-
Posts
1,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DonBradley
-
-
19 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:
Even though Martin Harris' travels to the east were previous to the translation of the Book of Lehi, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on his encounters with Bradish, Mitchill, Anthon and whoever else he might have shown the transcript.
There seems to be agreement between those that saw the earliest transcript that the characters resembled Arabic. I assume the Ottoman pass that Bradish compared to the transcript was at least partly in Arabic?Hey Rajah,
That's in the book! Chapter 2!
I didn't dwell too much on the Arabic connection, but it's there. I thought about calling it out a little more. But there is plenty of discussion of the sealed book and the Anthon incident.
Don
0 -
Also, Calm, I just tried to private message you, but the system says you can't receive messages, possibly because of settings or a full inbox?
Don
0 -
17 minutes ago, Calm said:
I posted it to our internal discussion list.
I am not involved in the Facebook side of things so not sure we do this kind of stuff (I tend to avoid Facebook), but could ask them to share it if you would like.
Ah--nice!
Thanks so much!
Don
0 -
34 minutes ago, Calm said:
Shared with FairMormon.
Shared how?
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Friends,
For various reasons, not all the information I've put together on the lost 116 pages was able to be put in my book. For that reason, and because I have a real sense of mission in sharing with others research that has impacted my life and my understanding of the Restoration (this research, along with my intertwining discoveries on the First Vision, were what initiated my return to the church), I'd like to share more of my findings beyond just the covers of my book.
So I've opened this thread to announce that I'm starting a Facebook page to share information on the lost 116 pages, and also to solicit your suggestions of what I should share on that page.
Here is what I've come up with so far to share:
1. The book's preview chapters
2. A chapter excerpt published in Interpreter, "A Passover setting for Lehi's Exodus."
3. Links to new podcasts that tell things from the book along with additional information on the lost 116 pages
4. Illustrations of the Jaredite interpreters
5. The Aztec calendar that was reportedly similar to the Anthon transcript
6. Pieces of material that didn't make it into this edition of the book, including...
7. An illustration of how the interpreters aligned with the symbols engraved on top of the plates
8. An illustration of the all-seeing eye in the relation to the translation process via the interpreters
9. The photograph of an 1844 Ottoman passport, a type of document to which the Anthon transcript was said to be similar
10. An explanation of how Joseph Smith's use of his beaver skin hat in the translation process relates to precedents in the Hebrew Bible and the lost pagesAny other suggestions for what I should post?
Feel free to share suggestions here, or go to the "The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing Stories" page and offer your input there.
You can stay up on all these things by "liking" or "following" the page!
Any input on this would be very appreciated! 😃
Don
5 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Thanks, Jake, for sharing the link!
I just cannot describe to you all, my friends, how excited I am to have this work finally out! 😃
Yours,
Don
6 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
TKS,
'Hope you had a good Thanksgiving!
Thanks for your interest in my arguments here, and for engaging me where you think, based on the bit you've seen about the book, where I'm misreading the data. If I'm wrong on this or other points, I most definitely want to know it.
Since I give quite an extended discussion, across several pages, of the Shilom hill incident, placing the verse you mention in Mosiah 11 in a much larger Book of Mormon context, it would do that argument injustice for me to just make a few stray statements about it on a message board when I've presented it far more fully and contextually as a substantial portion of my Chapter 14--The Mosian Reform. The arguments for reconstructing the contents of the Book of Mormon's lost pages don't lend themselves well to message board presentation. If they did, I could have saved myself eight and half years and 300-plus pages, or some 700 pages in the larger drafts of this work. 😉
Scholarship is ultimately a conversation, and one I'm explicitly inviting my readers to join. But it is a conversation that does not primarily take place on message boards, as fun as conversation here can be. Rather, it's a conversation that takes place primarily in publications, where arguments can be laid out fully, and not just piecemeal.
That said - I'm not at all above taking, and incorporating, criticism. I'm under no illusion that my conclusions are correct on every point, or that this book is the last word on the subject of the lost pages. To the contrary! As I state explicitly in my introduction:
QuoteAll historical reconstruction is probabilistic, and some facets of the past can be reconstructed with greater certainty than others. Because the models used in this book are probabilistic, they are capable of being improved indefinitely, and doubtless will be over time—including by some readers of this book.
