A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

Calm · March 4

43 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yet, even then, we sometimes have to just admit that we don't yet have a good answer or explanation for something. But for us, that is okay. We don't have to win every battle. We don't have to have overwhelming proof, or be able to demonstrate that opposing viewpoints are obviously and categorically wrong in virtually every way….

It isn't enough [for many critics] for the Church to be plausibly wrong. It has to be dead wrong--in a way that is so obvious that it is almost laughable. Belief can't be seen as a live option on the table that reasonable and competent people can take. It has to be a very firmly closed door. I think this is partly because anything less would very personally open them up to accepting that the Church could plausibly be true, depending on which arguments and supporting data and assumptions turn out to be correct. And I think that is just a very threatening proposition for a lot of reasons, probably many of them unique or personal to the individual. So what we see is that even in areas where the Church's truth claims have an obvious advantage (like the Three and Eight Witnesses or the complexity of the Book of Mormon), that advantage can never be admitted. Critics can't just say, "Oh, wow, that is pretty good evidence. While it isn't quite enough for me, I can see why reasonable people would find it fairly compelling, especially if they are having regular 'spiritual' experiences that they feel bring them peace, joy, and goodness in their lives." That just isn't a space that many critics can intellectually be in. It is too threatening to their worldview.

To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who rejects the Church's truth claims feels this way. But it is a very pervasive attitude and paradigm adopted by (usually) the most vocal critics of the Church who engage on online platforms.

Just to clarify, do you also see there are many members of the Church who operate in the same way you are describing the critic’s behaviour? Deflecting, never giving an inch, refusing possibilities church leaders made mistakes? These members are likely threatened by the idea the Church might not be what they think it is, etc.

Ryan Dahle · March 4

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to clarify, do you also see there are many members of the Church who operate in the same way you are describing the critic’s behaviour? Deflecting, never giving an inch, refusing possibilities church leaders made mistakes? These members are likely threatened by the idea the Church might not be what they think it is, etc.

Yes. Absolutely. I actually have found that general attitude to be somewhat dangerous to faith. Sometimes people flip remarkably quickly from "the Church is obviously true and nothing could conceivably threaten any of its claims" to "the Church is obviously false and nothing could conceivably warrant belief in its claims." They often see their past selves as naive believers. But somehow, within just a matter of weeks or months, they impressively transform into informed critics who have seen all they really need to know about the debate.

Others retain their faith and are just entirely unrealistic about many of the problems and challenges that have been leveled against the Church. Generally, though, the members of the Church who are deeply informed about many of these issues and have found a way to retain their faith are less prone to these extreme worldviews. I actually think there are a lot of people who leave the Church who are fairly responsible in this area as well. But they aren't the ones online militating against the Church and its claims. They simply think unbelief is more reasonable and quietly go on their way trying to construct or reconstruct a worldview that works for them.

Edited March 4 by Ryan Dahle

Calm · March 4

33 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I actually have found that general attitude to be somewhat dangerous to faith. Sometimes people flip remarkably quickly from "the Church is obviously true and nothing could conceivably threaten any of its claims" to "the Church is obviously false and nothing could conceivably warrant belief in its claims."

I very much agree.

smac97 · March 4

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It's sort of funny. Over the years, as I have observed critics of the Church try to grapple with this data, it has actually strengthened my testimony to some degree. Every time they deflect (try to avoid the positive evidence simply by highlighting more negative evidence) or resort to generalized explanations that rely on "coincidence" or on the claim that humans are capable of "extraordinary" things, I become increasingly convinced that they actually just don't have good answers for many of these lines of evidence. To me, the fact that they can't admit that is somewhat telling.

Same here. My testimony is principally a matter of faith, but I find quite a bit of evidence which renders belief in the Restored Gospel to be quite reasonable, and its foundational events plausible. That critics cannot, despite the passage of <200 years, formulate a coherent alternative explanation that is more plausible and evidence-based than the one espoused by the Church. Roger's inability/unwillingness to do so in this thread, and to instead defer to ChatGPT, indicates to me that our critics, as you say, "actually just don't have good answers for many of these lines of evidence."

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Sometimes you just have to acknowledge that your worldview can't currently accommodate certain types of data very well, and that opposing arguments are not only understandable but may be superior on those grounds. There are all sorts of things that LDS believers can't fully explain, and which at least on the surface appear to be contradictory or problematic for our worldview.

I've had some struggles with a few particularized narratives in the Gospel. Polygamy is a toughie. So is Abraham's test. And animal sacrifice. But these are very much an exception to my overall conclusion that the Restored Gospel is reasoned and reasonable and plausible and inherently good and accurate and true.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So we try to grapple with those problems, pry into the underlying assumptions or traditional approaches that have been used to frame them, and explore various possible solutions. Yet, even then, we sometimes have to just admit that we don't yet have a good answer or explanation for something. But for us, that is okay. We don't have to win every battle. We don't have to have overwhelming proof, or be able to demonstrate that opposing viewpoints are obviously and categorically wrong in virtually ever way. We just need reasonable space to believe, which simultaneously allows room for faith (which I see as trusting in the spiritual evidence we have been given and continuing to seek it). It is a much more modest intellectual position.

Well put.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In contrast, it seems many critics of the Church are hypersensitive on this front. It isn't enough for the Church to be plausibly wrong. It has to be dead wrong--in a way that is so obvious that it is almost laughable.

