Jump to content
Nofear

Women, Men, and Priesthood

Recommended Posts

Sis. Ulrich gave a wonderful talk at the Fair Mormon Conference.
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/women-men-and-priesthood-power

I agree with her doctrine and perspective, but, I know that there will be objections by some who say her perspective is ... incomplete. Some examples (not exhaustive):

  • a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say
  • callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry
  • the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)
  • women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men
  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints. Rather, I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sis. Ulrich gave a wonderful talk at the Fair Mormon Conference.
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/women-men-and-priesthood-power

I agree with her doctrine and perspective, but, I know that there will be objections by some who say her perspective is ... incomplete. Some examples (not exhaustive):

  • a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say

The same can be said for men.  They don't have much of a say, either.  The bishop or stake president extends a calling, and the calling can be accepted or not.

Quote
  • callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry

I'm not sure I understand the reference to "symmetry" here.  Could you elaborate?

Quote
  • the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)

I'm not sure these delineations are arbitrary.

Quote
  • women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men

Yes.

Quote
  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints. Rather, I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

Here's my thought:

  1. I believe that the Brethren, though not perfect, are broadly and generally in communion with God, and continue to hold the authority and keys required to preside over the Church and administer its ordinances, programs, finances, etc.
  2. I am open to the possibility that women could be ordained to the priesthood.  Such a thing would, I think, necessarily be a matter of revelation to the Presiding High Priest.  Until and unless that happens, however, I will continue to sustain the Brethren as described above.
  3. I acknowledge that leadership positions in the Church are "asymmetrical."  1 Cor. 12 pretty much requires positions in the Church to be asymmetrical.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So God set up a sexually asymmetric world, where men, on average, enjoy many advantages over women.

Also, men, on average, are more selfish than women, so less interested in service than women.

Because of some of the inevitable consequences of this real world asymmetry, some people reject God, for setting up and placing us in such an obviously biased world.

What are the implications of those biological realities for the domain of church leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Nofear said:

a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say

True but from what I have seen the Bishop will almost always go with her recommendation, unless he is privy to confidential details that would cause him to do otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

This is one of the reasons I have left the church.  Men protecting, providing, in charge of ordinances etc.  flies in the face of reality.

There are more single moms than dads - women provide, women protect.  

There are more women who are spiritually inclined than men, so there should be more women than men in spiritual roles - 

just the natural reality of it all...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sis. Ulrich gave a wonderful talk at the Fair Mormon Conference.
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/women-men-and-priesthood-power

I agree with her doctrine and perspective, but, I know that there will be objections by some who say her perspective is ... incomplete. Some examples (not exhaustive):

  • a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say
  • callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry
  • the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)
  • women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men
  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints. Rather, I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

Would you please explain a little more what you mean  by this please?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, changed said:

This is one of the reasons I have left the church.  Men protecting, providing, in charge of ordinances etc.  flies in the face of reality.

There are more single moms than dads - women provide, women protect.  

There are more women who are spiritually inclined than men, so there should be more women than men in spiritual roles - 

just the natural reality of it all...

And men can naturally beat women up due to their superior strength so they tend to be in charge which trumps natural spirituality. Are you sure you want to throw out the ideal of egalitarianism so quickly?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tkv said:

So God set up a sexually asymmetric world, where men, on average, enjoy many advantages over women.

Also, men, on average, are more selfish than women, so less interested in service than women.

Because of some of the inevitable consequences of this real world asymmetry, some people reject God, for setting up and placing us in such an obviously biased world.

What are the implications of those biological realities for the domain of church leadership?

I reject the notion that God set us up.  We set ourselves up. 

The biological differences do not interfere with a woman’s ability to sit in a presiding position during sacrament or general conference meeting, or to account for church funds, or to be the final speaker in sacrament meeting.  In fact there are many things women are more capable of achieving than we are given opportunity to do.  