***
My conclusions, like all empirical conclusions, are subject to revision as the evidence grows. We will learn to make better use of the sources we have, including closer reading of our available Book of Mormon text. New sources will also be found that will require revision of existing interpretations—and also enable the confirmation and expansion of those interpretations.
If you would eventually care to borrow or check out from a library or in any other way read the full argument I make about the Shilom hill incident mentioned in Mosiah 11, and you feel you have a better full reading of the relevant data (which extends far beyond this single verse in Mosiah 11), I genuinely invite you to--or, actually, implore you, to, please, either, depending on how much you discover in that data, write a paper or other publication and put it out there--where I can assure you I'll read it and take it into account, or, if you'd like, message me, and, again, I'll read your interpretation and, as appropriate, make changes to my anticipated second edition of this book and/or other future publications on the lost pages. If you come up with a substantial new interpretation and want to publish it yourself, I'd even be willing to put in a good word for you with the editors of good journals I know and would be eager to see such new work out there.
And the same applies for everyone here. There is way more work in Latter-day Saint history and scripture study than can be done by one person, and the topic of the lost 116 pages begs for further scholarship.
If you do end up reading this part of the book, or even the book as a whole, let me know what you think, K?
Unless or until that happens, it may be helpful to know that I've made overlapping arguments, though not necessarily with as clear or full a development, which you can check out if you'd like in my M.A. thesis, American Proto-Zionism and the Book of Lehi: Recontextualizing the Rise of Mormonism, which is online, so to look at those you wouldn't necessarily need to get your hands on the book. If you do read the thesis version, I think you'll understand--from the literally dozens of pages about Mosiah I's exodus and the Shilom hill--why it would not work to try to put all that information here. But there are also further arguments in the book, so be aware that to get the full evidence for the interpretation I'm offering you would ultimately want to look there as well.
As I mention in the book, the late John Tvedtnes was really the first pioneer in piecing together contents from the lost pages. You can read his much briefer take on the Shilom hill incident mentioned in Mosiah 11, as it relates to the lost pages, in the BYU Scholars Archive, here and here.
Again, while I see my book and future publications, not this thread, as the place for me to systematically develop my arguments about what was in the lost pages, including the children of Nephi taking refuge at the Shilom hill, I'd be thrilled to engage and take into account any systematic interpretation you want to make of the data, either in print or in correspondence. I'd be happy to be wrong, because that would mean being better able to discover what's actually right.
Thanks,
Don
6 -
On 11/27/2019 at 10:58 PM, Calm said:
It is great to see it become a reality, Don.
Thank you, Calm!!😊
0 -
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:
I am convinced that your methodologies are great tools for scriptural research, and have great potential for merging at last, aspects of Mormon studies with what has derisively known as "apologetics", and healing that great divide. This is the kind of methodology that Wittgenstein used in his "ordinary language philosophy", and I have been convinced that this kind of contextual approach is the key to pushing LDS "theology", insofar as such a thing is possible, forward. The key is inventing tools for hermeneutics which have not been developed well in our culture, and your approach could become a good step forward.
Thanks, Mark!
I agree very much on the need for and value of new tools for hermeneutics!
Don
0 -
Hey TKV,
I'd be tremendously happy to see other readers of the Book of Mormon who feel they have better readings of the textual evidence to lay those out. I make no claim to perfection. I lay out an extensive case on this point. It would be great to see others refine the interpretation.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Don
4 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Why Kofford Books?
A few reasons.
First, as The Narrator has indicated, Kofford does great work.
I recall Richard Bushman saying a few years ago that Kofford Books was putting out the best new scholarship in Mormon history.
Second, it was Greg Kofford who suggested to me the idea of doing a book on the subject, after hearing me speak on the subject at a history conference.
Third, unlike how it probably would have been with a university press, Kofford Books let me write this book in the language of faith. I was not required at all to change things like describing Joseph translating the book, the book's internal authors being real voices rather than literary fictions, and so on. In fact, they got the vision of what I was doing here very well and greatly encouraged me in it.
