Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Latter-day Saint view of God


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gray said:

As a pantheist, I can offer people absolute empirical certainty about the existence of God, not just philosophical arguments. No one seems particularly impressed, though.

I kind of remember this discussion- would you mind doing a brief summary?

Is it based on the idea that this planet seems to have been created specifically for human life?

The problem with that is that it is just as convincing to me that the reason it appears that way is that we have evolved by these conditions to be perfectly suited for life on this planet because this is where we evolved.

So yes of course the distance from earth to the sun and moon etc were all essential parts of our evolution.

It's kind of like Rorty's point that we look out at space and see our concepts mirrored - and we see ourselves in the data we accumulate as being "important" not because it is "objectively true" but because it was important in our own evolution!

So for example, some people see the universe as "mathematically perfect" and explainable by mathematics while others see mathematics itself as an evolutionary development which has helped us create our artificial world of houses, shopping malls, electric heat and air conditioning.   

Our "environment" is no longer natural, but man made and that is why we see conflict now between the human world and the natural world as exemplified perhaps as global warming etc.

Math helped us make our artificial world which suddenly we see as not "corresponding" to the natural world at all!

In fact global warming can be seen as an argument against the correspondence theory of truth!!  

But I digress ....  is that what you meant? ;)

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well another thing I disagree with Clark on I guess- I found his approach to be very much like Pragmatism even though McM did not acknowledge that.

I actually do agree there are some pragmatic elements to it - although as you note not really made explicit. Part of that is just that pragmatism and positivism are not that far removed from each other. Effectively pragmatism was popular in American intellectual circles before the war. By the mid 30's positivism was replacing it - but it really wasn't that big a leap. Even the end of positivism can be seen as the return of quasi-pragmatic perspectives like Quine's or Davidson's. The prominent post-positivist figures typically didn't embrace the pragmatic label. (Although Quine did write a paper on whether he's a pragmatist that's interesting if only because he both shows how ignorant of pragmatism he is and also how pragmatic he is.) The only ones who really did were Putnam and Rorty who also seriously engaged with pragmatism as well as distancing themselves from various positions of pragmatism. (There were a few other figures too of course)

Anyway, I think McMurrin's book would have been fascinating had he engaged with the issue of whether Mormon thought is/was pragmatic. I think some figures like Brigham Young certainly had a pragmatic angle and B. H. Roberts in particular is interesting to view that way. That he didn't still puzzles me. Possibly because by the 60's pragmatism was very much out of fashion in a rather strong way. Ironically it was about to have a resurgence in the 70's and as I said it's quite arguable that already in the 60's it had overcome positivism through Quine.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I did not agree with a lot that was said in the book, but overall I think his effort had a positive effect on my intellectual understanding of Mormonism, but I will not debate his classification as a "Positivist", since I have no interest in the taxonomy of philosophers.  In that field especially there are "no facts, only interpretations"

I should be fair and note many people have liked his book. I just found it superficial and spotty and didn't engage well with the sources. 

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I actually do agree there are some pragmatic elements to it - although as you note not really made explicit. Part of that is just that pragmatism and positivism are not that far removed from each other. Effectively pragmatism was popular in American intellectual circles before the war. By the mid 30's positivism was replacing it - but it really wasn't that big a leap. Even the end of positivism can be seen as the return of quasi-pragmatic perspectives like Quine's or Davidson's. The prominent post-positivist figures typically didn't embrace the pragmatic label. (Although Quine did write a paper on whether he's a pragmatist that's interesting if only because he both shows how ignorant of pragmatism he is and also how pragmatic he is.) The only ones who really did were Putnam and Rorty who also seriously engaged with pragmatism as well as distancing themselves from various positions of pragmatism. (There were a few other figures too of course)

Anyway, I think McMurrin's book would have been fascinating had he engaged with the issue of whether Mormon thought is/was pragmatic. I think some figures like Brigham Young certainly had a pragmatic angle and B. H. Roberts in particular is interesting to view that way. That he didn't still puzzles me. Possibly because by the 60's pragmatism was very much out of fashion in a rather strong way. Ironically it was about to have a resurgence in the 70's and as I said it's quite arguable that already in the 60's it had overcome positivism through Quine.