So laughable, in fact, that folks like Analytics needn't even be bothered with marshaling evidence and argument and reasoning. Instead, all he needs to do is say: "I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming."

Having spent many years listening to advocates both for and against the Church and its doctrines, I find these sorts of unadorned, conclusory declarations from our critics to be pretty underwhelming. As I noted in the other thread: "The Latter-day Saints have brought the receipts. You have brought 'Space Aliens and Satan.'"

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Belief can't be seen as a live option on the table that reasonable and competent people can take. It has to be a very firmly closed door. I think this is partly because anything less would very personally open them up to accepting that the Church could plausibly be true, depending on which arguments and supporting data and assumptions turn out to be correct. And I think that is just a very threatening proposition for a lot of reasons, probably many of them unique or personal to the individual.

This is why our critics are so adamant that there is no evidence for The Book of Mormon. At all. It's not a very reasonable position to stake out, but a concession about this seems, for them, to be - as you put it - "a very threatening proposition."

And that's a real bummer, as I think the Church could really benefit from the talents and intellects of folks like Roger, and he could really benefit from the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So what we see is that even in areas where the Church's truth claims have an obvious advantage (like the Three and Eight Witnesses or the complexity of the Book of Mormon), that advantage can never be admitted. Critics can't just say, "Oh, wow, that is pretty good evidence. While it isn't quite enough for me, I can see why reasonable people would find it fairly compelling, especially if they are having regular 'spiritual' experiences that they feel bring them peace, joy, and goodness in their lives." That just isn't a space that many critics can intellectually be in. It is too threatening to their worldview.

Quite an asymmetry there, I think. My worldview is not really threatened by the possibility of the Gospel not being what it claims to be. A person operating from a position of faith can accommodate areas of uncertainty and doubt because faith anticipates that the individual will not have all the answers, will have concerns, etc.

It's odd, really, to see such fragility in the skeptical worldview.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who rejects the Church's truth claims feels this way. But it is a very pervasive attitude and paradigm adopted by (usually) the most vocal critics of the Church who engage on online platforms.

It's interesting to see how cloistered and echo-chambery RFM and other online anti-mormon venues are.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4 by smac97

smac97 · March 4

23 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. Absolutely. I actually have found that general attitude to be somewhat dangerous to faith. Sometimes people flip remarkably quickly from "the Church is obviously true and nothing could conceivably threaten any of its claims" to "the Church is obviously false and nothing could conceivably warrant belief in its claims." They often see their past selves as naive believers. But somehow, within just a matter of weeks or months, they impressively transform into informed critics who have seen all they really need to know about the debate.

Yes. Unearned certitude is an unhealthy thing. What can seem in the moment to be rock-hard devotion can end up being pretty brittle and crack-prone. See, e.g., this 2024 statement from Richard Dutcher:

Quote

Though Dutcher had been a Latter-day Saint for many years when “God’s Army” came out, it was still a faith promoting experience for him. He’d found a way to be “a man of God” and a filmmaker without sacrificing either and he “was in heaven.”

Then in 2007, his journey from devotion to doubt happened almost instantaneously. Fans were surprised when “the father of Mormon cinema” decided to distance himself from the LDS Church.

In a moment of self-reflection one day, Dutcher says he asked himself, “What if (the church) simply isn’t true?”

“A voice that was so clear, so powerful — I’m sure it wasn’t audible — just said, ‘Of course it isn’t true,'” Dutcher says. “Thirty seconds before, I was a complete believer and 30 seconds later, the only thing I knew was that … everything I believed wasn’t true.”

I have been a Latter-day Saint all my life. I have had plenty of questions and concerns, but I have also seen the Church both in what it is and is doing, and for what it aspires to be and do. Regardless of the mistakes and flaws of its members and laity, and despite having some cultural shortcomings, it and its members are overwhelmingly good and decent. And more than that, it really does seem to be what it claims to be: a restoration of the Lord's church, imbued with power and authority and led by prophets and apostles. Its doctrines make lots of sense, far more so than the handful of flaws and mistakes and gaps and misapplications by the Saints.

Decades and decades of day-in-day-out experience as a Latter-day Saint cannot, for me, be upended in 30 seconds, however "self-reflective" they may be. The Church and its members have just piled up way too many good things on the one side of the scales for me to throw away in favor of doubt and fear.

I hope he eventually has a change of heart.

23 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Others retain their faith and are just entirely unrealistic about many of the problems and challenges that have been leveled against the Church. Generally, though, the members of the Church who are deeply informed about many of these issues and have found a way to retain their faith are less prone to these extreme worldviews. I actually think there are a lot of people who leave the Church who are fairly responsible in this area as well. But they aren't the ones online militating against the Church and its claims. They simply think unbelief is more reasonable and quietly go on their way trying to construct or reconstruct a worldview that works for them.

I do wonder about what sort of incentive/motive the really vocal and persistent-over-the-years critics have to actively speak and/or work against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4 by smac97

Calm · March 4

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And animal sacrifice.

That’s understandable to me, with much of it being used as food, etc, not going to waste.

Genocide now….thats top of the list for me.