Fourth, in particular Loyd Isao Ericson was a gem to work with. He got it and really helped me transform this vision into a reality. He reined me in where I might be pushing the envelope, and he helped sharpen several of my insights and give all of them a clearer expression.
This was such a good experience for my first book that I would highly encourage anyone to publish with Kofford. It's been delightful!
BTW, while I may occasionally chime in like this, I won't be able to engage all the questions, praise, objections that arise about this book. In putting it out there I am giving it a kind of independent life of its own. No longer is it just a part of me, in my head. It now lives separate from me and will even survive me. And my intention is to primarily let this book have a life of its own. It's ideas will be embraced, challenged, refined, built on, and carried in new directions beyond what I can foresee or intend.
I am under no illusions that this book will be the last word on the subject, but I hope it is a good first word, as it were. I hope it will enter into a larger "Mormon dialogue" about the Book of Mormon's lost pages, coming forth, and meanings.
Thank you all for your interest in this book! It has been a long time in the making and I've put a lot of myself into it!
Yours,
Don
11 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Someone asked about the methodology of reconstruction.
That is presented somewhat in the Introduction, which is available online here: https://gregkofford.com/blogs/news/preview-the-lost-116-pages
It's also described further in Chapter 6 and demonstrated in action throughout the book.
I've got a host of sources, including the small plates, Mormon's narrative callbacks later in his abridgment, Joseph Smith, Jr., Joseph Smith, Sr., three of Joseph's early revelations (two of them later modified in later publication to eliminate unfamiliar allusions back to the lost pages), Emer Harris (brother to Martin, ancestor to Dallin Harris Oaks), other close associates of Martin Harris, and so on!
Questions about methodology and such are probably best addressed by the book itself, since the methods are both explained there and demonstrated in practice.
It may also be interesting for potential readers to note the reception thus far:
Quote"Don Bradley's ability to see connections the rest of us miss is the stuff of legend. What he has assembled in this study is among the most audacious attempts to make sense of the Book of Mormon yet seen. This is a book that rewards reading, re-reading, and re-re-reading."-- Joseph M. Spencer, editor, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, author of The Vision of All: Twenty-five Lectures on Isaiah in Nephi's RecordQuote"Extraordinary. Sparkling with fresh and important insights into the history, nature, and contents of the lost portion of the Book of Mormon--and of the portion that we still have."-- Daniel C. Peterson, editor, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and ScholarshipQuote"Don Bradley's years of ingenious sleuthing have yielded a landmark work. Its methods and conclusions will be discussed and refined for years to come. It presents an enthralling case for the contents of the missing manuscript pages of the early Book of Mormon, which in turn sheds light on the extant Book of Mormon and on the Bible itself. The volume will intrigue church members, their observers, and scholars interested in processes of scripturalization, canonization, and textual reconstruction."- Philip L. Barlow, Senior Research Fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, author of Mormons and the Bible, and editor with Edwin Gaustad of New Historical Atlas of Religion in AmericaQuoteBradley's "The Lost 116 Pages" is perhaps the most important release in Book of Mormon Studies in decades, one that I believe will revolutionize how scholars and believers alike approach the origins of Mormonism and the nature of the Book of Mormon text.[rest of the review available on the book's Amazon page]- Jaxon Washburn, ASU religious studies and history major, recently returned missionary, co-host of the Sunstone podcastThe Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon's Missing StoriesThanks all for your interest in this!FAIR was actually my first venue for presenting this information, in my talk shortly after my return to the church "Piercing the Veil: The Temple in the Lost 116 Pages."A transcript is available here, though it may have some errors in transcription. You know, the mistakes of men. 😉😉
Interpreter is also providing a venue for some of this work, publishing this Friday an excerpt from my chapter "A Passover Context for Lehi's Exodus."
So grateful to all those who've believed me in enough to encourage me, help me along the way, and provide venues for this work. The experience of both opposition and support has been epic for me.
Don
7 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
56 minutes ago, tkv said:How does he get that the text assumes we already know about this story?
