Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
inquiringmind

Was Alma The Younger A Good Bible Belt Baptist?

Recommended Posts

I've tried to explore the Mormon view of inspiration, inerrancy, and a "correct" translation because I can't understand passages like this.

(Alma sounds like a typical Baptist preacher here.)

For behold, this life is the time for men to prepair to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth posses your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjest to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:32-35.)

If this sermon was inspired of God, how could it be translated correctly?

If Christ preached to the spirits of those who were disobedient in the days of Noah (and who died in their sins), and if the evangel is still preached in spirit prison (as even Eastern Orthodox Christians believe), why does Alma say this life is the only day of salvation?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

If Christ preached to the spirits of those who were disobedient in the days of Noah (and who died in their sins), and if the evangel is still preached in spirit prison (as even Eastern Orthodox Christians believe), why does Alma say this life is the only day of salvation?

If we have not developed the habit of acting on faith in this life, we will not have this skill in the next life. This is especially true of those who have heard the true message in this life and have not acted on it. Alma is speaking to the hypocritical and the rebellious who once had but rejected the true message and who do not perform the labors they are commanded to, procrastinate repentance, and do not otherwise prepare for eternity. These do not have the Spirit of the Lord with them

Those who benefit from the preaching of the Gospel in the spirit world are those who have not heard the true message in this life, but were nevertheless true enough to the Light of Christ to hear it and receive it in the next life. These have the Spirit of the Lord with them.

This life is the day of salvation for those who hear the true message in this life. The day of others' salvation is in the spirit world, and they need to be quick to observe what they are taught as well. Some might argue that "this life" continues into the spirit world until the resurrcetion, and in some cases it is, but as far as this scripture goes, "this day of life" refers to mortality. The spirit world is another day.

Share this post


Link to post
If we have not developed the habit of acting on faith in this life...

You mean like those Christ preached to when He was in the spirit world?

Those who were disobedient when the ark was prepairing?

Of whom God said every thought and imagination of their hearts were evil?

Did they develope the habit of walking in faith while in this life?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

You mean like those Christ preached to when He was in the spirit world?

Those who were disobedient when the ark was prepairing?

Of whom God said every thought and imagination of their hearts were evil?

Did they develope the habit of walking in faith while in this life?

There is a big difference between having the truth and not acting on it, and not having the truth. there are many disobedient spirits whose every thought and imagination is evil, who never heard the truth to begin with, or only heard a little and never had a witness of the truth but those who sin against the greater light receive the greater condemnation.

Share this post


Link to post

You mean like those Christ preached to when He was in the spirit world?

Those who were disobedient when the ark was prepairing?

Of whom God said every thought and imagination of their hearts were evil?

Did they develope the habit of walking in faith while in this life?

Alma was speaking to the apostate Zoramites of those who have heard the message of the Gospel in this life. God knows who we are. “If we [who have heard the message of the Gospel in this life] have not developed the habit of acting on faith in this life...” and so on.

Alma had first-hand experience with this. He was a rebellious member of the church but repented in this life. Had he continued in his rebellion until death, he would face the night of darkness with the same rebellious spirit, and remain under the power of the devil in death and suffer the consequences in the resurrection.

Alma doesn’t mention the spirit world, but he mentions this life, death and the resurrection. We know what happens between death and the resurrection, so his remarks indicate that there is a certain class of people who cannot or will not respond to the Gospel when preached to them in the spirit world.

1 Peter 3:18-20 shows that Christ preached to the spirits in prison which sometime were disobedient under conditions where God was longsuffering. The terms and conditions under which God is longsuffering with the disobedient might be the topic of another thread, but these verses indicate that such spirits are not necessarily of the outright rebellious variety described by Alma. The dispensations of Enoch and Noah and the world conditions prior to the flood may also be unique, which is also the topic of another thread and leads into the remarks below about Moses 8.

Moses 8:19-24 speaks of those who had not yet received the Gospel covenants (those who had were taken up with Enoch into Zion), and so and are not of the variety described by Alma. Noah was called to preach the Gospel to those who did not have it and/or did not accept it in the first place in order to reject it to the extent an apostate would. The Zoramites on the other hand had once received it and then rejected it.

So Alma is talking about those who are rebellious after they have received the Gospel and know they should repent but do not. The scriptures that talk about the “sometime disobedient” and subject to “evil imagination” do not seem to describe those who received the Gospel then apostatized without repentance. Alma's message is it is incumbent upon those who have accepted the Gospel and made covenants in this life to develop faith in this life. We know from latter-day revelation that it is also incumbent upon those who hear the Gospel in the next life and make the covenants by proxy.

