Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MiserereNobis

Mysticism And Mormon Spirituality

Recommended Posts

. To dwell in his presence and to learn without restraint removes the need for contemplation for the saints.

Full participation in the Oneness of God does seem to remove the need for contemplation if God is a being who is fully self aware if by contemplation we mean something solely along the lines of examining. At this point in our development, we can certainly contemplate our state and examine and analyse it, but then we see through a glass darkly.

I think much depends on what one understands contemplation to be. For example, could contemplation include the type of behaviour where one just sits back and enjoys the view of a beautiful work of art or of nature? If one includes such admiration/passive participation in and experience of our environment in behaviours of contemplation, I can see this as an eternal occupation....though for LDS our participation will not be limited to passive observance. It seems to me that even if one were to insist that one's destined activity in the next life is the contemplation of God, this does not eliminate the possibility of other work for the Lord being done much as we can go about our lives with a prayer in our hearts, this ability to focus on God being perfected in the next life.

Do nonLDS Christians who talk about the angels/Saints spending their time in contemplation of God exclude those angels/Saints from this activity who are sent as messengers, etc. or do the angels/Saints remain in contemplation while proclaiming His Word to men in visions, etc.? If they don't then it seems to me that contemplation is viewed more as a quality of our post mortal life than as an activity...so to speak.

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post
Have you ever wondered why mysticism has always developed as an offshoot of very old, established religions? There was no such thing as mysticism (as a separate branch from the mainstream religion) in the earliest centuries of Christianity for example (and in every other religion too). There is a reason for that, see if you can figure it out.

If your theory is correct, then early Christianity was deficient somehow, because it didn't have a separate "mystical" branch as distinct from the mainstream religion. It required that to be more complete--which cannot a valid position to hold. Jesus and His apostles and disciples weren't enough to provide the early Church with the spirituality it needed until (many centuries later) mysticism came along. It does not require a lot of genius to figure out that there is something wrong with that argument. I will let you think about it to see if you can find the answer.

Since our friend MN has not attempted to answer my question (perhaps wisely so!), I will try to answer it myself anyway. Mysticisim (as a distinct movement in religious expression) has always arisen in later stages of the history of long established religions when the "mainstream" of that religion has become a bit old, rigid, and began to decay, thus failing to continue to provide the kind of spiritual nourishment that spiritually hungry souls expect from it. It is a reaction and backlash, a kind of spiritual rebellion if you like, by spiritually hungry souls against that rigidity, ossification, and spiritual decay of long established religions; an attempt to "go it slone" so to speak, when the mainstream of that religion is no longer able to satisfy the spiritual needs of spiritually sensitive members of that religion. When the religion is new and fresh, it is capable of satisfying that spiritual hunger of all of its members. But as it gets old and begins to decay, and it is no longer able to provide that spiritual need, that is when that mystical offshoot begins to develop, and express itself as a distinct movement from the mainstream of that religion. Mormonisim is still in those early stages of its history; and given the promises that it will never apostatize, that situayion is unlikely to ever arise in Mormonism at all. But in older religions where it has arisen, it makes for an interesting subject of study.

Share this post


Link to post

MN has not been on the board for over a day. Not everyone visits the board daily.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

I am suffering from a rather nasty head cold right now so I will respond in a day or two when I can think a little more clearly. Thanks for the responses so far, especially the links shared. Very informative!

God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

I am suffering from a rather nasty head cold right now so I will respond in a day or two when I can think a little more clearly. Thanks for the responses so far, especially the links shared. Very informative!

God bless you.

Get better soon. I enjoy your posts.

Share this post


Link to post

Amazingly "Mormon".

Share this post


Link to post

The first problem in trying to have this kind of discussion is defining mysticism. The idea that there is religious phenomena called mysticism, found in all major religions, is a modern concept. No actual practicing mystic before the twentieth century would agree with this idea. Sufis don't have a mystical relationship with God. They have a sufistic relationship with Allah. Greek Orthodox Hesychast mystics would generally reject the idea that their practices, beliefs and experiences have anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. Hence modern attempts at equating different forms of spiritual practices in all religions under the rubric of mysticism are dubious. Finding a definition of mysticism that is narrow enough to relate to the specific mystical practices and beliefs of a particular religion or movement, and yet at the same time is broad enough to include all the beliefs and practices of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus is basically impossible.