Not going to be responding a lot here, but curious whether you read the verse:
QuoteMosiah 11:13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom, which had been a resort for the children of Nephi at the time they fled out of the land
If the phrase "...at the time that..." is a way of introducing something new to the reader, it's one I'm not familiar with. I believe the observation that this was in the lost pages initially came from the late John Tvedtnes, in his Most Correct Book.
Don
5 -
Friends,
Hey! I'm excited to see the discussion on this here!
I've been able to read the thread only very lightly to this point. And for a few reasons, I should try to keep my engagement here minimal. But I would like to say some general things in dialogue with what's come up so far.
1. It's important to note that my thesis is not my book on the lost 116 pages! Rather, my thesis and the book overlap, with the thesis providing a fraction of what will be in the book on the subject of what was in the lost pages. As such, my discussion in the thesis about the lost pages' contents is not meant to be very complete. The book manuscript should be complete by the end of this year, and, hopefully, in print September 2019.
2. Clark - great stuff on Masonry! I haven't been able to digest what you've posted in detail yet, but am saving it for that purpose. I think we are going similar directions, since I see Mormonism as in many ways very "Masonic" from the start.
3. I perceive ancient patterns in the Book of Mormon text, most clearly and powerfully in the narratives of Lehi, Nephi, and Mosiah I, and I see the Book of Mormon as, therefore, a vehicle for the restoration of elements of ancient Israelite faith that had since been lost.
4. A caveat: I'm an historian of 19th century American religion and necessarily approach early Mormon texts to a great extent from the vantage point of that specialization. And this necessarily shapes my work. In trying to piece together the context and content of the lost manuscript, I'm analyzing a variety of 19th century sources and weaving them together. I think this angle of approach has considerable strengths. But it also has its limitations. Someone with a specialization in ancient history, and with a broad scope of history across the past few thousand years, would doubtless be able to bring much greater clarity to many aspects of the Book of Mormon than I can. There are things in the Book of Mormon, including specifically in the knowable narrative of the Book of Lehi, that seem for all the world to me to come out of the world of ancient Israel. But, lacking the relevant specializations, I admit that I am not well positioned to make such scholarly judgments strongly, and I leave it to others to analyze the text in detail within an ancient context. I accept these limitations with humility, but also with alacrity. While I do not, and really cannot, have a perspective that brings out every aspect of the Book of Mormon text, I have a pretty powerful microscope for bringing out some things. And I love putting that microscope to use to see what pictures will emerge. One of the things I'm able to do pretty well--I think!--is line up the 19th century sources and see what they tell us about what was in the Book of Lehi manuscript. Hopefully others will then look at the Book of Lehi's narratives through the lens of the ancient world, and see what light that perspective brings to them. I welcome that. I'm not trying to say the last word on what was in the lost 116 pages, more like a first word--an invitation to greater scholarly discussion from various angles.
5. In my thesis, and in my book, I am trying to address multiple audiences--believer and nonbeliever alike. The more important of these audiences to me is believers, my fellow Latter-day Saints. In my book, I use our shared language of faith: e.g., that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. But in trying to address all my audiences, I overwhelmingly confine my presentation of evidence about what was in the lost pages to evidence that can be agreed upon by believer and nonbeliever alike. I think there's only place in the body of my book manuscript where I make an explicit assumption of historicity. In all other cases, I place any evidence that assumes historicity in the footnotes, so that the arguments in the body of the text will be equally accessible to all readers.
6. The perspective I offer in the conclusion to my thesis, that Joseph Smith may have seen the hand of Providence in how the events of his life lined up with the events of the narratives he revealed, is not just a theoretical possibility for me; it is a personal belief.
When I began my research into the lost pages, about 14 years ago, I saw how some elements of the Book of Mormon's narrative (including the Book of Lehi narrative) connected with things going on in Joseph Smith's life as he was translating. After puzzling over these connections for a while, I soon began interpreting them under a model that saw Joseph constructing a narrative to fit his context. With time, and considerably more analysis, I have arrived at a radically different perspective than I then held. While I then saw Joseph acting as a "fraud," the data of my last several years of research has convinced me, even quite apart from my spiritual convictions, that Joseph was perfectly sincere. I have no doubt, on historical grounds alone, that Joseph Smith sincerely acted as a prophet and translator to give the world an ancient work of scripture.