Zosimus · March 4

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It's sort of funny. Over the years, as I have observed critics of the Church try to grapple with this data, it has actually strengthened my testimony to some degree. Every time they deflect (try to avoid the positive evidence simply by highlighting more negative evidence) or resort to generalized explanations that rely on "coincidence" or on the claim that humans are capable of "extraordinary" things, I become increasingly convinced that they actually just don't have good answers for many of these lines of evidence.

There are plenty of people inside and outside the Church who grapple with the data and try to approach it without bias. I find that I flip flop frequently depending on who I’m speaking with. At times I feel like defending a naturalistic explanation, and at other times a faithful one. Some friends label me a misguided critic and others call me an amateur apologist. As I flip flop, I hardly see much difference between the two extremes. Both sides lack strong answers and solid evidence to support them. neither side is short on hubris or overconfidence

The good news is that the more I grapple, the more I sense there’s a workable middle ground, for myself at least

mburgess1982 · March 4

On 2/26/2026 at 5:54 PM, Analytics said:

I don’t know. On the one hand, nobody could have written it. But on the other hand, somebody really did.

And in this regard, the Book of Mormon isn’t unique.

How could somebody without any training in history, no internet, no computer, and not even a research staff write a 560,000 word book with an enormous scale with over 580 named characters, internal coherence, seamlessly blending fiction, philosophy, and military history, extreme psychological realism, and hundreds of coherent character arcs across all of this. And completing it by hand in only 6 years.

Creating such a book is absolutely impossible. Yet Leo Tolstoy did in fact write War and Peace.

There are endless examples of people doing extraordinary things. The fact that they are extraordinary doesn’t mean they weren’t done.

Saying it was impossible to write the Book of Mormon is like saying it’s impossible for the Seahawks to win the super bowl. Maybe so, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.

Not impossible, improbable. Brett over at the LDS truth claims youtube channel posed an argument to absurdity starting at the 11 minute mark. You should copy and past the transcript into Chat GPT and see what it comes with as a counter argument for all of his points. I have yet to hear a good convincing counter argument to all of this from the critical side. Its always the same thing he "probably had hidden notes, used the King James bible and stories from his environment, he was a genius" etc

mburgess1982 · March 4

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

There are plenty of people inside and outside the Church who grapple with the data and try to approach it without bias. I find that I flip flop frequently depending on who I’m speaking with. At times I feel like defending a naturalistic explanation, and at other times a faithful one. Some friends label me a misguided critic and others call me an amateur apologist. As I flip flop, I hardly see much difference between the two extremes. Both sides lack strong answers and solid evidence to support them. neither side is short on hubris or overconfidence

The good news is that the more I grapple, the more I sense there’s a workable middle ground, for myself at least

If you hardly see much difference between the two extremes you could almost come to the conclusion that it has been designed that way for a reason. Faith is necessary, we HAVE to choose. Be believing or be a skeptic. It's almost like their is a power in exercising faith, and yet too many lack the courage or conviction to really step onto that path

teddyaware · March 4

24 minutes ago, mburgess1982 said:

If you hardly see much difference between the two extremes you could almost come to the conclusion that it has been designed that way for a reason. Faith is necessary, we HAVE to choose. Be believing or be a skeptic. It's almost like their is a power in exercising faith, and yet too many lack the courage or conviction to really step onto that path

And the amazing thing is that once authentic faith is exercised and diligent, prayerful study becomes an enjoyable daily pursuit, the doors of spiritual perception are unlocked and it then becomes so perfectly obvious that the Book of Mormon is a mighty miracle, a most precious blessing sent from the God of miracles to enable the man of faith to know of a surety that Jesus Christ really does exist and that he loves each of us with a love far beyond human comprehension. It will be most interesting to witness what happens when the spiritual eyes of the skeptics are finally opened and they wonder with amazement how they weren’t able to see that which by then will have become so completely and unmistakably obvious.

Edited March 4 by teddyaware

Ryan Dahle · March 4

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Genocide now….thats top of the list for me.

I think most people's biggest faith concerns actually come from these types of issues. At their core, they boil down to a few basic principles though. In essence, they are about God's moral character. How do we reconcile a perfect, divine, loving being--the epitome of righteousness--with divine actions that seems unjust, unloving, or unfair. It is not just the general "problem of Evil" but a specific subcategory: the "problem of divinely directed or instituted Evil."

One solution that many members of the Church take, almost universally to these types of concerns, is to just assume that all such behavior is a product of imperfect human beings. In this case, it would be assumed that the scriptural accounts of divinely directed or permitted genocide simply cannot be accurate. In the case of polygamy, it would be to assume that the practice was a blatant mistake by Joseph Smith. This is what is primarily driving the polygamy denial/revisionist movement. Their version of God would simply never ask, require, or permit such a practice, especially not as introduced by Joseph Smith in the historical record. It is the same thing with the priesthood ban or curses involving skin color. Interpretations will always favor a mistake or a misunderstanding about the scriptural texts, since a loving God presumably wouldn't permit or enact those types of outcomes (especially considering how sensitive modern societies are about them right now). The same is true of the LGBTQ policies. Ultimately, anything that unfairly limits or places an unfair burden on anyone has to be human error, since God is perfectly loving, just, and fair.