Share this post


Link to post

In the Russian translation of the BoM it must be said Alma sounds like a proper Pravoslavny Batyushka, that is, a Russian Orthodox priest.

Share this post


Link to post

I've tried to explore the Mormon view of inspiration, inerrancy, and a "correct" translation because I can't understand passages like this.

Mormons do not believe in inerrancy.

Edited by altersteve

Share this post


Link to post

There is no "discrepancy".

God will judge us according to that which we were able to know, and then what we did with it in this life.

This life is the test. It's testing who we are as men. It's not testing if we know a 100% perfect truth, it's testing what we do with the gifts, knowledge, etc. that God has given us. Remember, he placed us in this life, thus he knows our needs, he knows what purpose we are to serve, etc. It's up to us to then make the best of it. Remember, we all have access to the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ, no matter who we are and what we believe. We all have access to a degree of truth, knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, etc. We will be judged accordingly, what we did with what we have, and what we did to gain more.

Share this post


Link to post

Alma was speaking to the apostate Zoramites of those who have heard the message of the Gospel in this life. God knows who we are. “If we [who have heard the message of the Gospel in this life] have not developed the habit of acting on faith in this life...” and so on.

Alma had first-hand experience with this. He was a rebellious member of the church but repented in this life. Had he continued in his rebellion until death, he would face the night of darkness with the same rebellious spirit, and remain under the power of the devil in death and suffer the consequences in the resurrection.

Alma doesn’t mention the spirit world, but he mentions this life, death and the resurrection. We know what happens between death and the resurrection, so his remarks indicate that there is a certain class of people who cannot or will not respond to the Gospel when preached to them in the spirit world.

1 Peter 3:18-20 shows that Christ preached to the spirits in prison which sometime were disobedient under conditions where God was longsuffering. The terms and conditions under which God is longsuffering with the disobedient might be the topic of another thread, but these verses indicate that such spirits are not necessarily of the outright rebellious variety described by Alma. The dispensations of Enoch and Noah and the world conditions prior to the flood may also be unique, which is also the topic of another thread and leads into the remarks below about Moses 8.

Moses 8:19-24 speaks of those who had not yet received the Gospel covenants (those who had were taken up with Enoch into Zion), and so and are not of the variety described by Alma. Noah was called to preach the Gospel to those who did not have it and/or did not accept it in the first place in order to reject it to the extent an apostate would. The Zoramites on the other hand had once received it and then rejected it.

So Alma is talking about those who are rebellious after they have received the Gospel and know they should repent but do not. The scriptures that talk about the “sometime disobedient” and subject to “evil imagination” do not seem to describe those who received the Gospel then apostatized without repentance. Alma's message is it is incumbent upon those who have accepted the Gospel and made covenants in this life to develop faith in this life. We know from latter-day revelation that it is also incumbent upon those who hear the Gospel in the next life and make the covenants by proxy.

So all the Zoramites had the heavens open to them?

Did they all see Jesus face to face?

Even leaving that aside, text doesn't say "This life is the time for you (Zoramites) to prepair to meet God; yea, the day of this life is the time for you to do your labours," the text says "this life is the time for men to prepair to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors."

I want to understand how (and in what sense) Mormons can view this text as both inspired and correctly translated?

If I receive a testimony that the BOM is true, must I believe (on the basis of this text) that this life is the only opportunity men have to repent?

P.S. I was suppose to go to sacrament meeting today, but this bothers me so much that I didn't see any point.

I don't believe what the BOM says here (and the LDS Church doesn't teach it.)

Can anyone help?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

Mormons do not believe in inerrancy.

Would it be correct to say that Mormons don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they do believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of the BOM?

Share this post


Link to post
I've tried to explore the Mormon view of inspiration, inerrancy, and a "correct" translation because I can't understand passages like this.
Would it be correct to say that Mormons don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they do believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of the BOM?

As others have pointed out, we do not believe in "inerrancy" of scripture, any scripture. The Book of Mormon is not perfect, and even if we were to accept that its principles are the most correct of any on earth (and we do), it does not mean that every passage is absolutely correct.

If this sermon was inspired of God, how could it be translated correctly?

If Christ preached to the spirits of those who were disobedient in the days of Noah (and who died in their sins), and if the evangel is still preached in spirit prison (as even Eastern Orthodox Christians believe), why does Alma say this life is the only day of salvation?

I am a writer. The first question I ask myself before starting any project is, "who is my audience?" I then tailor every sentence to the needs and background of that audience. Alma did nothing different from what I do: he was speaking to people who had already been baptized and made covenants which they had rejected. For them, this life was the time to prepare to meet God, etc.

Joseph Smith said there is a key to understanding scripture. His example was a parable, as I recall, and he said, he tried to understand the question Jesus answered with the parable, and then apply that new knowledge to the parable itself. The same kind of thing applies here; if we understand what Alma (or anyone else) was trying to do in the frame of reference he was in when he did/said it, it is much easier to decide how to apply the passage in our own lives.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

As others have pointed out, we do not believe in "inerrancy" of scripture, any scripture. The Book of Mormon is not perfect, and even if we were to accept that its principles are the most correct of any on earth (and we do), it does not mean that every passage is absolutely correct.

So Alma could have been applying correct principles (giving these Zoramites good advice) without every detail of what he said being absolutely true?

I am a writer. The first question I ask myself before starting any project is, "who is my audience?" I then tailor every sentence to the needs and background of that audience. Alma did nothing different from what I do: he was speaking to people who had already been baptized and made covenants which they had rejected. For them, this life was the time to prepare to meet God, etc.

But given what you've said elsewhere, wouldn't it take more than being baptized and making covenants (and hearing an old fashioned h*** fire and brimstone sermon) to make this their only day of salvation?

Wouldn't they have all (individually) have had to have had the heavens opened to them, and to have seen Jesus Christ face to face?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

So all the Zoramites had the heavens open to them?

Did they all see Jesus face to face?

Even leaving that aside, text doesn't say "This life is the time for you (Zoramites) to prepair to meet God; yea, the day of this life is the time for you to do your labours," the text says "this life is the time for men to prepair to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors."

I want to understand how (and in what sense) Mormons can view this text as both inspired and correctly translated?

If I receive a testimony that the BOM is true, must I believe (on the basis of this text) that this life is the only opportunity men have to repent?

The Zoramites had enough of the heavens opened to them, and enough of an understanding of Christ, to be given Alma’s message (see verse 30).

I understood your OP to do with rejecting the Gospel in this life and accepting it in the spirit world. As Alma indicated, the same spirit which possesses your body in this life continues into the spirit world and is resurrected in an immortal body. A rebellious spirit continues in his rebellion, a submissive spirit continues in his desire to do right. Note that "this life" in some contexts can also include the spirit world, which is why some men can still repent in the spirit world, depending on what they rejected in this world.

Evidently there were many in the days of Noah who rejected his message without the more egregious infraction of entering into and then apostatizing from the covenants. Where the natural man is an enemy to God and wicked in his imagination and thought, the Spirit will strive with him and entice him to choose the right, even into the spirit world.

All are enticed to do good in this life. Depending on their access to the Gospel, some find this enticement and prepare to meet God and perform righteous labor by following their conscience, and some find this enticement, preparation and labor by making and keeping the specific covenants of salvation.

This life is the only time and place the Gospel covenants can be made. This is why we do them in this life for those who have died without them; they cannot be performed in the spirit world.

The Gospel is preached to all spirits in the spirit world. Those who prepared and performed their labors such as to have a submissive spirit will benefit from this by accepting the ordinances by proxy; those who do not will not benefit.

A testimony of the Book of Mormon, repentance, understanding it and believing it, are not all the same thing and may not catch up with each other at the same time.

I view this text as inspired and correctly translated as a result of faith and experience with other scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
I view this text as inspired and correctly translated as a result of faith and experience with other scripture.

Are all texts in the BOM inspired and correctly translated (and if that's what you believe, why do some of you say you don't believe in the inerrancy of any scripture)?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

Would it be correct to say that Mormons don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they do believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of the BOM?

Nope.... Ever read the Title Page of the BOM?

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" of any book on the earth. Note, he said most correct, not perfect nor infallible.

LDS do not believe in the infallibility of anything be is scripture, prophets, holy Ghost or common consent alone.

Edited by ldsfaqs

Share this post


Link to post

Are all texts in the BOM inspired and correctly translated (and if that's what you believe, why do some of you say you don't believe in the inerrancy of any scripture)?

Possibly, but the problem is is we know from the history that Joseph slightly corrected some things he said, he corrected some mistakes by scribes, we know there were many errors created by the printers, we know there are still errors in the BOM that haven't yet been fixed, etc. Haven't you read the anti-mormon 1,000's of changes in the BOM claims, as well as our responses to such?

Who knows what errors might still be in there that Joseph might have missed, let alone everyone else. Of course, the Church over the years and now works to correct any errors possible, etc.

Ultimately, other than the textual errors that we already know, I don't think there are any errors doctrinally speaking that hasn't been already fixed. Any other mistakes or errors we don't care so much about, but they are being fixed as we go along.

But who knows. We don't have to rely on the BOM alone for the truth, we compare and contrast with other scriptures, words of the prophets, holy ghost, etc.

So, whatever mistake there might be in the BOM still, we have other things to make the doctrines clear. But, since the book was given by revelation, without other men messing with it, I have confidence that God was able to get the "Doctrines" contained in the BOM right. Doesn't mean their aren't mistakes still in the book, only that the doctrines of God have been kept safe. Inerrancy is purity and perfection, we don't believe in such with anything that has gone through a man. But when God speaks, we can be pretty sure of his word along with all else being considered.

Share this post


Link to post

Are all texts in the BOM inspired and correctly translated (and if that's what you believe, why do some of you say you don't believe in the inerrancy of any scripture)?

All texts in the Book of Mormon are inspired and translated correctly, including 1 Nephi 19:6, Mormon 8:12, and Mormon 9:33-37. Not allowing any imperfections (real or imagined) to become a stumbling block to correctly understand the scripture, is accomplished by reading and receiving the message by the same Spirit (D&C 50:22, 23).

This is because scripture is more than the mere text (D&C 68:1-4). The “will of the Lord, …the mind of the Lord, …the word of the Lord, ...the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” are inerrant, and are understood and received by the same Spirit.

Because the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man (2 Nephi 26:11 and Ether 2:15), it is essential to have and remain worthy of the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is why the scriptures teach us not to procrastinate the day of our repentance.

Share this post


Link to post
So all the Zoramites had the heavens open to them?

Did they all see Jesus face to face?

No. How is that relevant?

Even leaving that aside, text doesn't say "This life is the time for you (Zoramites) to prepair to meet God; yea, the day of this life is the time for you to do your labours," the text says "this life is the time for men to prepair to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors."

Incidentally, the word is "prepare."

And I don't see a problem. Sorry.

I want to understand how (and in what sense) Mormons can view this text as both inspired and correctly translated?

Probably because it is correct as it stands.

If I receive a testimony that the BOM is true, must I believe (on the basis of this text) that this life is the only opportunity men have to repent?

Yes. That's it, exactly.

P.S. I was suppose to go to sacrament meeting today, but this bothers me so much that I didn't see any point.

The Lord calls us to a rather more robust discipleship than that. You are, of course, free to stay home whenever you please and for whatever reasons you want to; but come the day when the Lord invites you to account for what you did with the boundless opportunities He gave you, don't you think excuses like that will sound a little lame? "I was bothered by the interpretation of a particular verse, so I didn't bother renewing my covenants, worshipping with the Saints, or visiting the sick and afflicted."

I don't believe what the BOM says here (and the LDS Church doesn't teach it.)

Can anyone help?

I'll do my best.

We do a lot of work on behalf of the dead: we collect their records, are baptised for them, ordained for them, and perform the ordinances to seal their marriages and families for them.

But have you ever thought about what we don't do for them?

We don't repent for them. We don't study the Scriptures for them. We don't do acts of charity on their behalf. We don't try to do anything that might be considered part of becoming a saint on behalf of anyone but our own selves.

And that is because we cannot. When they rise in the resurrection, they will rise with the characters they took down to the grave with them. If they lived according to the best light they had available to them, and if they accepted the ordinances done in their behalf, and if the Lord in His infinite wisdom and mercy chooses to forgive them, then the work we have done for them will redound to their benefit. But if they lived in such a way as to become hardened in wickedness, and if the Lord therefore judges them unworthy of His presence, then will our work in their behalf be of little value.

Has it not occurred to you that the very fact that we do work on behalf of the dead is based upon the fact that they can do nothing for themselves in that state?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Mormons do not believe in inerrancy.

As others have pointed out, we do not believe in "inerrancy" of scripture, any scripture.

This Mormon does! So you guys should speak for yourselves, rather than for all Mormons.

Would it be correct to say that Mormons don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they do believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of the BOM?

I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture, as penned by the original inspired authors. By inerrancy I don’t mean that there cannot be a spelling mistake in it. By it I mean that no book of scripture, as penned by the original authors, would lead us astray from the path of righteousness that leads to God, or contain errors in doctrine.

So Alma could have been applying correct principles (giving these Zoramites good advice) without every detail of what he said being absolutely true?

No. Every detail of what he taught the Zoramites were true.

Are all texts in the BOM inspired and correctly translated . . .

Yes.