How, then, would Joseph have seen the connections between what was going on in the narratives he translated and what was going on in his own life at the time he translated them? My working conclusion is that he saw divine Providence lining these up, and possibly even as providing events in his life as grist for his translation mill as he "studied out in his mind" the words of translation. And this is a perspective that I not only think he held; it is one that I hold: I think God shaped Joseph Smith's life to lead him in the right direction.
I don't ultimately know to what extent God was involved in tailoring these events, and I don't know what admixture of ancient and modern influences he used to shape the Book of Mormon's content as we've received it. I'm open to a range of understandings on this. But as curious as I am about it--and it is a big question, I leave it, at least for the time being, to God. I'm content to let God be God and do things His way, without me to tell Him how He should have done it.
I don't feel a need to claim certainty about the details of how God brought all this together. If still quite curious, I am nonetheless content to know that God did bring it all together--that He brought forth the Book of Mormon as an instrument of restoration, and as a book that brings me closer to Him. That it has done just that, I am a witness.
Don
2 -
On 6/23/2018 at 8:48 PM, JAHS said:
Darn. I was hoping you were planning on finding the lost pages 😉
If they're still there to be found, I'd very much like to do that. 😃
In the interim, I'll "settle" for figuring out some of the cool things that were in them!
Don
2 -
On 6/23/2018 at 4:55 PM, USU78 said:
Woohoo!!! 🍀🍀
Hey, wait a minute: get it in a day earlier and hit the Moroni visit anniversary, and all that equinox good karma.
😃
The 22nd is the anniversary, and that date is intentional.
The angel came through the night of the 21st and 22nd, and Joseph visited the hill and encountered the plates on the 22nd.
Don
4 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
The anticipated release date is September 22, 2019.
The big challenge at this point is as Clark correctly intuited. Most of the text is written, but my arguments about the narrative of Mosiah I draw on such a complex set of evidences that it is difficult to figure out how to present the evidence in a linear way to the reader. The evidences connect to each other in a complex web, and presenting that 3-dimensional web as linear text, without too much repetition, is going to be quite the feat. I need to have it done in the next six months.
Wish me luck!
Don
12 -
Just saw this thread.
Yes, he's anachronistic. But do you dare tell him that?!
0 -
On 11/5/2017 at 10:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:
Saw this post on Dan Peterson’s blog, Sic et Non, and was so impressed by it I had an impulse to share it here.
In its own way, it contradicts endeavors to vilify and assassinate the character of the prophet of the Restoration. I fear that some, even among our own people, are so eager to assert his fallibility that they unjustly marginalize his greatness.
Link:
Stories of Joseph Smith's generosity and kindness are myriad. I had to recognize that and try to take into account even when I was a complete non-believer.
3 -
On 10/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:
In a past thread on the roots of Multiple Mortal Probations, I shared George Laub's interpretation of the King Follett Sermon, which said that Heavenly Father had gone and redeemed a world in the flesh. I also shared Brigham and Heber's ordinances a year or less from JS' death where they ordained each other to be Christ's of other worlds. Another piece of evidence along these lines has come to light dating back to 1841! This is from Wilford Woodruff's notes of a December 1841 meeting:
"Joseph the Seer taught the following principl that the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory so their would be Gods many & Lords many their were many mansions even 12 from the abode of Devils to the Celestial glory."
I saw this quoted here, but you can peruse the journal for yourself:
https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE11092999
This quote confirms how I've always read the other JS statements that Clark cites, and the KFD where it says that the Father had power in himself to lay down his life and take it up again. We don't have that power. We don't resurrect ourselves by the power within us but, rather, are resurrected by Christ's power. The implication, made explicit in the December 1841 quote, is that the Father "had redeemed a world"--i.e., had been a Savior.