Yep I agree with this much- ;)

I was waiting for him to cite Pragmatism and he never did.  Frustrating.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep I agree with this much- ;)

I was waiting for him to cite Pragmatism and he never did.  Frustrating.

He did briefly on page 25. He sees Mormonism as inherently contradictory. So, speaking of values, he sees Mormonism as absolutist and platonic yet simultaneously pragmatic and instrumentalist. He clearly knows about pragmatism. He also has writings on pragmatism in his papers collection at the University of Utah. Presumably he'd have taught on it during his time as a teacher. It's interesting that he doesn't see it as a useful prism to view Mormons even if he himself finds pragmatism wrong.

What's so frustrating is that in his lesser known paper on B. H. Roberts he brings up the pragmatic angle a fair bit.

Quote

 

In one of the earliest scholarly studies of Mormonism, the Mormon philosopher E. E. Ericksen, influenced by the pragmatic principle that "institutions are made and ideals are formed in the process of adjustment," treated the development of Mormon society, religion, and morals in terms of three successive eras.1 The first, to the death of Joseph Smith and the beginning of the westward movement, was a period defined especially by the conflict of the Mormons with their neighbors.2 The second, the era of the migration and colonization, was marked by the Mormons' struggle against nature and their troubles with the federal government. The third, following the decline of the Mormon cooperative movement, Ericksen regarded as a time of internal institutional and social conflict and intellectual adjustment. It was in a sense a "scholastic" period, a time for defending the actions of the past, justifying the moral ideals, clarifying the religious doctrines, and constructing a rational philosophy in the light of modern scientific thought and democratic practice.

When allowance is made for the distortion in the description of the historical process that inevitably results from adherence to formulae of this type, Ericksen's thesis is a valuable index to an understanding of Mormon thought and behavior. Today a fourth period might be added, extending from the close of World War II to the present, which has been and is being marked by the worldwide extension of Mormonism, a promised dissolution of its extreme parochialism, and the apparent beginnings of a genuine universalism. But it is Ericksen's third era-the predominance of internal intellectual conflict and a "scholastic" interest and effort-that is of concern here, for the intellectual efforts of that era were dominated by Brigham H. Roberts.3 Indeed, the era itself effectively came to at least a temporary end with Roberts's death in 1933.

From their beginning as a religious community, the Mormons have had a characteristically pragmatic American temperament, and the history of their institutions and practices exhibits clearly their responses to the political, economic, and natural forces that have affected them. From the financial crisis of 1837 that disrupted their first congregation in Ohio to the economic and social impact of the large-scale federal military installations established in Mormon country during and since World War II, the Mormons as a group have exhibited the social effects of external pressures and internal tensions.

 

I take this to mean that McMurrin sees post-war Mormon thought as quite different from early 20th century thought. Although how he considers this pragmatic period seems again contradictory. A "scholastic" period (by which I assume he means scholastic philosophy in the medieval and renaissance eras) although he also seems to mean a kind of Hegelian thesis/anti-thesis type movement. (Yeah I know Fichte not Hegel, but it gets at the evolutionary element many Hegelian inspired pragmatists embraced)

To be fair he's not bringing up formal pragmatism or pragmatists here beyond his colleague & mentor Ericksen and a brief mention of Robert's use of James.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Yes.  But here and now, is this justification for the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)?  Does this explain the necessity of the culture war currently underway?  And are we direct participants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeFJ4WCqhk     (Niall Ferguson on the Intellectual Dark Web and the Culture War, Pt. 1, May 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbswOWDVXLc     (Understanding the Intellectual Dark Web, from the Left, Dec 2018)

That’s depressing to think that we will never get to the point where there are no ites.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Amulek said:

Recommended reading for those would like more on this from one of my favorite LDS philosophers: David Paulsen's The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James

 

Oh yes, absolutely brilliant paper!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep I agree with this much- ;)

I was waiting for him to cite Pragmatism and he never did.  Frustrating.

Quoting myself here - I took out the book and looked at my margin notes made in 1983.  ;)

I was totally wrong in this comment above - he mentions Pragmatism EVERYWHERE.

Some of the quotes are absolutely brilliant and almost prophetic about where the church is now.  I will post them later when I get a chance to copy them.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I kind of remember this discussion- would you mind doing a brief summary?

Is it based on the idea that this planet seems to have been created specifically for human life?

The problem with that is that it is just as convincing to me that the reason it appears that way is that we have evolved by these conditions to be perfectly suited for life on this planet because this is where we evolved.

So yes of course the distance from earth to the sun and moon etc were all essential parts of our evolution.

It's kind of like Rorty's point that we look out at space and see our concepts mirrored - and we see ourselves in the data we accumulate as being "important" not because it is "objectively true" but because it was important in our own evolution!

So for example, some people see the universe as "mathematically perfect" and explainable by mathematics while others see mathematics itself as an evolutionary development which has helped us create our artificial world of houses, shopping malls, electric heat and air conditioning.   

Our "environment" is no longer natural, but man made and that is why we see conflict now between the human world and the natural world as exemplified perhaps as global warming etc.

Math helped us make our artificial world which suddenly we see as not "corresponding" to the natural world at all!

In fact global warming can be seen as an argument against the correspondence theory of truth!!  

But I digress ....  is that what you meant? ;)

 

Hi MFB! No, my pantheism isn't based on anything like that.

So for pantheists, existence itself is God. Another way to say that is "the universe" but I prefer not to, because that brings up a static picture of galaxies and stars, and that's just a moment in time. I was actually introduced to that kind of theism from progressive Jewish and Christian clergy and scholars who hold to that sort of view. It's kind of a default - the universe has many of the characteristics normally associated with God - creator, uncaused cause, nothing is greater than it, the source of all our morals, etc. Even in Mormonism, existence gives rise to gods so you can think of gods in some way as subordinate to existence. It's a good theism for people who, for whatever reason, have found a personal God untenable.

What I meant by absolute empirical certainty is that obviously the universe (everything that exists) exists. It's a tautology. Of course the universe exists. It's often interesting to bring up pantheism when talking about theological and philosophical arguments for God, because it exposes the reality that what is defined as "God" is totally subjective. So even if we can all agree that "God" exists, we will never all agree on what God means. God is not well defined. The universe exists, but most will not call the universe God.

Everyone has a different model in their heads about God. Even if the LDS God came down to earth and showed himself to everyone, some people would disagree about whether to call him God. Because he is not the creator of reality and existence, he doesn't fit the model for God for most people.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 5:38 PM, clarkgoble said:

You can't argue for his necessary existence the way traditional arguments go. What matter is you pray, he answers in a fashion you can tell is God. The experience of communicating with God is the only argument that ultimately matters`

I feel like there are at least 15 different thread worthy questions I would like you to answer from just these three short lines, but in trying to keep this on topic lets stick to this statement below, though I would like to say that the last two sentences seem to be directly contradicted by LDS teachings on authority and priesthood vis a vis exaltation. But back to the OP and how it relates to the book by McMurrin. You said:

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 5:38 PM, clarkgoble said:

You can't argue for his necessary existence the way traditional arguments go

It has been years since I read McMurrin's book and now as I go back I see it is a treasure trove of observations on Mormon belief. It really is worth reading regardless of how out of date it is, or in fact, precisely because of that fact, as it will at least give an excellent glimpse to Mormon theological thought 50-60 years ago and a stepping stone to people like Givens. Regarding your statement above, I think McMurrin agrees very much with you here. After spending some time laying out the differences between necessary and contingent, finite and infinite, time and timelessness he says that in Mormonism:

Quote

God is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world of which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion.....He is not the creator of the most ultimate constituents of the world, either the fundamental material entities of the space and time that locate them....God is a being among beings rather than being as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute. see pg 29

So the OP states

 

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:55 PM, Rivers said:

How exactly should Latter-day Saints argue for the existence of God?  I've become interested in the more philosophical arguments for God.  However, many of the philosophical arguments hinge on defining God is an uncreated unmoved mover that is the first of cause of everything.  Latter-day Saints, on the other hand,  have a much different view of God.  We view God as essentially one of us but in a higher plain of existence.  IMO we view our relationship with God as being more important that any ontological understanding of God.  I don't have a problem with this but I think it makes arguing for God's existence more difficult

McMurrin directly replies to this last line on page 35.

Quote

After all that is said and done, it appears that those who seek the consolations and inspiration of religion are as a rule not willing to worship anything less than ultimate and absolute power. Clearly they are not willing to take their problems to a God who may have problems of his own.

Finitistic theology is not more popular among the Mormons than among than others if they are judged by their typical sermons or rhetorical terminology. The work "finite" stirs nothing in the soul of the worshiper. But "infinite," "omnipotent," and "omniscient" are words made to order for the preacher and the popular writer. So Mormon theological writing and sermonizing are more often than not replete with the vocabulary of absolutism. But, like it or not, the Mormon theologian must sooner or later return to the finitistic conception of God upon which both his technical theology and his theological myths are founded. Here Mormonism reveals the radical nature of its heresy and its tendency toward the kind of common-sense liberalism that so deeply affected the nineteenth-century English-speaking world.

While it is all fine and good to say what is important is coming to know him personally; if we stop there, what separates us from others who claim the same thing? If just knowing God is all that important why do we focus so much on eternal progression, especially where we ourselves can continue to have offspring eternally, a belief that radically sets us apart from other religious beliefs?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gray said:

Hi MFB! No, my pantheism isn't based on anything like that.

So for pantheists, existence itself is God. Another way to say that is "the universe" but I prefer not to, because that brings up a static picture of galaxies and stars, and that's just a moment in time. I was actually introduced to that kind of theism from progressive Jewish and Christian clergy and scholars who hold to that sort of view. It's kind of a default - the universe has many of the characteristics normally associated with God - creator, uncaused cause, nothing is greater than it, the source of all our morals, etc. Even in Mormonism, existence gives rise to gods so you can think of gods in some way as subordinate to existence. It's a good theism for people who, for whatever reason, have found a personal God untenable.

What I meant by absolute empirical certainty is that obviously the universe (everything that exists) exists. It's a tautology. Of course the universe exists. It's often interesting to bring up pantheism when talking about theological and philosophical arguments for God, because it exposes the reality that what is defined as "God" is totally subjective. So even if we can all agree that "God" exists, we will never all agree on what God means. God is not well defined. The universe exists, but most will not call the universe God.

Everyone has a different model in their heads about God. Even if the LDS God came down to earth and showed himself to everyone, some people would disagree about whether to call him God. Because he is not the creator of reality and existence, he doesn't fit the model for God for most people.

Ok thanks. You are right, I personally don't agree with your concept of  "existence" and the word's usage, but you are right, if you accept that, I can't see a rational argument against it. :)

Oh and the LDS God did come to earth, and you are right about that too.

And you are right that that is an insufficient definition of God for most, me included. ;)

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

"How can you pray to god if you do not think he exists?"

My  response to the atheist ==>> there were those in Galileo's time who refused to  look thru the telescope, and so continued to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

While it is all fine and good to say what is important is coming to know him personally; if we stop there, what separates us from others who claim the same thing? If just knowing God is all that important why do we focus so much on eternal progression, especially where we ourselves can continue to have offspring eternally, a belief that radically sets us apart from other religious beliefs?

The fundamental issue (and while I'd have to find my copy of McMurrin I don't think he addresses it) is that knowing is a process not an event. So what counts is that progression in terms of relationship. This isn't particularly unique about God. It's true of all people we know. I have a friend and I come to know them of which part is how I come to understand them and their nature over time. Along the way I may be mistaken. At the beginning I'll have very little to work off of. Other friends may perceive them differently. We may disagree. All that's for sure is that if we h ave a relationship that over time we'll come to know them better and presumably our erroneous ideas become corrected.

So I take it for granted that at least some of my beliefs are wrong. Some I trust more than others because I feel like in experience they are  more trustworthy. But I'm rather convinced some will turn out to be wrong. But which ones? If I knew that then of course I wouldn't believe those beliefs.

From my perspective what's really at issue is do I have a relationship with something real (meaning not just a figment of my brain not really "out there"). If I can establish that then I can come to know better and hopefully over time improve my beliefs. 

Back to your original question. What separates me from other who claim the same thing (but presumably with different beliefs). Nothing. If we're talking to the same person nothing differs. Our beliefs might differ and perhaps how seriously we take trying to understand the other person. But if we maintain the relationship eventually we'll come to believe the same thing.

As for why eternal progression is so important, that seems a quite different topic. My inclination is to say that if it is true, it's just a fact of the universe. It's worth knowing precisely because it puts the place of families into perspective. That our heavenly father literally is our father in some strong sense, providing for us, and trying to guide us while we are in some key fashion outside of his control. That is, that God's relationship to us is imperfect not just on our side but also on his. Imperfect might not be the best word there, but if you've ever had a child causing unnecessary pain for themselves, tried to help them and teach them, yet see them make the same mistakes, it clarifies a lot. To my mind, by eliminating God from the calculus of Being itself with nothing impossible, it humanizes him in a certain fashion. More importantly though, it changes how we relate to him both in our expectations and in our prayers. Heidegger had a quip I've long loved. "Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god." The god of the philosophers just isn't really a being we have relationships with. He's beyond relationship. The god of eternal progression is someone I can love.

Link to comment
On 1/14/2019 at 2:55 PM,  Rivers said: 

We view God as essentially one of us

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, November 1909  

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The fundamental issue (and while I'd have to find my copy of McMurrin I don't think he addresses it) is that knowing is a process not an event. So what counts is that progression in terms of relationship. This isn't particularly unique about God. It's true of all people we know. I have a friend and I come to know them of which part is how I come to understand them and their nature over time. Along the way I may be mistaken. At the beginning I'll have very little to work off of. Other friends may perceive them differently. We may disagree. All that's for sure is that if we h ave a relationship that over time we'll come to know them better and presumably our erroneous ideas become corrected.

So I take it for granted that at least some of my beliefs are wrong. Some I trust more than others because I feel like in experience they are  more trustworthy. But I'm rather convinced some will turn out to be wrong. But which ones? If I knew that then of course I wouldn't believe those beliefs.

From my perspective what's really at issue is do I have a relationship with something real (meaning not just a figment of my brain not really "out there"). If I can establish that then I can come to know better and hopefully over time improve my beliefs. 

Back to your original question. What separates me from other who claim the same thing (but presumably with different beliefs). Nothing. If we're talking to the same person nothing differs. Our beliefs might differ and perhaps how seriously we take trying to understand the other person. But if we maintain the relationship eventually we'll come to believe the same thing.

As for why eternal progression is so important, that seems a quite different topic. My inclination is to say that if it is true, it's just a fact of the universe. It's worth knowing precisely because it puts the place of families into perspective. That our heavenly father literally is our father in some strong sense, providing for us, and trying to guide us while we are in some key fashion outside of his control. That is, that God's relationship to us is imperfect not just on our side but also on his. Imperfect might not be the best word there, but if you've ever had a child causing unnecessary pain for themselves, tried to help them and teach them, yet see them make the same mistakes, it clarifies a lot. To my mind, by eliminating God from the calculus of Being itself with nothing impossible, it humanizes him in a certain fashion. More importantly though, it changes how we relate to him both in our expectations and in our prayers. Heidegger had a quip I've long loved. "Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god." The god of the philosophers just isn't really a being we have relationships with. He's beyond relationship. The god of eternal progression is someone I can love.

