garden? Or Adam, or Eve? Or various others in the temple drama? There is a difference between telling "a truth", some truths, honestly saying what a person thinks, which is not necessarily the same same as being correct, saying something factual with malicious intent, and telling "the Truth." It's important to ask whether your memory is telling you the truth on this point, and possibly others of significance. Truth, according to D&C 93 is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come." Anything short of full omniscience comes short. Alma 32 does not say that a few successful experiments is enough to bring "perfect knowledge", but that acquiring knowledge is an ongoing process. FWIW Kevin Christenen Canonsburg, PA
  8. Can't find or didn't try to find? https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents#Response_to_claims_made_in_.22Letter_to_a_CES_Director.22_and_.22Debunking_FAIR.27s_Debunking.22_by_Jeremy_Runnells The reason for the graphic I posted was that the FAIR people were irked by Jeremy's claims that FAIR agreed with him. He published his graphic, so they published theirs in response. And "spin" is important. Spin is how Iago gets Othello to interpret the situation with his wife. Spin has consequences. Spin is especially consequential if you suppose that spin is something that other people do, and that one's own view is unaffected and pristine. Jesus suggested that criticism ought to start with self reflection. "Then shall ye see clearly." FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  9. Steve Smoot did a little research on the how the CES letter came to be, that, as it turns out, is not as the CES letter represented itself. https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2016/02/ces-letter-author-jeremy-runnells-to.html FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  10. Rather than building one's faith as a chain, where a single link failure can lead to catastrophe, I build mine as a rope of many strands, no one strand depending on the existence of others for its own integrity, no single strand essential, and many strands providing greater strength when woven together. http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  11. It's not "at least 70% accurate." https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/File:Chart_CES_Letter_summary061018.png Notice that the chart has 11% falsehoods, 33% mistakes and errors, 40% spin, and 15% fact. And FAIR is very very careful to document everything, point for point. Runnells is not careful, nor self reflective. Paul explained that when he was a man, he put away childish things. He did not complain that someone had broken his childish things, and that is all ever wanted to play with, and if he couldn't have things stay the way there were when he thought as a child, he'd just leave. The way I personally realized the notion that the "that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church" is false is by noticing that D&C 1:30 says something very different, something much more tolerant and robust. I realized that notion churchistrue cites comes not from LDS scripture, but from human development, and is therefore not an exclusively LDS issue but a human issue, and is therefore not something that can be solved all at once for everyone by institutional fiat, but can only fully addressed by individuals as a natural part of human development. James Thurber has a little fable that concludes, "You may as well fall flat on your face as to lean over too far backwards." Smac refers to something important that I did not deal with in my essays. Runnells falsifies his own history. Steve Smoot has the documentation for that. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  12. It is one thing to claim "that FAIR largely agreed with many of his points," and another thing to demonstrate it. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/File:Chart_CES_Letter_summary061018.png Trump has lots of fans and supporters. He labels his critics as "Fake News." But anyone who cares to check can find the 12,000 + falsehoods, misrepresentations, and lies. Who we choose to follow and why also demonstrates something about us. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  13. So if competing theories are not proven, then the question should be which is best? And how do we measure best? By appeals to Office or Tradition or the power of competing explanations to best account for the most details? Am I better off by polling LDS pop culture or should I "seek out of the best books words of wisdom"? If only there was some authoritative scriptural guidance on that point... And do Mormon and Moroni count as leadership? Do their eye-witness words count, or not? It's easy to find quotes about the New York Cumorah by McConkie and his Father-In-Law Joseph Fielding Smith, and people requoting them, but not so easy to find any of them accounting for what Mormon and Moroni provided. By an amazing coincidence, those who pay the closest attention to Mormon and Moroni also happen to have the most interesting correlations with the Book of Mormon text. https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  14. If you are right about the wrong question, you're still wrong. Asking “where are the Nephite and Lamanite buildings” is a very good question, if you actually ask it first of the Book of Mormon textual requirements and then fit that description to an appropriate physical and cultural context. And then go ahead with realistic expectations of both material culture and the limits of archeology at any given time. However, if I’m standing atop Pendle Hill in Lancashire, England, asking “where are the Nephite and Lamanite buildings?” everyone would admit that it is a remarkably poor question. Runnells asks of a location that does not fit the descriptions in the text,56 and he also expects that at that location Lehi’s little family group should affect New World architectural styles after the manner of a Roman invasion force that entered Britain. Think for a moment exactly the circumstances under which Lehi’s family arrived in the New World in around 590 bce compared to Runnells’s model of the Roman conquest of Britain. The Romans came to stay in 43 ce, and made Britain a province until 410. The Romans sent several legions, kept a constant military presence, provided ongoing population and administrative influx, as well as trade across the English channel from other, nearby, Roman-controlled territories. How well does that model of a well-supported, well-supplied invasion involving many thousands of soldiers and government officials in continuous contact with Rome over 300 years apply to Lehi’s arrival in a single isolated ship? Archeological surveys demonstrate that when Lehi arrived, it would have been to a location with pre-existing populations, [Page 210]at that time consisting of small villages and hamlets.57 In the Book of Mormon a ship arrives in a New World location with perhaps 15 adults and 25 children.58 So here we have a picture of a small group arriving into an unfamiliar, already populated area. (Matt Roper’s “Nephi’s Neighbors” is essential reading on this topic.59) The locals have their own language, knowledge of local crops and other resources, which would be essential information for the new arrivals who would be foolish not to adopt working local practices. Archeologically, therefore, we should assume the newcomers would look very much like the locals because they would adopt their material culture.60 Over a decade ago, Brant Gardner talked about the difference this makes in expectations and consequent perceptions: Would I ever reconstruct Mesoamerican society in a way that appeared to represent Christianized Old World peoples? No. I wouldn’t. I don’t. The rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [Book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on [Page 211]finding the Christian or the Hebrew—or who knows what—in Mesoamerican archaeology. The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.