. . . (and if that's what you believe, why do some of you say you don't believe in the inerrancy of any scripture)?

They speak for themselves, not for me, nor for every other Mormon. I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture as penned by the original inspired authors.

Share this post


Link to post
So Alma could have been applying correct principles (giving these Zoramites good advice) without every detail of what he said being absolutely true?
But given what you've said elsewhere, wouldn't it take more than being baptized and making covenants (and hearing an old fashioned he1l fire and brimstone sermon) to make this their only day of salvation?

One of the difficulties we have in explaining this is that there are several definitions of "hel1".

The first is nothing more than the grave, it is death. Both the Hebrew "sheol" and the Greek "hades" reflect this.

Closely aligned with it is the second, the temporary station in the spirit prison. It is not the same kind of punishment we think of as "hel1", but is a place of separation from God.

The third is a more permanent kind of "place": it is anything short of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. It is "hel1" because they know they could have done better, and they did not make the choices that would enable them to achieve exaltation.

Finally, there is the hel1 of outer darkness, where those are who total separated from God.

The hel1 you seem to pointing to is the fourth kind. It is not what Alma was addressing. He was talking of the third type. Those among us who are "damned" to this type of hel1 have little hope (not "none", as far as I know) of gaining Celestial exaltation. But this does not mean we are sons of perdition.

Wouldn't they have all (individually) have had to have had the heavens opened to them, and to have seen Jesus Christ face to face?

No, because they are not sons of perdition, they are not in outer darkness. They are simply separated from God the Father (in either the Terrestrial or Telestial), or from both Christ and Father In the Telestial). This is hel1, but not outer darkness.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
They speak for themselves, not for me, nor for every other Mormon. I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture as penned by the original inspired authors.

The phrases "as penned by the original inspired authors" and "I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture" are mutually contradictory, at least in a pragmatic sense.

We do not have the original texts of any scripture. At best, we have some of the texts of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all well and good to say that Isaiah is "inerrant" except for the fact that we don't have the original "inherent" text. What we have is not the original text, so what we have is, er, what, exactly?

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

The phrases "as penned by the original inspired authors" and "I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture" are mutually contradictory, at least in a pragmatic sense.

We do not have the original texts of any scripture. At best, we have some of the texts of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all well and good to say that Isaiah is "inerrant" except for the fact that we don't have the original "inherent" text. What we have is not the original text, so what we have is, er, what, exactly?

Lehi

The Bible is in a slightly different situation, because we do know from revelation that unauthorized changes have been made to it with deliberate intent. The Book of Mormon is not in that situation; and in spite of any scribal errors that might have been made during copying or typesetting of the text, the theology of it is correct, and does not contain any doctrinal errors that might lead us astray, or cause us to err in doctrine.

Even in the case of the Bible, in spite of the shortcomings mentioned above, and the "plain and precious truths" which have been removed from it, does not contain any serious doctrinal errors that could lead us astray. It says "plain and precious" parts have been removed form it; it doesn't say that false doctrines have been added to it. The removal of those "plain and precious parts" makes the text harder to understand correctly in some places, but not impossible to do so; and it does not add false doctrines to it. That is why the Lord has designated the Bible along side the Book of Mormon as containing the "fulness of the gospel," and part of our canon of scripture.

Share this post


Link to post

The phrases "as penned by the original inspired authors" and "I believe in the doctrinal inerrancy of all scripture" are mutually contradictory, at least in a pragmatic sense.

We do not have the original texts of any scripture. At best, we have some of the texts of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all well and good to say that Isaiah is "inerrant" except for the fact that we don't have the original "inherent" text. What we have is not the original text, so what we have is, er, what, exactly?

Lehi

But if an angel declared Joseph's English translation of the gold plates "correct," isn't that as good as having the original text itself?

Doesn't it amount to almost the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post

But if an angel declared Joseph's English translation of the gold plates "correct," isn't that as good as having the original text itself?

Doesn't it amount to almost the same thing?

Yes it does.

Share this post


Link to post

But if an angel declared Joseph's English translation of the gold plates "correct," isn't that as good as having the original text itself?

Doesn't it amount to almost the same thing?

In the Army, we used to say that "almost" counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and atomic bombs.

The statement you allude to seems to be this one:

And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his [God's] voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.

Notice it does not say the translation is correct (in any form), it says that translation was done by the gift and power of God. This is a different proposition.

And, as we have pointed out in the past, the statement most people use in this context is one by Joseph Smith.

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.

This does not claim perfection, it claims superiority for the principles in the Book of Mormon compared to other books, and then only in getting men to getting closer to God.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...