One thing I realized a while back is that this type of solution--which universally assumes human error whenever perceived harm or inequity occurs--will never be sufficient. There are just too many features unequivocally baked into the core of the Plan of Salvation that prove the principle is invalid. God actually does institute unfairness. It is built into the very fabric of the cosmos that he created and which he controls. He is the one who fashioned the fallen world of mortality and who provided this tailored environment as a space for humankind to dwell, as a consequence for the Fall of Adam and Eve. That means that he is the one who created and still controls all of the disparity that arises merely due to so-called "natural" laws. Every loved one, including children, that dies from cancer is a result of God's creative control. He had the foreknowledge to know that type of affliction would attend the fallen world he fashioned. He knew precisely who it would affect. He had and still has the power to prevent it. But he doesn't. And the same is true with every other nature-caused affliction. It isn't just that God permits these "evils." He, in a very direct way, knowingly instituted them.

Think of the collective harm and pain and unfairness that causes. Look at the scale. Billions and billions of people suffering, many times slowly unto death, in ways that are blatantly unfair. Even death itself--a universal feature of mortality--is essentially instituted by God. As declared in Alma 12:27: "it was appointed unto men that they must die." Yet some people suffer far more grisly and untimely deaths than others--a disparity which was ultimately caused by, foreknown, and preventable by God. Even simple facts of biology, such as the disparity of men and women in physical makeup, can be placed at God's hand. Think of the unfairness of procreation, how much it costs women to bear children in contrast to men. Or the challenges of menstruation. Or the simple fact that men are stronger than women, on average. Think of the disparity those simple facts have caused throughout the ages. It seems strange to be okay that God knowingly caused or instituted these outcomes and then primarily balk at the fact that he instituted a male-only ecclesiastical priesthood. I get that it feels different to humans, since natural laws seem to operate without God's direct intervention. But I think logically he is just as responsible for both outcomes (assuming one believes God created the world and also believes the order of the priesthood, as currently instituted in the Church, was directed by God).

In normal human contexts, if God were to be judged based on standards of moral behavior typically adopted by human societies and which are prevalent today, he would seem like a monster. Who among us, seeing a young child playing next to a river, wouldn't feel a moral obligation to go and prevent the child from drowning. To not do so would be gross negligence and patently immoral. And yet God allows and permits such tragedies--and many more of varying types--to occur every day, all over the world, often which arise because of the dangers that he Himself knowingly and purposefully instituted into the natural laws of this world. This means that we can't just say that unfairness in life is a product of human depravity. It is true that human agency is often a major cause of suffering and unfairness, but even then, it is God himself who set the conditions that allow humans to sometimes so horribly abuse and take advantage of one another. He knows about every instance of physical and sexual abuse. He could stop all of it. And yet he most often doesn't. Thus, again, he acts in ways that would be morally evil if he were a mere mortal.

I think many members of the Church haven't quite come to grips with this aspect of the Plan of Salvation. But to me, it reframes how I look at most of the major faith-crisis issues. While it is true that prophets and the scriptures are fallible, that may not always be the best or most likely solution to every instance of perceived unfairness and injustice that we see in the scriptures or in modern Church history, doctrine, policy, or practice. At the very least, it places a big question mark on the underlying rationale that is most often driving interpretations towards human fallibility rather than divine direction. For instance, if you can't imagine that a loving God would institute plural marriage (due to the inherent unfairness that arises from the practice, especially as it is attempted to be lived by imperfect human beings in very complex and trying circumstances), then you should logically have an even bigger problem believing in a God who knowingly and intentionally instituted the inevitability of cancer into the conditions of mortality. By normal human standards, that is not much different than biological warfare. Imagine, for instance, if scientists intentionally introduced a virus into the world that they knew would kill hundreds of millions of people and cause many others to suffer in terrible ways. That would be one of the greatest types of evil we can imagine. And then come back to the issue of plural marriage. While it is hard to compare the emotional pain and trauma that arise from that institution with the pain and loss that comes from something like cancer, many if not most people would probably view cancer as the greater "evil" (in that it causes the greater and most severe type of harm). And yet most members of the Church aren't having a faith crisis over the fact that God fashioned a world where cancer would cause so much disproportionate harm and suffering.

I think once these aspects of the Plan of Salvation are contextualized in this manner, it sort of changes everything. If we can find a reasonable solution to explain why God may have instituted some of the most vexing aspects of harm, suffering, and disparity in the Plan of Salvation (which often arise simply as a product of creation itself), then it seems like most all of these concerns could plausibly be explained by the same underlying rationale. That certainly doesn't mean that some outcomes or aspects of Church history aren't a product of human fallibility. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that all harm and suffering in the Church should just automatically be attributed to God. What I am saying is that the Plan of Salvation seems to already permit the type of God who COULD institute something like plural marriage or even the priesthood ban. This is because, by logical necessity, Latter-day Saints already have to develop a rationale that can account for God instituting and permitting disparities that are arguably just as harmful and unfair--if not much more so--than these hot-topic faith crisis issues. I think as apologists, we generally need a better, more comprehensive, and more consistent approach to theodicy.

Edited March 4 by Ryan Dahle

smac97 · March 4

1 hour ago, mburgess1982 said:

If you hardly see much difference between the two extremes you could almost come to the conclusion that it has been designed that way for a reason. Faith is necessary, we HAVE to choose. Be believing or be a skeptic.

And ironically, both positions are predicated a faith, just in different directions. Analytics and I have both evaluated primary and secondary sources regarding Joseph's narrative, and also other evidences. From that, I infer that Joseph was telling the truth, and Analytics infers that he was not. Both positions are predicated, to some extent, on faith.