… When I started my examination, I had no expectation of what I would find. Some of the correlation I have found came not from attempting to find some specific thing, but in realizing that the text did not say what I had thought it said—and that it really didn’t make any sense until I saw it in the context of Mesoamerican culture. When people ask me about the most important correlation I have found, I have a hard time narrowing it to just one. The most important correlation isn’t a singular finding; rather, it can be seen in the many facets of the discovery that the entire text of the Book of Mormon works better in a Mesoamerican context. Speeches suddenly have a context that makes them relevant instead of just preachy. The pressures leading to wars are understandable. The wars themselves have an explanation for their peculiar features. All of these things happen within a single interpretive framework that puts them in the right place at the right time.61 [Page 212]That Runnells can even imagine that his Roman Britain comparison makes any kind of sense tells me a great deal about why he is disappointed. From my perspective he is looking for the wrong things in the wrong place. He is not particularly self-reflective about the situation. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/ Regarding discovery, and who ought to be expected to make and share them, does it make more sense to ask my local Bishop, or a GA, or an official manual, or, perhaps, someone who has actually studied the issue carefully? Does having an office or title automatically bestow authoritative knowledge, or should I expect that seeking is a prerequisite to finding? Runnells says nothing whatsoever about the Ancient Near Eastern setting of the Book of Mormon. Which means, he says nothing about anything discussed at length and in detail in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem and various other things. The Nahom altars, the coins with Mulek's name, for example. He says nothing about these specific Mesoamerican items. https://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Do they count as evidence? And how about Mormon's Codex or Gardner's Second Witness? Anything? Does he not claim that investigators deserve to have all of the information on the table before they make a faith decision? Why does he not mention them? He misstates Sorenson's argument about horses. And there is this stuff that came out after the CES Letter. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/how-an-incredible-new-archeological-discovery-corroborates-the-book-of-mormon/ How does Runnells account for it? Just saying. He's not particularly careful or knowledgeable. In responding to me, through his buddy, he claimed my essay was 168 pages (it isn't that long), apparently confusing the comment count at Interpreter with the page count. They claimed I had used the word brittle 17 times, apparently by searching the website, but not checking the instances individually for context to see that twelve of the "brittle" instances came in the comments. This sort of conclusion jumping characterizes his work. As does a lack of self reflection. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  15. For the record, treatment for sex addiction is nothing like reparative therapy. My essay directly criticizes reparative therapy as fundamentally flawed. I don't agree with the comparison but I know about how paradigmatic metaphors work in the service of rhetoric. Here, it's a trick of the light rather than true illumination. Like the quotes around "sex addiction." So sex addiction not only involves behavior but potent drugs that the addict carries in their own body. In Hope and Freedom for Sex Addicts and their Partners, Dr. Milton Magness reports that crack cocaine addicts have consistently reported that recovery from sex addiction is much harder to manage than recovery from drug addiction. [43] I recently heard the lament of a man who had managed a year of sobriety from his alcohol and narcotics addictions, but couldn’t manage a week of sobriety from sex. The addictive behavior--in whatever form--is not an end in itself but a means to access that internal drug supply. [T]he sexual high comes from the neurochemical release that is found in the compulsive sexual behavior. Even if the addict finds a partner whose appetites are similar to his own, continued sex with the same person over a period of time results in more normalized neurochemical levels. What some call the ‘adrenaline rush’ or more accurately an increased level of dopamine, cortizol, norepinephrine, and other neurotransmitters diminishes. The lower level of chemical reinforcement does not satisfy the addiction.” [44] So the addict eventually goes elsewhere to satisfy the addiction. For this reason, marriage is not a cure for sex addiction in either heterosexuals or homosexuals. [45] Steven’s disclosure, for example, came in a period of what Carnes describes as “de-escalation,” when he is not binging, but is still guarding the secret world: The addict makes every effort to make life manageable and to live an honorable life. …there is a rapid de-escalation to safe or acceptable behavior…They continue to guard their secret world, either to hide their obsession (which convinces them they are not curable) or to keep intact the web of lies they wove during the time they were acting out. Thus de-escalation is not recovery. Honesty with oneself and others, self-acceptance that includes one’s illness, and support for change by people who know the addiction’s power to delude are prime determinants for recovery. [46] In addiction the brain is tricked into treating the object of addiction as equivalent to survival. [47] Subsequent cravings and impeded judgments reflect that distortion of values. Something that should be optional or, worse, taboo and/or dangerous, feels necessary. The distortion of values leads to impaired choices, aptly described in recovery literature and experience as “bargains with chaos.” Addiction in this model is not a moral issue to be addressed by either shaming or punitive approaches directed at symptoms. It is not a matter of a “true self” to be nurtured by an enabling society that strives to protect people from the consequences of their impaired choices. Compulsive acting out accompanied by impaired judgment is a symptom of addiction, not the disease itself. I see aversion/reparative therapy as an attempt to re-direct the symptoms while failing to recognize and treat the actual damage. I know several recovered and recovering sex addicts who had been unfaithful physically, and several who had been unfaithful emotionally, some with online fantasy, some with same sex, some different, some a mix. The effect on the spouse is still traumatic. As Carol Lynn Pearson put it when is happened to her: Dim, dim, I do not doubt, if someone blew me I would go out. Oh, and the person I mentioned in that the quote who at one point could not manage a week has since done a successful recovery. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
  • Create New...