Biologically men are stronger and faster than women.  That makes them the hunters.  They are the brave hero’s on whom honor is bestowed. ......Time has passed and things have changed regarding women being allowed to vote and such...but IMO the LDS Church is steeped in tradition and is uncomfortable with change.  (Goodness sake two weeks ago we combined wards and had two sacrament tables and the bishop actually found a need to explain this and say the following words:  Its All Going To Be OK. 😂  It seems any small adjustment is met with such tittering and excitement.) Imagine if women actually said prayers in general conference!!  Oh yeah, that does happen.  Finally.

it will be a cold day down under when women in our church are held in as high esteem in general as men are.  That is my opinion.  I feel very respected as an individual woman in my domain but in my eyes there is plenty of reason that we are seen as a sexist religion to outsiders. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Nofear said:
  • .............................., a women never will, breaking the symmetry
  • ................................

I don't know about that fearfui symmetry:  Since when was that a consideration?  And how might it be achieved in a world in which men cannot get pregnant?  What of the complementarity of the yin & yang?  What are we to think sub specie aeternitatis?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rain said:

Would you please explain a little more what you mean  by this please?

Some (including myself) have faith that the current setup is something God accepts – even while we acknowledge there is more to be done as we approach Zion.

Some (liked changed) do not have that trust/belief in the current situation and deny in their minds the idea that God accepts the current setup. They do not see acceptable reasons it could bo so and so do not believe.

Acceptable reasons do not create faith/trust, but it does make it easier to acquire faith/trust and/or understand those that do have it.

Edited by Nofear
Typing on a phone be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I reject the notion that God set us up.  We set ourselves up. 

I question the notion that we set ourselves up.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The biological differences do not interfere with a woman’s ability to sit in a presiding position during sacrament or general conference meeting, or to account for church funds, or to be the final speaker in sacrament meeting.  In fact there are many things women are more capable of achieving than we are given opportunity to do.

Broadly speaking, I agree.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Biologically men are stronger and faster than women.  That makes them the hunters.  

Broadly speaking, I agree.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They are the brave hero’s on whom honor is bestowed. ......Time has passed and things have changed regarding women being allowed to vote and such...but IMO the LDS Church is steeped in tradition and is uncomfortable with change.  

Several years ago I started a thread on the "scriptural basis" for limiting priesthood ordination to men: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?

The long and short of it is, IMO, that the restriction is based principally on extrapolation of scriptural passages.  Thus I am open to the possibility of women being ordained.  I doubt it will happen, as I do not think it is part of the Lord's plan, but I am open to it.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

it will be a cold day down under when women in our church are held in as high esteem in general as men are.  That is my opinion.  

I think women are held in very high esteem in the Church.  That is my opinion.

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I feel very respected as an individual woman in my domain but in my eyes there is plenty of reason that we are seen as a sexist religion to outsiders. 

I'm not inclined to privilege the ignorant opinions of outsiders over the express teachings of the Church, and my experience in the Church, and my wife's, and my mother's, and mother-in-law's, and many, many other women who are members of the Church and reject the notion that we are "a sexist religion," and that women are not held in "high esteem" in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if they still do this...but it is demeaning to a woman to have to have permission to serve.  I remember my bishop asking if I would like to be  a Den mother many years ago...He said he had already talked to my husband.  My husband said...ask her!!  She gets to decide!😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Sis. Ulrich gave a wonderful talk at the Fair Mormon Conference.
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/women-men-and-priesthood-power

I agree with her doctrine and perspective, but, I know that there will be objections by some who say her perspective is ... incomplete. Some examples (not exhaustive):

  • a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say
  • callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry  What is the percentage of men that are bishops, SP, etc.? That percentage is so miniscule that this so-called symmentry you are seeking is almost non-existent. In other words, balderdash!  However, if you want to have a problem, I promise you that you can find one anywhere you look.  Martha, 1 man out of 400 people is a bishop and not a woman. Let's burn down the church because it is sexist. This is really, really hard to get....then again, if you want to find a problem, pick the sky is blue most of the time and scream at the heavens about it.
  • the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)  I dislike the fact that women are the Lords of the house; that they are in control so often. Men get to be in control...when? Only when their wife tells them so. So, should we throw out marriage?
  • women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men. I don't know how to pacify this projected problem. Should each sex get to complain when they are not in the majority? Or should we all just live in seperate areas men take the north and women take the south? When does a period exist where complaints stop? When is everyone happy?  
  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints. Rather, I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

Casual dismissal? I don't know. I just think humans can complain about and reject anything. I don't believe that happiness is ever achieved at the expense of others or in their actions. Happiness is strictly personal - you want it then you will have it. 