1 hour ago, mburgess1982 said:

It's almost like their is a power in exercising faith, and yet too many lack the courage or conviction to really step onto that path

I find the "Why I Left" exit narratives interesting, as those who do characterize themselves has exhibiting "courage or conviction" in abandoning their faith (because of prior long-term adherence, damage to familial relationships, etc.). Latter-day Saints, meanwhile, may characterize maintaining their faith as requiring "courage or conviction," particularly in the face of people publicly expressing scorn and ridicule at that faith (the vanguard of which efforts is, these days, heavily manned with former Latter-day Saints).

Both are, or can be, correct in this assessment. And there is no value in comparing relative costs and privations. For myself, I wish those who leave a happy journey in life, and hope that they eventually look beyond obstacles to faith and reconsider the message of Jesus Christ as presented by His prophets (including, of course, Joseph Smith). An important part of that is to read The Book of Mormon, plant a seed of faith, and pray with real intent.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · March 4

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

And animal sacrifice.

That’s understandable to me, with much of it being used as food, etc, not going to waste.

From Grok:

Quote

How It Worked: The Main Types of Sacrifices

The fate of the animal depended on the type of offering:

Burnt Offering (ʿOlah)

The entire animal (bull, ram, goat, or bird) was slaughtered, skinned, cut up, and completely burned on the altar as a gift to God (Leviticus 1).

Nothing was eaten by people (except that the priests received the hide/skin as their perquisite).

This was the most “total” gift to God.

Sin Offering (Chatat) and Guilt Offering (Asham)

The fat, kidneys, and part of the liver were burned on the altar.

The rest of the meat was eaten by the priests in the sanctuary (a holy place).

In certain cases (e.g., when the offering was for the high priest or the whole community), the entire carcass was burned outside the camp instead.

Peace/Fellowship/Well-being Offering (Shelamim) — the most common type

The fat, kidneys, and liver lobe were burned on the altar.

Specific portions (the breast and right thigh) went to the priests.

The majority of the meat was returned to the person who brought the sacrifice. They and their family, friends, or guests ate it in a joyful communal meal in or near the Temple courtyard (Leviticus 7:15–21; Deuteronomy 12:6–7).

This was essentially how most ordinary Israelites got to eat meat — it had to be tied to a religious offering.

Utilitarian killing of animals makes sense. I struggle, but still ultimately accept, the killing of animals as symbolism in a religious observance.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Genocide now….thats top of the list for me.

Ironically, this is less of an issue for me. For a few reasons.

First, I think the OT requires all sorts of allowances and accommodations for issues pertaining to context (both what is present and what is missing in our familiarity with events described), translation, familiarity with ancient cultures/histories, and so on.

Second, I am not willing to deem my personal moral barometer to be perfectly calibrated. My blinkered and finite and far-from-complete perception of God, The Universe & Everything requires me to modulate my reliance on my moral barometer with a substantial measures of patience, humility and proportion.

Third, assessing OT narratives requires some presuppositions about God. His nature and character and attributes, His authority, His role as divine sovereign and judge, etc. These presuppositions necessary come before drawing conclusions about the OT narrative, not after.

Thanks,

-Smac

california boy · March 4

On 2/27/2026 at 8:50 PM, Zosimus said:

According to Harris, both Mitchill and Anthon confirmed the characters were authentic, and the rest is history.

This sentence struck me as odd. Do you believe that Mitchill and Anthon were honestly authenticating the "reformed egyptian" they were shown as authentic Meso American writing???? It is now over 100 years later and to my knowledge nothing has ever been found that is written in "reformed egyptian" let alone any existing of it during their lifetime. So how could they possibly say it was authentic?? What did they base that statement of authenticity on??

smac97 · March 4

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

According to Harris, both Mitchill and Anthon confirmed the characters were authentic, and the rest is history.

This sentence struck me as odd.

The source:

Quote

62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

63 Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:

64 “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

65 “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

The key bits:

"I {Joseph} commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them."
"I {Martin} went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic."
"I {Martin} left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you believe that Mitchill and Anthon were honestly authenticating the "reformed egyptian" they were shown as authentic Meso American writing????

I'm not sure we know that Martin presented the characters as having come from a "Mesoamerican writing." At the time, I'm not sure Joseph had a specific understanding of the precise location of the text's events.

And JS-H is pretty clear:

"Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

"I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is now over 100 years later and to my knowledge nothing has ever been found that is written in "reformed egyptian" let alone any existing of it during their lifetime.

Not sure about that. "Reformed Egyptian" is a phrase from Mormon 9:32:

Quote

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

See also 1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:2-4.

All of these characterize the Nephite writing system has A) unique to them ("altered by us...") and B) intended to account for space limitations ("{a}nd if our plates had been sufficiently large...").

Ancient Egyptian had various forms:

Is it possible, in your view, for Heiratic and Demotic to be characterized as "reformed" types of Hieroglyphic Egyptian? If not, why not? If yes, then would that not rebut your statement that "nothing has ever been found that is written in 'reformed egyptian'"?