There can no more be a generic mysticism without a specific religious tradition of belief and practice, than there can be a generic religion without a specific tradition of belief and practice.

Edited by Bill Hamblin

Share this post


Link to post

Second, I very much doubt that there is anything in the Bible that fits twenty-first century concepts of mysticism. The fundamental concepts of contemplation/theoria, God as nous/mind/intellect who can only be approached in through the nous/mind are Platonic in origin, and entered the biblical tradition through Philo (as Christianized), and the Christian tradition through Christian Neoplatonists such as Origin, Augustine and Dionysius the Pseudo-Aeropagite. (See A. Louth, The Origins of Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys, Oxford 1981), which can be found in the pagan Hermetica as well. This is not to say, of course, that there were not mystical interpretations of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post

So, after this long preamble, I am curious about mysticism in Mormon spirituality, culture, theology, etc. I of course recognize that the blatant place for mysticism would be the gaining of a testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith, as this is a subjective religious experience that results in knowledge. However, that doesn't quite fit the definition that I am focusing on -- mysticism as a direct unmediated experience of God.

I'm wondering if such a mysticism is even possible in Mormonism, since God is a physical being. Can one find God at the center of one's soul and realize a perfect metaphysical union with Him if He has a body somewhere?

The fact that God has a body does not mean he is a body. Gods deity encompasses but also transcends his body. A Christian who accepts the incarnation of Christ must be able to grasp this concept.

Also, what might some Mormon mystical practices be? Most religions have similar practices surrounding mysticism, such as meditation, prayer, song/dance, penitential practices (fasting, asceticism), etc. Usually mystical experience occurs in some sort of life removed from the world, such as a monastery. In Catholicism, we call it "contemplation" which is just another word for meditation. There are various forms, but all seem to have in common the idea of stilling or shutting down the linguistic mind, setting the ego aside, and then waiting for God's grace to touch us with knowledge of Him. I personally find that the life and schedule of a Benedictine monastery is most conducive for me to have mystical experiences.

Medieval and Platonic concepts of contemplation are not mediation. The equation of the two is a modern construction. Contempatio is the Latin translation of the Platonic theoria. It is brought into Christian thought via the Platonization of Christianity by Origin, Augustine and Dionysius. It describes the way the nous/intellect of man comprehends the nous/intellect of God. In its Christian form it has little to do with Buddhist style meditation, which is generally how the term is understood today.

Thank you for your thoughts and insights!

Edited by Bill Hamblin

Share this post


Link to post

A conversation from another thread:

Good question, harfad. Here is my ranking of experience, starting with the most desirable:

1) physical experience AND mystical experience

2) mystical experience

3) physical experience

The reason I put them in this order is that many many many people had the physical experience of Jesus but didn't learn anything. He was just "another prophet" in their eyes at best, or a subversive liar at the worst. Just being in His physical presence, back in Judea, isn't sufficient. Even those who observed His miracles would leave Him (I'm thinking of the fishes and the loaves).

Now, what about the disciples who believed Him? Notice how often they misunderstood Him. It wasn't until they began to have mystical experiences that they really started to figure things out. The descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles (and, in our tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary) at Pentecost marked the beginning of their knowledge that was direct and transformative.

A mystical experience is much more powerful than a physical experience. As Obi-Wan Kenobi says, "your eyes can deceive you -- don't trust them" ;) Seeing God is not knowing God. When I truly know God in a way that is beyond the physical, beyond language, beyond anything that I can describe to another... well, then golly gee I really know Him, I really know the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

I am dubious that there is any biblical theophanic experience that can be equated with modern concepts of mysticism. Biblical theophanies are nearly always visionary or auditory. (Again, that is not to say that mystics have not interpreted biblical theophanies as mystical (such as Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses)--but this is retrojection later concepts onto the decontextualized biblical texts.