Combining these various statements, Joseph seems to have understood that the third member of the Godhead later becomes the second, in a later Godhead, and ultimately the first. This view would also account for Joseph saying in the KFD that the Christ had seen the Father lay down his life and take it up again--Christ was then a "Holy Ghost" while the Father was a Savior.
Where it gets a little trickier to understand Joseph's views is how all this relates to us. If Joseph believed that gods move up through these positions in successive Godheads, then he must have believed one of the following:
1) That we become "Holy Ghosts," then saviors, then Fathers;
or,
2) That "Godhead gods," as we might call them, are of a different order than us--and that we, thus, never become "Holy Ghosts," saviors, or Fathers.
The December 1841 WW Journal quote seems to say the first "& the HHoly Ghost would to the same when in his turn & so would all the Saints who inherited a Celestial glory." But I have trouble believing that WW is reporting the detail here closely enough to make that step. Joseph preaches elsewhere about how our bodies will rise from our graves here on this earth. If we are not resurrected until after a stint as a "Holy Ghost," this wouldn't happen on this earth, and not with these bodies.
Viewing Joseph as holding proposition #1 above would require seeing him as not really believing the doctrine of resurrection that he preached much more often than he seemingly preached this other idea. So it seems more likely that Joseph held "Godhead gods" to be a separate order from us, with the implications that 1) contrary to the evangelical critique of King Follett doctrine, God the Father never sinned, and 2) we will never be worshipped, since we will never be Godhead gods.
It's interesting to note that in the KFD Joseph appears not to have said that God the Father once dwelt on an earth the same as we do, but that He once dwelt on an earth the same as Christ did.
I'm not sure how I personally feel about all this. I certainly believe that we can be deified in a very robust sense. But I have trouble thinking we are of the same order as God the Father and Christ or desiring to be worshipped.
Also, while I don't claim to know anything here, I'm fond of Blake's idea that God the Father is the ultimate Source or font of all divinity. I certainly worship Him as such.
In any case, Joseph's various teachings on the subject may suggest some new wrinkles or lines of interpretation for the LDS doctrine of deification.
Don
1 -
On 10/22/2017 at 2:35 PM, Button Gwinnett said:
No Don, that was not at all what I was suggesting. I have no sympathy for NNN. But does the need to protect the church justify any means to achieve it? I believe we lose moral authority when we sink to the same level as those who wish to destroy the church. Do you disagree?
I don't see the actions described as morally equivalent.
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 10/19/2017 at 8:20 PM, Button Gwinnett said:A former church employee is claiming that he was given the assignment to spy on (his words) church critics online. The church was aware of his activity and he reported his work directly to general authorities. The church also gave approval for him to use fake Facebook accounts , create fake profiles in as effort to gain personal information on these critics. His man target was someone named Mike Norton who had threaten to release videos of Mitt Romney in the temple as an October surprise to undermine his candidacy.
These charges, if true, raise several troubling issues for the church. Should the church be involved in spying on both current and former members? Should the church use lies and misinformation in their covert online activities? Should the church be infiltrating message boards where critics post? If found to be true, does any of this make you proud to be LDS?
Personally, I'm troubled by this. I'm sure there will be an article in the trib within the next few days, until then this is coming from a post from Bill Reels FB page.
A blog post I found by the claimed former church employee https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-snap-and-i-tracked-mike-norton-newnamenoah-at-the-lds-church-b9937127a071
An ex-Mormon who has deceitfully sneaked through the temple scores of times making videos was trying to destroy a presidential candidate simply for being Mormon by doctoring temple footage to make it appear that Mitt Romney worshipped Satan and you think that the Mormons should be ashamed of this episode?
8 -
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:
I was there too and that was my first time hearing Jared Hickman in person. I had a hard time following everything he said, but it was pretty cool what I could follow. Thanks for sharing!
Dang, Blueglass and Hope For Things, I would have loved to have met you there. Or did I? I guess I wouldn't have known if I did!
Yeah, it was a really great presentation. He was going fast trying to fit everything in.
Don
1 -
What kind of rascal would write such a thing?!
3
The Lost 116 Pages: Additional Information
in General Discussions
Posted
Cool - thanks! Sent!