We have all sorts of scholarly treatment of "Reformed Egyption" in the context of the Plates:

FAIR: Is there a language called "Reformed Egyptian"?
FAIR: Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon
FAIR: Question: What is "reformed Egyptian"?
FAIR: “Reformed Egyptian” an evidence for Book of Mormon
FAIR: “Reformed Egyptian”
FAIR: The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon
FAIR: Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?
FAIR: Question: How could the plate text actually fit on the plates of the Book of Mormon?
Scripture Central: The Who, What, and Why of “Reformed Egyptian” in the Book of Mormon
Scripture Central: Why Did Mormon and Moroni Write in Reformed Egyptian?
Scripture Central / FARMS: Reformed Egyptian (Hamblin)
Scripture Central: Reformed Egyptian (Tvedtnes)
Scripture Central: Reformed Egyptian and Book of Mormon Language (Ash) (also here)
Scripture Central / JBMS: Notes and Communications: Two Notes on Egyptian Script (Gee)
Scripture Central: Book of Mormon Evidence: Compact Egyptian Script

I find it noteworthy that Latter-day Saint scholars are treating the concept of "Reformed Egyptian" as evidence in favor of the claimed origins of The Book of Mormon, whereas you seem to be treating it as evidence against. I would be curious to see your assessment of the foregoing resources.

Quote

So how could they possibly say it was authentic?? What did they base that statement of authenticity on??

What "it" are you referencing here? The characters? The translation? Both?

Wikipedia about Anthon:

Quote

Anthon, however, disagreed with Harris' version of their encounter and stated in a letter to Eber D. Howe on February 17, 1834, that the story of Anthon's authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that Anthon had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Martin Harris] of his money..."^[9] Anthon gave a second account in 1841 as to whether he gave Harris a written opinion about the document: "[Harris] requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual 'behind the curtain' see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."

And here:

Quote

In 1834, Anthon stated in a letter that, "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. ... I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. ... [Harris] requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving."^[8] Anthon described the transcript in that letter as containing "(g)reek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways... arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks." Anthon stated in the letter that the story of his supposed authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that he had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Harris] of his money".^[9]

Anthon gave a second account in 1841 that contradicted his 1834 account as to whether he gave Harris a written opinion about the document: "[Harris] requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual 'behind the curtain' see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."^[10] In the 1841 account, Anthon described the characters as "arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing .. (g)reek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters ... intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac."

Anthon provided a third account in an August 12, 1844 letter and indicated, referring to Harris, "I told the man at once that he was imposed upon and that the writing was mere trash." Anthon described the transcript as containing "in one or two parallel columns rude imitations of Hebrew and Greek characters together with various delineations of sun, moon, stars, &c.."^[11]

It does seem that in 1828, no scholar (including Anthon or Mitchill) could reliably translate or authenticate "reformed Egyptian" or read Egyptian scripts fluently enough to verify a translation, as decipherment was nascent and incomplete. That said, it sure seems odd that Harris returned to Joseph with a strengthened view that the Plates were authentically agent.

Indeed, if Anthon's account of the meeting (February 1828, IIRC) is correct (that he told Harris that the characters were "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Martin Harris] of his money..."), how was it that Harris would have utterly disregarded that guidance from a noted scholar, return to Joseph and, in the summer of 1829, mortgage his farm to raise $3,000.00 to publish The Book of Mormon?

Martin's wife Lucy was famously and vociferously opposed to Joseph's work. If Anthon's characterization of the meeting is accurate, why did Martin return and resume a posture that his wife so adamantly disliked?

Martin dissociated from Joseph and the Church in, I think, 1844, and was re-baptized in 1870. If Anthon's characterization of the meeting is accurate, why did Martin spent 26 years out of the Church and yet never varied from his testimony of the Plates?

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · March 5

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And the amazing thing is that once authentic faith is exercised and diligent, prayerful study becomes an enjoyable daily pursuit, the doors of spiritual perception are unlocked

No, it is not a given, automatic outcome as there are many with deep authentic faith in my experience that struggle with study, prayerful or not for other reasons than commitment. An obvious impediment might be a learning difficulty, but also just never having developed the skill, distractions from other parts of their lives, just simply naturally interacting with the world in ways that do not accommodate reading, etc. Their faith may be exercised in other ways, of course. But not all the faithful are given the gift of spiritual perception. They may be given other spiritual gifts:

Quote

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spiritdistributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 12&version=NIV

Edited March 5 by Calm

Calm · March 5

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

think once these aspects of the Plan of Salvation are contextualized in this manner, it sort of changes everything. If we can find a reasonable solution to explain why God may have instituted some of the most vexing aspects of harm, suffering, and disparity in the Plan of Salvation (which often arise simply as a product of creation itself), then it seems like most all of these concerns could plausibly be explained by the same underlying rationale.

My problem with genocide as opposed to cancer is what killing does to the person doing the killing. With cancer, other humans may ignore it in others and if evil, may even encourage behaviour they know raises the risk of cancer (‘cough’ smoking ‘cough’) for personal and corporate gain, but typically there is compassion for those who suffer from such and even charitable attempts to help.

The act of genocide, mass killing of a certain group of people, would have so few ways to look at it as a compassionate act, especially if one is up close and personal at the time of dying and after death. The psychological effect of genocide on the individual killers (even if following orders) and on any survivors….I don’t see that as any way being uniquely helpful to someone’s salvation.