My gosh- real philosophy-  I love it!  Great post!

I was thinking about this the other day in micro/macro terms about historicity and errors by previous prophets and how the idea of "becoming" changes the perception of "errors" made previously on a personal level as well as on a more macro, church level.

Errors become part of the dialectic "opposition in all things" which allows "becoming" to happen and is what makes us a true and LIVING church.

As we are progressing personally so too is the church progressing and becoming what God wants us to be, and that includes the idea of repentance for us- and even for the church in some cases!  But BECOMING is the key to seeing it this way- and working through the dialectical process of opposition in all things- or as Joseph put it "proving the contraries"

I was talking to one of my dear friends who happens to be the SP at the moment and we were discussing the CES letter and similar stuff that is driving the youth away- and that they want "facts", but he instantly saw the difference between "facts" and the "truth" and brought it up that way.  He spoke about "facts" as the philosophies of men which change always- in terms of science and cultural beliefs but then referred to direct personal knowledge of God and other things as "truth"!

I practically fell out of my chair because here I had studied philosophy for probably 10 years including graduate studies to really "get" that and here it just was totally obvious to him without any philosophical background whatsoever.  He lives by the spirit and sees that as "truth" - direct experience- trumps contextual, changing "facts" of peer review

And then we spoke about becoming .

Link to comment
On 1/16/2019 at 11:30 AM, clarkgoble said:

 

From my perspective what's really at issue is do I have a relationship with something real (meaning not just a figment of my brain not really "out there"). If I can establish that then I can come to know better and hopefully over time improve my beliefs. 

The problem is how could you possibly establish that?

In that scenario, if you cannot establish it - therefore it you cannot improve your beliefs, nor your life

That is why I take a pragmatic view. I act AS IF it is true in hope of things unseen.

For me that is all of it, for the existence of God and for the historical issues.

That's the best anyone can do.

And that same methodology works in science as well. "Let's assume the XYZ particle exists and see if we get more data that indicates that it might."

And so let us assume that God exists and see if we get predictable results which would lead us to believe further.

For me those experiments have proved positive.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so let us assume that God exists and see if we get predictable results which would lead us to believe further.

For me those experiments have proved positive.

Same. And the evidence is now a mountain that would take supreme stubbornness to ignore. It grows week by week and often day by day.

Link to comment

 

Quote

From my perspective what's really at issue is do I have a relationship with something real (meaning not just a figment of my brain not really "out there"). If I can establish that then I can come to know better and hopefully over time improve my beliefs. 

On 1/21/2019 at 2:02 AM, mfbukowski said:

The problem is how could you possibly establish that?

In that scenario, if you cannot establish it - therefore it you cannot improve your beliefs, nor your life

That is why I take a pragmatic view. I act AS IF it is true in hope of things unseen.

It's interesting that you use the "as if" now while you seemed to object to that a few weeks ago when I used it. (I've no problem with that mind you - I think "as if" is a good explanation)

As for how to establish it - it depends upon what one means by that. If we mean certainty in some cartesian sense then of course we can't. If we mean establish it in a rigorous fashion we can trust, then that's a different kettle of fish. I think the issue always is predictive power, explanatory power, a degree of simplicity, and so forth. That is is there a difference that makes a difference. To me (and this is largely following Peirce's point about verification) the whole issue is that knowledge is making a claim about future potential experiences.

So I confess I've never understood this "you can't establish it" line of critique, since of course in practice we easily distinguish between beliefs that are legitimate or not. The question is always what facts are explained, what gets predicted and confirmed over time, and what beliefs persist over time through continued rigorous investigation. That continued investigation is key, and is also what many people simply don't do with their beliefs.

(Several days behind in posts so I'll be slowly catching up)

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...