Edited by Bill Hamblin

Share this post


Link to post

Just to be clear, the mystical experiences I am discussing are not a "burning in the bosom." In fact, usually there is little emotional aspect to them at all. St. John of the Cross warns that religious affectations can actually be a stumbling block on the mystical path, because we become so easily attached to them and then start to seek a religious feeling rather than a direct experience of God.

It is extremely reductionistic to equate the burning in the bosom (equivalent of the burning of the disciples' hearts in Lk. 24:32) with "emotion." It is a physical sensation manifesting the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Medieval mystics were often extraordinarily emotional in their mystical experiences, most notably the ecstasy of Teresa of Avila. (Teresa, Autobiography, 29.17). Weeping, mourning, sorrow, extreme joy, bliss, etc. are all part of mystical experience.

Share this post


Link to post

Christian mysticism has historically been intimately connected with monasticism in both eastern and western forms of Christianity. The greatest mystics were all monks. Mystical union with God--the ultimate goal--was believed attainable only by people who spent their lives in utter devotion to God through the monastic path. (See the major mystical figures outlined in B. McGinn's The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mystics, 5 vols. 2004-2012, where as far as I can tell nearly all of the major mystics he describes are monks or nuns.) This monastic monopoly on mysticism began to break down only in the early modern period. The contemporary belief that you can be a mystic without living the monastic life is a deviation from the original Christian mystical tradition. The great Orthodox mystical compendium the Philokalia assumes its readers are monks.

Share this post


Link to post

Christian mysticism has historically been intimately connected with monasticism in both eastern and western forms of Christianity. The greatest mystics were all monks. Mystical union with God--the ultimate goal--was believed attainable only by people who spent their lives in utter devotion to God through the monastic path. (See the major mystical figures outlined in B. McGinn's The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mystics, 5 vols. 2004-2012, where as far as I can tell nearly all of the major mystics he describes are monks or nuns.) This monastic monopoly on mysticism began to break down only in the early modern period. The contemporary belief that you can be a mystic without living the monastic life is a deviation from the original Christian mystical tradition. The great Orthodox mystical compendium the Philokalia assumes its readers are monks.

Here is an excerpt from p. 292-294 of Orlando Fige's "Natasha's Dance," describing the monastic and mystical revival in 19th c. Russia, spearheaded by the Optina Pustyn monastery. The monastery still flourishes today.

"The monastery was founded in the fourteenth century. But it did not become well known until the beginning of the nineteenth century, when it was at the forefront of a revival in the medieval hermitic tradition and a hermitage, or skete, was built within its walls. The building of the skete was a radical departure from the Spiritual Regulations of the Holy Synod, which had banned such hermitages since 1721. The Spiritual Regulations were a sort of constitution of the Church. They were anything but spiritual. It was the Regulations which established the subordination of the Church to the Imperial state. The Church was governed by the Holy Synod, a body of laymen and clergy appointed by the Tsar to replace the Patriarchate, which was abolished in 1721. The duty of the clergy, as set out in the Regulations, was to uphold and enforce the Tsar's authority, to read out state decrees from the pulpit, to carry out administrative duties for the state, and inform the police about all dissent and criminality, even if such information had been obtained through the confessional. The Church, for the most part, was a faithful tool in the hands of the Tsar.

It was not in its interests to rock the boat. During the eighteenth century a large proportion of its lands had been taken from it by the state, so the Church was dependent on the state's finances to support the parish clergy and their families."' Impoverished and venal, badly educated and proverbially fat, the parish priest was no advertisement for the established Church. As its spiritual life declined, people broke away from the official Church to join the Old Believers or the diverse sects which flourished from the eighteenth century by offering a more obviously religious way of life.

Within the Church, meanwhile, there was a growing movement of revivalists who looked to the traditions of the ancient monasteries like Optina for a spiritual rebirth. Church and state authorities alike were wary of this revivalist movement in the monasteries. If the monastic clergy were allowed to set up their own communities of Christian brotherhood, with their own pilgrim followings and sources of income, they could become a source of spiritual dissent from the established doctrines of Church and state. There would be no control on the social influence or moral teaching of the monasteries. At Optina, for example, there was a strong commitment to give alms and spiritual comfort to the poor which attracted a mass following. None the less, certain sections of the senior clergy displayed a growing interest in the mystical ideas of Russia's ancient hermits. The ascetic principles of Father Paissy, who led this Church revival in the latter part of the eighteenth century, were in essence a return to the hesychastic path of Russia's most revered medieval monks.

Hesychasm has its roots in the Orthodox conception of divine grace. In contrast to the Western view that grace is conferred on the virtuous or on those whom God has so ordained, the Orthodox religion regards grace as a natural state, implied in the act of creation itself, and therefore potentially available to any human being merely by virtue of having been created by the Lord. In this view the way the believer approaches God is through the consciousness of his own spiritual personality and by studying the example of Christ in order to cope better with the dangers that await him on his journey through life. The hesychastic monks believed that they could find a way to God in their own hearts - by practising a life of poverty and prayer with the spiritual guidance of a 'holy man' or 'elder' who was in touch with the 'energies' of God. The great flowering of this doctrine came in the late fifteenth century, when the monk Nil Sorsky denounced the Church for owning land and serfs. He left his monastery to become a hermit in the wilderness of the Volga's forest lands. His example was an inspiration to thousands of hermits and schismatics. Fearful that Sorsky's doctrine of poverty might provide the basis for a social revolution, the Church suppressed the hesychastic movement. But Sorsky's ideas re-emerged in the eighteenth century, when clergymen like Paissy began to look again for a more spiritual church.

Paissy's ideas were gradually embraced in the early decades of the nineteenth century by clergy who saw them as a general return to 'ancient Russianprinciples'. In 1822, just over one hundred years after it had been imposed, the ban on sketes was lifted and a hermitage was built at Optina Pustyn, where Father Paissy's ideas had their greatest influence. The skete was the key to the renaissance of the monastery in the nineteenth century. Here was its inner sanctuary where up to thirty hermits lived in individual cells, in silent contemplation and in strict obedience to the elder, or starets, of the monastery. Three great elders, each a disciple of Father Paissy and each in turn renowned for his devout ways, made Optina famous in its golden age: Father Leonid was the elder of the monastery from 1829; Father Makary from 1841; and Father Amvrosy from 1860 to 1891. It was the charisma of these elders that made the monastery so extraordinary - a sort of 'clinic for the soul' - drawing monks and other pilgrims in their thousands from all over Russia every year. Some came to the elder for spiritual guidance, to confess their doubts and seek advice; others for his blessing or a cure. There was even a separate settlement, just outside the walls of the monastery, where people came to live so that they could see the elder every day. The Church was wary of the elders' popularity. It was fearful of the saint-like status they enjoyed among their followers, and it did not know enough about their spiritual teachings, especially their cult of poverty and their broadly social vision of a Christian brotherhood, to say for sure that they were not a challenge to the established Church."

Share this post


Link to post
The first problem in trying to have this kind of discussion is defining mysticism. The idea that there is religious phenomena called mysticism, found in all major religions, is a modern concept. No actual practicing mystic before the twentieth century would agree with this idea. Sufis don't have a mystical relationship with God. They have a sufistic relationship with Allah. Greek Orthodox Hesychast mystics would generally reject the idea that their practices, beliefs and experiences have anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. Hence modern attempts at equating different forms of spiritual practices in all religions under the rubric of mysticism are dubious. Finding a definition of mysticism that is narrow enough to relate to the specific mystical practices and beliefs of a particular religion or movement, and yet at the same time is broad enough to include all the beliefs and practices of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus is basically impossible.

There can no more be a generic mysticism without a specific religious tradition of belief and practice, than there can be a generic religion without a specific tradition of belief and practice.

If you knew much about mysticism (according to any religious tradition), you would know that there are as many "definitions" of mysticism as there are (or have been) mystics or mystical scholars. Starting a discussion about mysticism by attempting to "define" it first is the guaranteed course for getting nowhere. Defining mysticisim is a lot less useful (or necessary) than comparing the various mystical traditions of the world and observing the extraordinary similarities that exists between them. That is the right place to start if you want to understand mysticism, not attempting to "define" it.

Share this post


Link to post
I am dubious that there is any biblical theophanic experience that can be equated with modern concepts of mysticism. Biblical theophanies are nearly always visionary or auditory. (Again, that is not to say that mystics have not interpreted biblical theophanies as mystical (such as Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses)--but this is retrojection later concepts onto the decontextualized biblical texts.

There is no such thing as a "modern concept mysticism". Mysticism is something that is rooted in antiquity, and "concept" of mysticism that ignores or disregards that, or seeks to distance itself from it, or to reinterpret it in "modern ways" will not be worth giving a consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
It is extremely reductionistic to equate the burning in the bosom (equivalent of the burning of the disciples' hearts in Lk. 24:32) with "emotion." It is a physical sensation manifesting the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Firstly, in Mormonism (at least), the "burning in the bosom" is not "physical sensation". Elder Oaks has given a talk on that. Emotional may notaccurately describe it either, but it comes closer than a physical sensation. Secondly, it is very much an experience that a mystic (of any tradition) would find affinity with. It can justifysbly be defined as a mystical experience, regardless of which mystical tradition you are looking at.

Share this post


Link to post
I am dubious that there is any biblical theophanic experience that can be equated with modern concepts of mysticism. Biblical theophanies are nearly always visionary or auditory. (Again, that is not to say that mystics have not interpreted biblical theophanies as mystical (such as Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses)--but this is retrojection later concepts onto the decontextualized biblical texts.

Theophanies are, have been, and can be legitimately described mystical experiences. Again, I reject the word "modern" here altogether. Mysticism is not a "modern" phenomenon. It is an ancient one, and should be discussed within the historical and cultural context in which it occurs.

Share this post


Link to post

. . . , it's very important in discussing mysticism to define what you mean by "mysticism" up front. Margaret Barker's recent book Temple Mysticism, for instance, defines temple mysticism as "seeing God" which strikes me as very different than the definition that Nibley discusses, and leads her in a very different direction.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I think that you have her wrong, Kevin. For Barker, "temple mysticism" rises in a Classical Israelite context and resurfaces at Qumran and in early Christianity as a mystery religion, i.e., mysticism = the sacred mysteries of God, as celebrated at His holy temple.

See Elder William R. Walker, “Mormon Temples: A Conversation with a Church Leader,” LDSPublicAffairs, Sept 26, 2012, online at

.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that you have her wrong, Kevin. For Barker, "temple mysticism" rises in a Classical Israelite context and resurfaces at Qumran and in early Christianity as a mystery religion, i.e., mysticism = the sacred mysteries of God, as celebrated at His holy temple.

Yes. You're not wrong about that. But I'm not wrong, but was just being overly brief. Her exploration of what she calls Temple Mysticism begins with Isaiah 6:1

aIn the year that king Uzziah died I bsaw also the cLord sitting upon a dthrone, high and lifted up, and ehis train filled the temple.

That is, the sacred mysteries of God as celebrated in his Holy Temple and that centers on the experience of anthropomorphic vision. I emphasize seeing God as part of her definition in Temple Mysticism because other approaches to mysticism with which I am familar, (Nibley's essay in The World and the Prophets, for instance, and Ninian Smart, and Barbour) concieve of God as impersonal, not anthropomorphic, not seen, but rather experienced in an incommunicable, incommensurable way, typically in response to following a specific disciplinary path to enlightenment, including mediation, and following the guidance of a teacher. I found her use of the term distinctive, and so in my copy of Temple Mysticism, I have marked the passaged where she defines what she means by mysticism. Based on those, I agree with you.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen

Share this post


Link to post

If you knew much about mysticism (according to any religious tradition), you would know that there are as many "definitions" of mysticism as there are (or have been) mystics or mystical scholars. Starting a discussion about mysticism by attempting to "define" it first is the guaranteed course for getting nowhere. Defining mysticisim is a lot less useful (or necessary) than comparing the various mystical traditions of the world and observing the extraordinary similarities that exists between them. That is the right place to start if you want to understand mysticism, not attempting to "define" it.

This is precisely the problem. By using the term mysticism here, everyone is conceptualizing something different, and hence, we don't actually communicate but talk past each other.

Share this post


Link to post

There is no such thing as a "modern concept mysticism". Mysticism is something that is rooted in antiquity, and "concept" of mysticism that ignores or disregards that, or seeks to distance itself from it, or to reinterpret it in "modern ways" will not be worth giving a consideration.

Historically speaking you are dead wrong. Only in the 19th and 20th century did people begin to speak about some type of universal mysticism. Also, the 20th century is unique it its degree of syncretism. Also unique in the way it psychologizes mysticism. It is also unique in the way that it secularizes mysticism--Joseph Campbell, for example. And secular moderns also are unique in seeing mysticism as deriving entirely from brain chemistry. Neo-Mysticism, in fact, has many unique assumptions, ideas and characteristics that are never found among premodern mystics.

Share this post


Link to post

Theophanies are, have been, and can be legitimately described mystical experiences. Again, I reject the word "modern" here altogether. Mysticism is not a "modern" phenomenon. It is an ancient one, and should be discussed within the historical and cultural context in which it occurs.

No biblical theophany is ever described in the Bible as "mystical." The concept simply didn't exist. In the NT mysterion was a secret revelation of God, and mystikos was something to do with a mysterion, including, possibly, one who knew the mysterion.

I am not saying mysticism is a modern phenomenon. I'm saying what most 21st century people understand by the term mysticism is not what traditional mystics understood about themselves. It is a new paradigm using an old word to describe it. Hence the confusion. Hence I prefer to use neo-mystic to describe the 20-21 century paradigm.

No coherent discussion of these issues can occur by ever using the term mysticism without a modifier.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. You're not wrong about that. But I'm not wrong, but was just being overly brief. Her exploration of what she calls Temple Mysticism begins with Isaiah 6:1

That is, the sacred mysteries of God as celebrated in his Holy Temple and that centers on the experience of anthropomorphic vision. I emphasize seeing God as part of her definition in Temple Mysticism because other approaches to mysticism with which I am familar, (Nibley's essay in The World and the Prophets, for instance, and Ninian Smart, and Barbour) concieve of God as impersonal, not anthropomorphic, not seen, but rather experienced in an incommunicable, incommensurable way, typically in response to following a specific disciplinary path to enlightenment, including mediation, and following the guidance of a teacher. I found her use of the term distinctive, and so in my copy of Temple Mysticism, I have marked the passaged where she defines what she means by mysticism. Based on those, I agree with you.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

This is a further example of the problem of using the term mysticism. It is so broad, meaning so many different things to so many different people, that it inevitably leads to confusion.

I'm fine with using the idea of temple mysticism as long as we clearly define and differentiate it. (Which Barker only partially does.)

Share this post


Link to post

Some other important distinction to recognize between neo-mysticism (20-21 century) and traditional mysticism (medieval forms associated with specific religious traditions) are:

1- Traditional = mysticism as a way of life (hence monasticism)

Neo = mysticism as an individual practice (hence "follow your bliss")

2- traditional = rigorous religious practices

neo = lacks rigor

3- traditional = must have a mystic master

neo = can do mysticism by reading books

4- traditional = highly ascetic

neo = marginally ascetic

5- traditional = closely associated with scripture tradition

neo = personal interpretation

6- traditional = salvific

neo = self realization

Neo-mysticism is fundamentally different from traditional mysticism in many different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
This is precisely the problem. By using the term mysticism here, everyone is conceptualizing something different, and hence, we don't actually communicate but talk past each other.

I am guessing that most people here know next to nothing about mysticism, therefore they are not conceptualising anything. But they are likely to learn a little from people who do know something about it, or about some specific tradition of it, like MN for example who appears to have some familiarity with Eastern as well as Catholic mysticism. What are you suggesting people should do, stop using the word mysticism altogether? What word do you think they should use instead? You are out on a limb here I am afraid. I will stick to the norm, and call it mysticism. You can go out on a limb and call it or define it as you like; but you will not be joining a conversation about mysticism.

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...