I can come up with rationales of why a loving, all powerful God would set up the world such that disease and natural disasters are rampant and to allow men to have the choice of slaughtering their fellow humans or not, but taking it further and actually God encouraging them to slaughter an entire people seems quite unlikely. If it’s about removing influence that will corrupt their souls and cause more harm than death, then why hasn’t this been applied more consistently by God? Plus in the Bible, I don’t believe there are any actual situations where one can point to and say that sin no longer occurred among the Chosen people because they had wiped out their neighbors leading them astray. It seems low effectiveness for increasing righteousness. Very high cost with low benefits…God seems too wise to me to use this method to bring his children back to his side.

Calm · March 5

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I am not willing to deem my personal moral barometer to be perfectly calibrated. My blinkered and finite and far-from-complete perception of God, The Universe & Everything requires me to modulate my reliance on my moral barometer with a substantial measures of patience, humility and proportion.

It’s not morality, but the fruit of genocide that leads me to believe it’s not of God.

smac97 · March 5

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

First, I think the OT requires all sorts of allowances and accommodations for issues pertaining to context (both what is present and what is missing in our familiarity with events described), translation, familiarity with ancient cultures/histories, and so on.

Second, I am not willing to deem my personal moral barometer to be perfectly calibrated. My blinkered and finite and far-from-complete perception of God, The Universe & Everything requires me to modulate my reliance on my moral barometer with a substantial measures of patience, humility and proportion.

Third, assessing OT narratives requires some presuppositions about God. His nature and character and attributes, His authority, His role as divine sovereign and judge, etc. These presuppositions necessary come before drawing conclusions about the OT narrative, not after.

It’s not morality, but the fruit of genocide that leads me to believe it’s not of God.

Yes, that's part of both the first and second points above. I'm open to what you say here.

Thank you,

-Smac

Kevin Christensen · March 5

23 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. Absolutely. I actually have found that general attitude to be somewhat dangerous to faith. Sometimes people flip remarkably quickly from "the Church is obviously true and nothing could conceivably threaten any of its claims" to "the Church is obviously false and nothing could conceivably warrant belief in its claims." They often see their past selves as naive believers. But somehow, within just a matter of weeks or months, they impressively transform into informed critics who have seen all they really need to know about the debate.

Others retain their faith and are just entirely unrealistic about many of the problems and challenges that have been leveled against the Church. Generally, though, the members of the Church who are deeply informed about many of these issues and have found a way to retain their faith are less prone to these extreme worldviews. I actually think there are a lot of people who leave the Church who are fairly responsible in this area as well. But they aren't the ones online militating against the Church and its claims. They simply think unbelief is more reasonable and quietly go on their way trying to construct or reconstruct a worldview that works for them.

This sort of thing is exactly why I have found the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth so useful. I used it most extensively in my Interpreter Response to Riskas's Deconstructing Mormonism over a decade ago. Everyone spends some time in Position 2 of 9.

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

Interestingly, one response to discovering things are far more complicated (Position 5 is Relativism Discovered) us to regress back to Position 2.

Quote

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

I made the case that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9.

Quote

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism

And on the topic of Theodicy, I've long been fond of the correlation between LDS teaching and Process Theology. Riskas claimed that “the existence of evil is a real, vexing, and I think, irresolvable problem—philosophically, empirically, and experimentally.” Part of my response was to quote this, from Ian Barbour's Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, on Process Thought.

Quote

Four models of God’s relation to the world have been mentioned, patterned respectively after an absolute monarch and his kingdom, a clockmaker and a clock, a dialogue between two persons, and an agent and his actions. In the process thought of Alfred North Whitehead, a fifth model is presented: a society of which one member is pre-eminent but not absolute. The universe is pictured as a community of interacting beings, rather than as a monarchy, a machine, an interpersonal dialogue or a cosmic organism.96

Process thought provides distinctive analyses of the problems of freedom and evil. The ways in which freedom is built into process metaphysics from the outset have already been indicated. If the classical ideas of omnipotence and predestination are given up, God is exonerated of responsibility for natural evil. If no event is the product of God’s agency alone, he works with a world, given to him in every moment, which never fully embodies his will. The creatures, and above all man, are free to reject the higher vision. Suffering is inevitable in a world of beings with conflicting goals. Pain is part of the price of consciousness and intensity of feeling. In an evolutionary world, struggle is integral to the realization of greater value. As Teilhard de Chardin maintained, evil is intrinsic to an evolving cosmos as it would not be to an instantaneous creation. Suffering and death are not punishments for sin but structural concomitants of what he called “the immense travail” of a world in birth.

An eternal perspective can make a huge difference. I recall a NDE account of a woman who had an experience on an operating table while she was pregnant. During her experience, she was told by a Godlike, loving being, that he would be coming to get her baby in a few days. In that situation, her joyous response was, "You mean, I GET to let my baby go with you!" And of course, LDS teaching is that she will also be able to raise the child after the resurrection. I can also recall listening to another NDE account by a Russian scientist, who finding himself on the other side, and meeting his parents, and hearing from them that they had not abandoned him as a child, but had been assassinated by the KGB. In that setting, he felt joy and relief in that new understanding. Since he was talking to them, they clearly were not permanently gone, but present and eager to show their love. Nibley's paper on The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy explores that kind of thing. Our whole story is not told in this life. And that makes a difference. Consider people slaughtered by Genghis Chan or Hitler, or the 1918 pandemic, or small pox, or the plague. Where are they now? Are they stuck eternally in the worst moment, defined by pointless pain, endlessly defining an accusation against God, or, have they moved on?