Almost any political system will work if individuals commit to working within the system. Unfortunately, humans don't really enjoy working in the system...any system. Nothing is really adequate unless "they" are in control themselves. What happens when everyone is in control? That is called chaos and I promise you, that is a world in which no happiness exists until all of "them" are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I'm not inclined to privilege the ignorant opinions of outsiders over the express teachings of the Church, and my experience in the Church, and my wife's, and my mother's, and mother-in-law's, and many, many other women who are members of the Church and reject the notion that we are "a sexist religion," and that women are not held in "high esteem" in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do like to consider outsiders views because I have only known mine.  Having been a member all my life I know nothing more.  

For example, I consider all of you outsiders in my life.  I have learned and even changed my way of thinking by considering what you say and believe. I don’t find you ignorant to my life even though you don’t even know who I am! We all share human commonalities.  

When I consider how it looks to my non member guests that such and such happens at church, I ask myself, is this the idea that the church wishes to create? Is it intentional? In the case of women being below men in terms of status and influence, it is my opinion that while most lds men support and admire lds women, that lds men and women alike are quite comfortable with status quo in general.  

To ask the relief society president to sit on the stand at church is such a departure that it’s just easier to not think about it.  (For example.) Yet, “to me”, there is a message that is in our inaction.  Like it or not, that message is, the men are in charge here, and the women can work behind the scenes, thank you very much. 

And before we jump to the predictable “hey my wife prefers not to sit on the stage”  I would suggest that there would be tremendous value for young women and young girls to see righteous women honored and respected enough to fill the duty of watching over the ward family and paying attention to the nuances of reaction and response of individuals and then attending to individual needs accordingly. For (a small) example. 

IMO. 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

Assuming that the one who is struggling has some previous spiritual and doctrinal experience, praying for charity creates a perspective that enables fruitful exploratory discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Several years ago I started a thread on the "scriptural basis" for limiting priesthood ordination to men: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males?

The long and short of it is, IMO, that the restriction is based principally on extrapolation of scriptural passages.  Thus I am open to the possibility of women being ordained.  I doubt it will happen, as I do not think it is part of the Lord's plan, but I am open to it.

I deeply doubt women will ever be ordained.  But interestingly I don’t think that is necessary for equality. I don’t need the priesthood to be equal.  I need respect.  

I have as much respect as the men in my life will allow me to have. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

 

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints.

Sometimes its helps to have a casual acceptance of the complaints as a premise for discussion or at least for an opportunity to make space to enjoin charity into the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

 

  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I'm finding more and more women expressing concerns over practice and doctrine in a way that seems to conflate their concern over gender roles with concerns over sexual identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Sis. Ulrich gave a wonderful talk at the Fair Mormon Conference.
https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2019/women-men-and-priesthood-power

I agree with her doctrine and perspective, but, I know that there will be objections by some who say her perspective is ... incomplete. Some examples (not exhaustive):

  • a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say
  • callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry
  • the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)
  • women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men
  • etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I am not interested in casual dismissal of the complaints. Rather, I am looking for perspectives that would allow one who struggles with those kind of criticisms room to breathe in a way that is suggested by the quote below. I have my own ways of phrasing/viewing/responding but I'd like to hear how others might respond.

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." -- Austin Farrer

From the talk...

He says we will be better off if we come here to the earth where we will be weak and vulnerable. Christ also represents these lesser gifts. He held no priesthood authority or office in his day, as it was defined. He had no position or office of religious governance of any kind. His Messianic role did not involve ousting the Romans, which is what they were expecting. In fact, the Romans killed Him. Instead He was trying to help people find inner peace that did not involve changing their circumstances. His only influence was through His own wisdom, character, and relationships.

Not so sure if this is doctrinally correct. Or at least somewhat incomplete, for a better word. Or how it squares with the priesthood doctrine taught in Alma 13. There appears to be something eternal about the Father/Son relationship and the order of the Priesthood that isn’t taken into account, in my opinion.

From Hebrews....

“5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchizedek.”

“8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

”Alma 13:7.This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—
8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—
9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is.”

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Nofear said:
  1. a woman has no say in where she serves --  even when a sister gives a recommendation, a man (e.g. bishop) has the final say
  2. callings for men have the same restrictions, but a man might become a bishop or stake president or such, a women never will, breaking the symmetry
  3. the Church has seemingly arbitrary delineations in who serves where (e.g. ward clerk and the more recent Ward Temple and Family History Leader being only a Melchizedek priesthood holder)
  4. women participate in Church councils and such but they are pretty much always outnumbered by men
  5. etc. (There are those on the board who would add to the list ... you are welcome and encouraged to do so!)

I think the the problem with the first one is that it reifies gender. i.e. treats the group as having some kind of inherent capabilities. I think it's fair to complain about the voice of women in decisions, but the way you put it seems problematic. As I've said many times I suspect there will be reforms over the following years of the place of women in decision making, but I think the way the issue is framed is sometimes unhealthy. Women in abstract aren't "real" in any strong sense. There's a range of women individuals who have different perspectives and skills. Making sure those perspectives have more influence is important. Saying that somehow women independent of an individual woman as leader tends to assume a gender essentialism that is in fact at odds with giving individual women a greater voice. It assumes women are all the same. That then becomes the focus rather than giving diverse people more of a voice.

To the point of arbitrariness that seems unescapable. Any decision one comes up with is apt to be arbitrary in some way. I think some callings tied to gender are tied to it inappropriately. So I'd love to see men in leadership in primary and women in Sunday school (or better yet simply merge the callings). 

Regarding being outnumbered in councils, since the councils aren't a democratic vote, it's unclear how that matters. I think this needs unpacked quite a bit more to see what the objection is. If the issue is just an arbitrary equality in numbers then I think it needs be explained why that matters.

Again, I think women need more of a voice and that's ultimately helpful to the church to avoid leaders with limited perspectives from missing perspectives. However I worry that the way some see the issue is just in terms of absolute numbers or wanting to simply not have anything indexed to gender. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, changed said:

There are more women who are spiritually inclined than men, so there should be more women than men in spiritual roles - 

Until this of course

Can you imagine if a man wrote this?

I have, right here and gotten flak for it.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, changed said:

There are more women who are spiritually inclined than men

In our Western culture there are certain behaviours that are judged as spiritual that just may be more social for an individual such as attending church that women do more of, but that likely are no more indicators of greater gender spirituality than the fact most priests, imans, and rabbis are men means men are more spiritual.  Cultural roles need to be carefully analyzed separately from spirituality. 

And in fact spirituality likely can’t be measured by anyone but God since we can’t quantify either the spirit or feeling. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Some (including myself) have faith that the current setup is something God accepts – even while we acknowledge there is more to be done as we approach Zion.

Some (liked changed) do not have that trust/belief in the current situation and deny in their minds the idea that God accepts the current setup. They do not see acceptable reasons it could bo so and so do not believe.

Acceptable reasons do not create faith/trust, but it does make it easier to acquire faith/trust and/or understand those that do have it.

Thank you for explaining.

I think there is also something in the middle. I think that sometimes God allows things, but it doesn't necessarily mean he accepts them.  

I'm not saying this is how the church is set up as a whole, but do think there are bits and pieces allowed and as we learn more we may be ready to change those things to something he accepts.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

×
×
  • Create New...