And on what life would be like if an omnipresent and all powerful being was bent on making sure no harm came to any human, try Jack Williamson's Humanoid stories, starting with the SF Hall of Fame novelette, "With Folded Hands", and then the novel, "The Humanoids" followed by "The Humanoid Touch." The I Robot movie with Will Smith adopted the Humanoid's logic, rather than Asimov's three laws, but doesn't go deep enough into what life would be like if you were prevented from doing anything at all that might lead to any risk or possible emotional distress. I emerged from those stories with a deep sense of revulsion, and have been haunted by a nightmare sense of the horror of it. The stories were rooted in Williamson's childhood in Arizona, when his mother was so fearful that snakes or scorpions or coyotes might get him, he was for a very long time, kept in a baby pen, where there was literally nothing to do but sit with folded hands.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Zosimus · March 5

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This sentence struck me as odd. Do you believe that Mitchill and Anthon were honestly authenticating the "reformed egyptian" they were shown as authentic Meso American writing???? It is now over 100 years later and to my knowledge nothing has ever been found that is written in "reformed egyptian" let alone any existing of it during their lifetime. So how could they possibly say it was authentic?? What did they base that statement of authenticity on??

I’m trying to get a better feel for the cultural and academic world the Book of Mormon came out of. To me, Harris’s trip to Albany, New York City, and maybe Philadelphia is one of the most important and under‑researched episodes in early Mormonism. People like Luther Bradish, Samuel Mitchill, and Charles Anthon are big pieces of that story we still don’t really have nailed down.

The meme is that Anthon was a stuffy professor who shut Harris down the moment he mentioned Moroni. I don’t think that’s the whole picture. Anthon was arguably America’s leading classicist, and in the 1820s classics and biblical apologetics were joined at the hip. His Classical Dictionary opens with a chronology that follows Ussher's standard, which tells you a lot about where he was coming from.

Around 1827 Anthon is working on a textbook laying out textual evidence from Herodutus and other classics proving out how religion in the East and West connect, drawing on what he later calls the “mystic” school. In other words, Anthon was a diffusionist in the vein of the German Romantics. And wow, that's a very long thread that researchers haven't even began to pull yet. In this Mystic school framework, civilization and revelation start with Melchizedek as their priestly archetype somewhere east of the Caspian, the "old doctrine" then moves through Europe, and eventually reaches the Americas.

Even after the Harris visit, we still find Anthon hunting for textual and philological proofs that American Indians are tied to Egyptians from Meroe.

Put all that together, and a guy shows up at his door with “Egyptian‑looking” characters from a mound in upstate New York. I doubt Anthon’s first reaction was pure hostility. Given his own pet theories, he had every reason to at least be curious. My hunch is that he initially gave Harris some kind of thumbs up or at least didn’t straight away dismiss him.

Then Harris brings in the angels and gold plates, and the whole thing suddenly too risky for a scholar at Columbia College. At that point it'd make total sense for Anthon to rip up his letter of certification.

Both Bradish and Mitchill have equally interesting backgrounds, and similar responses to the transcript

Edited March 5 by Zosimus

Zosimus · March 5

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It does seem that in 1828, no scholar (including Anthon or Mitchill) could reliably translate or authenticate "reformed Egyptian" or read Egyptian scripts fluently enough to verify a translation, as decipherment was nascent and incomplete. That said, it sure seems odd that Harris returned to Joseph with a strengthened view that the Plates were authentically agent.

Anthon was afaict, the most knowledgeable about Egypt. For example, read his massive entry on Egyptus and Meroe in his Classical Dictionary. Also check the massive bibliography, the books on his shelf are a good indication of his interests.

The only other person that would have been more knowlegable about Egypt was Luther Bradish, who had traveled deep into Egypt, all the way to Sudan, and then to Jerusalem (past the Red Sea) on camel back. Bradish was a friend of Harris, and his family lived in Palmyra. Imagine that, a local Palmyra boy riding on camel back on the trail of the Lehites.

smac97 · March 5

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

It does seem that in 1828, no scholar (including Anthon or Mitchill) could reliably translate or authenticate "reformed Egyptian" or read Egyptian scripts fluently enough to verify a translation, as decipherment was nascent and incomplete. That said, it sure seems odd that Harris returned to Joseph with a strengthened view that the Plates were authentically agent.

Anthon was afaict, the most knowledgeable about Egypt. For example, read his massive entry on Egyptus and Meroe in his Classical Dictionary. Also check the massive bibliography, the books on his shelf are a good indication of his interests.

The only other person that would have been more knowlegable about Egypt was Luther Bradish, who had traveled deep into Egypt, all the way to Sudan, and then to Jerusalem (past the Red Sea) on camel back. Bradish was a friend of Harris, and his family lived in Palmyra. Imagine that, a local Palmyra boy riding on camel back on the trail of the Lehites.

Sign In

A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

Recommended Posts

Calm

Ryan Dahle

Calm

smac97

smac97

Calm

Zosimus

mburgess1982

mburgess1982

teddyaware

Ryan Dahle

smac97

smac97

How It Worked: The Main Types of Sacrifices

california boy

smac97

Calm

Calm

Calm

smac97

Kevin Christensen

Zosimus

Zosimus

smac97

smac97

Zosimus

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse