Jump to content

Js And The Accounts Of The First Vision


bluebell

Recommended Posts

I do not feel creativity should be involved - research and logical-thinking should be. I can make up an answer (be creative) for anything, but that does not mean it is true or logical.

LOL! Do you think I was trying to imply that we should be creatively unlogical? I wasn't talking about making up answers out of thin air. :P I was talking about the fact that just because someone can't think of a logical answer that only means that that person lacks the ability to come up with one, not that there is no answer.

Link to post

Leaving aside your patent, conversation-stopping, condescension, I don't see here a suggestion, or a teaching of principle, or enlightenment (in the sense you mean it). I see a description of a state of affairs. Of course, LDS refer to this as the basis for all those things you mentioned. My point is that I don't see it in the text.

Perhaps you could engage the text itself and explain how you get from A to B in a civil manner.

But, I suspect, in light of your disdain for critical thinking, you'd probably rather not.

Best.

CKS

Wow, you are very NOT clever. You avoided coming to my point of not needing the word 'command' to still receive the word of God as command, and managed to be very condescending to me while accusing me of being condescending. Whooosh~

If that is what you call critical thinking, I can see why it doesn't work for you in finding God.

Link to post

Wow, you are very NOT clever. You avoided coming to my point of not needing the word 'command' to still receive the word of God as command, and managed to be very condescending to me while accusing me of being condescending. Whooosh~

If that is what you call critical thinking, I can see why it doesn't work for you in finding God.

Hey Hammer--

I assumed your reply would involve some form of insult and an avoidance of engaging the text-qua-text. My comments were not insulting. You obviously disdain critical thinking, per the quotation I referenced. Engaging the text, as it stands, would involve critical thinking. I assumed, apparently correctly, that you did not actually wish to engage the text, but would rather assume that its content supports your interpretation without any sort of critical analysis. Again, I see only a description of a state of affairs in the Hebrews passage.

But then I've only had eight semesters of Greek. I'm sure you're in a better position to comment upon the text. Study of Greek after all, entails, critical thinking.

Your argument thus far has been "I don't need for it to be a command; I'm not a slothful servant; I assume that the command assumed in my tradition is normative for seeing an implied command in the text."

Actually, that's just an assumption, not an argument, but you get the idea.

Assuming you produce more of the same, I'll be glad to let you have the last word on the matter.

CKS

Link to post
The point that this line of argument seems to avoid, rightly or wrongly, is the sheer magnitude of the lacuna that the appearance of the God of this Universe (or this Galaxy, depending upon your belief) failed to be mentioned in JS's initial account.

The incongruity of narrating an event of such incredible proportions inadequately (and, yes, I would hold that any account that failed to mention that the God of the Universe/Galaxy appeared is inadequate) seems a bit too much to be merely accidental.

Or, perhaps, this is evidence that Jesus Christ is considered to be the God of this Universe, without distinction, among LDS, or at least, to JS?

That's the center of the controversy to my mind. A manifestly different being than the Lord, Jesus Christ, appeared--viz., the God of this Universe/Galaxy appeared to JS, in addition to Jesus Christ--but JS neglected to mention such.

Best.

Obviously we need to go all the way back to the beginning of this mess. Some people like yourself have a very hard time not getting lost on all the off roads. You can't deal with anything straight lined, they must all diviate.

You want everyone to march according to your own way of thinking, without giving any way for others to have understanding and see more than yourself. After all you have 8 whole years of greek. Maybe you should have studied English or communications. It might have served you better.

JS was not giving out (and this has been given many many many many many many times on this board) information about what he saw in his first vision to those who would stop listening to all the other important things he had to say. If you want to get through a lesson from beginning to end with the kids in your high school class, you don't open the class with contraversial information which will turn into an argumentative discussion.

JS knew from experience what happened when he claimed to have seen both the Father and Son. They began to ridicule him and didn't give him a chance to tell them any more.

They were not able to bear meat. They needed milk. So as to not put another stumbling block infront of your short legged understanding, I won't paraphrase my understanding of the Hebrew Scripture. But it explained unmistakably that some could not handle 'the big truth'.

Some who want to get all hung up on this issue have little or no experience in real life. You have stated yourself that you are all about critical thinking. Well that is too bad because real critical thinking requires life's experience that open understanding to how it all works from one person to another.

Link to post

I think the biggest problem is that we tend to approach the Bible with Greek-thinking minds. We want all details to line up. But, as I have said, Hebrews didn't think this way - details were not crucial . . . the message was. The Bible presents a consistent message (revelation on who God is, who we are, our relationship, etc.). God seems to prefer to work through people, even though we are imperfect. I believe God wants us to look past the letters on the page and the details.

Sounds to me like you're saying... " :P in the details"

This seems to me similar to Jesus telling parables - why didn't He just teach the straight facts so everyone would clearly understand?

Now I'm confused... Earlier... A Christian told me that Jesus taught everyone clearly and concisely so everyone could understand and not be confused, and now you're telling me just the opposite?

God wants us to seek Him - He gives us all we need (like revelation in the Bible) but He seems to set things up so we don't have to believe if we don't want to.

So we have to do something. Thanks.

There are variants in manuscripts of the Bible - but they don't change the message. That to me is incredible for such an old and long book. But the BoM is not so old and not so long, and it already has had thousands of changes, many of which affect doctrine.
Hmm. Documentation please. All the changes I've seen where spelling and grammer in nature. Now the Bible on the other hand...

Duet 32:8 was changed to make the Bible appear more monotheistic. Thats a humongous Doctrinal shift.

JS was supposed to restore Truth. He wrote the JST of the Bible, which I would think would be the corrected version of the "corrupted" Bible text. However, it must not be the corrected version - for example, the Johannine Comma is in the JST. It does not make sense to me.

He "Wrote"? Hmmm... He got a Bible with a greek lexicon and dabbled around abit is closer to the truth.
Link to post

They were not able to bear meat. They needed milk. So as to not put another stumbling block infront of your short legged understanding, I won't paraphrase my understanding of the Hebrew Scripture. But it explained unmistakably that some could not handle 'the big truth'.

Okay, I said I'd let you have the last word. But you've since suggested that I have short-legged understanding--yet another insult--I feel I need to correct your patent misunderstanding. Fine--insult me. But your patent unfamiliarity with the text in question compels me to add this last post.

Feel free to not divulge your understanding of the "Hebrew scripture." I didn't expect you to. But realize that the scripture in question is written in Greek. It is Greek scripture. Please demonstrate how it demonstrated unmistakenly, in Greek, "that some could not handle 'the big truth,'" especially in light of your misapprehension that this is Hebrew scripture, or in light of your inability to correctly present your thoughts on the matter.

Again, you've offered nothing more than, "I'm right, because I'm right, because my understanding of this Greek scripture is that it is Hebrew scripture that supports my interpretation."

Huh?

I again challenge you to engage the actual Greek text.

Perhaps my short-legged mind won't be able to keep up with yours, poisoned as it is with critical thinking skills, but, then you could perhaps try. You've haven't done so thus far.

CKS

Link to post

I addressed a lot of this in #168. I am still missing the text of his first spoken accounts. Where can I read them? If you claim that his first (spoken) accounts were different than his first written account, then you must have something written down that supports this.

Is there proof that JS desired to compare his experience with Paul's? Did JS say this to anyone or write this - that he specifically altered his first vision account to compare to Paul's conversion account?

An oblique reference to the Father doesn't mean JS saw the Father.

His spoken accounts would have been to his family as William Smith attests (although he apparently remembered few details). Other non-Mormon sources also mention it in hindsight. There is no contemporary sources of what he said, unfortunately. Only people recounting in hindsight what he said. Typically, from what I've read, people just say that Joseph claimed to have seen God, which to me, suggests the Father. Brown says of outside sources, "Not all of them mention both the Father and the Son." I personally have only seen a couple of accounts.

The evidence that JS wanted to compare his experience with Paul's is in the format and order of the text. It parallels directly with Paul, according to Brown's essay and the other evidence is that Joseph Smith later specifically said, "I felt much like Paul."

That oblique reference, when read in light of the 1838 account, seems to suggest that he did have the same introduction in mind. If Joseph Smith is such a grand con-artist to put the Book of Mormon together, why would he not have a story all together for the 1832 version of the first vision? The way I see it, even if I believed he were a con-artist, I would judge that his skill with putting the Book of Mormon together would suggest that he already had a story put together for the first vision. I would, even if I were not a believer, simply infer that the oblique reference to the Father was indicative of the story he had in mind. I don't see the whole picture as one that is of a man changing his story. It appears, looking at all the evidence, that he was a man with one story, who had motive to emphasize some aspects and veil others. In fact, for the 1832 account, he appears to have two motives to hide that he saw the Father. Lastly, let me add, that Joseph recounting the first vision later is not followed by any historical evidence that members of the Church were confused by a change in his story. Their silence on the matter, as Brown points out, suggests that him seeing the Father and Son was nothing new.

Link to post

Okay, I said I'd let you have the last word.

You don't keep your word? So are you saying that you have a low character? Need excuses for what you do and we are to understand? Hmmmm wonder if you would give JS the same liniency.

Again, you've offered nothing more than, "I'm right, because I'm right, because my understanding of this Greek scripture is that it is Hebrew scripture that supports my interpretation."

Hebrews scripture. LOL HEBREWS scripture. I left the s off. TYPO! you really are egar to find fault.

Link to post

You don't keep your word? So are you saying that you have a low character? Need excuses for what you do and we are to understand? Hmmmm wonder if you would give JS the same liniency.

Hebrews scripture. LOL HEBREWS scripture. I left the s off. TYPO! you really are egar to find fault.

Wow, another insult! I have a low character. I would suggest that such is beneath you, but...

And since you are quite eager to avoid actually addressing the text, I assume, at this point, that you're patently unable to do so.

Please, be my guest, provide yet another insult, but please don't actually address the "meat" of my question. You've avoided it thus far, hoping that personal attacks will disguise the fact that you can't really address questions of Greek interpretation. I really will, this time, let you have the last word here, Hammer--so as not to provide you a way out from contributing meaningfully to the thread.

Hebrews scripture. LOL HEBREWS scripture. I left the s off. TYPO! you really are eager to find fault.

Yes, I suppose it is a laughing matter that you are unable to convey what you mean to convey. It should be Hebrews's scripture, I suppose, if you're referring to the book as a whole in light of your grammatical construction.

Eager to find fault? Without actually addressing the text in question, you've accused me of having a "short-legged mind," of being "a slothful servant," and of not being able to understand the import of your responses. Wait: my point is, where those ramblings utterly fail to address the text in question. Please, don't color me impressed. Have fun in the echo chamber, Hammer.

This has out turned to be quite as enlightening as my other interactions with you here: Long on vitriol, short on actual substance.

Best.

CKS

Link to post

Wow, another insult! I have a low character. I would suggest that such is beneath you, but...

And since you are quite eager to avoid actually addressing the text, I assume, at this point, that you're patently unable to do so.

Please, be my guest, provide yet another insult, but please don't actually address the "meat" of my question. You've avoided it thus far, hoping that personal attacks will disguise the fact that you can't really address questions of Greek interpretation. I really will, this time, let you have the last word here, Hammer--so as not to provide you a way out from contributing meaningfully to the thread.

This has out turned to be quite as enlightening as my other interactions with you here: Long on vitriol, short on actual substance.

Best.

CKS

The fact that I have addressed it quite sufficiently and you have chosen to ignore that fact, doesn't make it for me.

Link to post

The fact that I have addressed it quite sufficiently and you have chosen to ignore that fact, doesn't make it for me.

You see, this is the kind of thing I really don't get.

First: I don't understand the grammatical import of your sentence here, but no, you have not addressed my question, at all.

I suppose there is an audience of one in your estimation. His name is Hammer.

Second: Because you have pressed the "Add Reply" button on your computer screen, you think you have actually addressed something of import.

Will you please address the question of the legitimate interpretation of the passage in question? Can you? Dare you? You just keep spouting off without actually adding something that involves critical thinking to the mix!

Please show where you have "addressed it quite sufficiently" other than in your own mind. Please link me to the reference to the MA&D post. I mean, let's just assume, as you do, that I'm really too dumb to get it. Please link to it. Please.

At least for the benefit of others!

CKS

Link to post

You see, this is the kind of thing I really don't get.

First: I don't understand the grammatical import of your sentence here, but no, you have not addressed my question, at all.

I suppose there is an audience of one in your estimation. His name is Hammer.

Second: Because you have pressed the "Add Reply" button on your computer screen, you think you have actually addressed something of import.

Will you please address the question of the legitimate interpretation of the passage in question? Can you? Dare you? You just keep spouting off without actually adding something that involves critical thinking to the mix!

Please show where you have "addressed it quite sufficiently" other than in your own mind. Please link me to the reference to the MA&D post. I mean, let's just assume, as you do, that I'm really too dumb to get it. Please link to it. Please.

At least for the benefit of others!

CKS

I have been working on the answer YOU WANT-- though I have addressed as I said.

Starting with verse 12

In context, God tells us one of the purposes of His revelation to mankind. The writer of Hebrews scolds his audience for being "dull of hearing" (verse 11). Using an analogy of milk, the nourishment of children, against "strong meat" (KJV), the fare of those "who are of full age," he laments that he needs to "go back to the basics," the first principles of Godâ??s revelation. Not using that revelation to exercise their senses "to discern both good and evil" (verse 14), they had failed to grow up.

The purpose of Godâ??s revelation is to provide the nourishment, the food, by which we come "to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13). It is Godâ??s revelation, His oracles, which allow us to "go on to perfection" (Hebrews 6:1).

Further

In using milk as a metaphor in I Peter 2:2, Peter is in no way chiding people as Paul does in Hebrews 5:12-14. The former uses milk simply as a nourishing food because his emphasis is on desire, not depth. Paul uses milk as a metaphor for elementary because he wants to shock the Hebrews into comprehending how far they had slipped from their former state of conversion.

Paul also uses milk as a metaphor for weak or elementary in I Corinthians 3:1-2: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able." Paul judges the Corinthians as weak based upon their behaviors and attitudes, which reflected no spiritual progress. So he "fed" these immature Christians elementary knowledge because things of greater depth would have gone unappreciated, misunderstood, and unused. These references directly tie spiritual diet to growth in understanding, behavior, and attitude.

Paul's milk metaphors are scathing put-downs! Undoubtedly, he seriously hurt the feelings of many in the congregation, yet he is free and clear before God of any charge of offense. He does not question their conversion, but he certainly rebukes their lack of growth. He rightly judges that they need to have their feelings hurt so they could salvage what remained of their conversion.

In I Corinthians 3, the embarrassing immaturity that required him to feed the people like babies also produced strife and factions in the congregation, proving that the people were far more carnal than converted. The Hebrews account is more complex: The people had once been more mature but had regressed. It is a situation vaguely similar to elderly people becoming afflicted with dementia, except that faith, love, character, conduct, and attitude were being lost rather than mental faculties. This resulted in the people drifting aimlessly.

An additional insight regarding an insufficient spiritual diet appears in the next chapter. Paul tells them that their problems are directly related to being lazy. Dull in the phrase "dull of hearing" in Hebrews 5:11 is more closely related to "sluggish" or "slothful." It is translated as such in Hebrews 6:12, ". . . that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises."

Paul charges them with being lazy listeners; they are not putting forth the effort to meditate and apply what is taught them. They are, at best, merely accepting. That they are not using what they hear is proof enough for Paul to understand that they are not thinking through the seriousness or the practical applications of the teachings. In other words, they are not assimilating what they hear, and the result is a lack of faith and a consequent faithlessness. His rebuke is far more serious than the one in I Corinthians 3 because these people are older in the faith. They have frittered away a large amount of time that would have been far better spent on spiritual growth.

Paul attempts to shame and shock them into realizing how far they had slipped by calling these grown peopleâ??some of them undoubtedly elderlyâ??infants. He goes so far as to tell them that they are unacquainted with and unskilled in the teaching on righteousness. In other words, he attributes to them the one particular trait of infants: that they do not understand the difference between right and wrong, a characteristic that defines immaturity. A parent must instruct and chasten a child until it understands.

The Bible provides ample evidence that a poor spiritual diet results in a spiritually weak and diseased person, just as a poor physical diet works to erode and eventually destroy a person's physical vitality. Similarly, we can see that a person can be in good spiritual health but lose it through laziness or another form of neglect. Just as a mature adult needs good, solid nourishment to maintain his vitality and remain free of disease, the spiritual parallel follows. For one to grow to spiritual maturity and vitality, a mature Christian needs solid, spiritual nourishment, assimilated and actively applied, to continue growing and prevent regressing, as opposed to the Hebrews sluggish spiritual deterioration.

Link to post

What cksalmon, you don't want an answer?

No, I'd like an answer at least, in some sense, conversant with the Greek text in question.

Obviously, you are incapable of providing one.

That would include, I suppose, an analysis of the constituent parts of speech, at the very least. Perhaps we could deal with the actual text in question, written by neither Peter nor Paul?

And, in your hustle and bustle, let's not forget that my question centered around your providing a legitimate reading of the text in question that entails a command consonant with your interpretation! I have yet to see anything approaching this. Are you simply incapable of addressing this fundamental question? That is the heart of my inquiry. You haven't addressed it, at all, despite your insistence that you have. Again, I would ask that you cite your post that does, in fact, address this claim. Please, provide the link!

Surely, you're capable of this.

But, then, perhaps you're not. Since you've pointedly refused to actually address the text in question, and since you pointedly keep insisting that you have, without bothering to refer to a link in which you've done so, I assume you're just attempting to score unwarranted points. Have fun with that. I love to dialog with all sorts of folks here on MA&D.org, other than those incapable of backing up their points with actual evidence.

Simply insisting that you're correct, without actually addressing any of the contraindicative points, paints you as one not much worth notice. You could surely learn from DCP, or David Bokovoy, or Brant Gardner, or any number of others who are conversant with the relevant materials, and who base their responses on the assumed knowledge of the informed.

Can you demonstrate such?

I fear you cannot!

CKS

Link to post

No, I'd like an answer at least, in some sense, conversant with the Greek text in question.

Obviously, you are incapable of providing one.

That would include, I suppose, an analysis of the constituent parts of speech, at the very least. Perhaps we could deal with the actual text in question, written by neither Peter nor Paul?

And, in your hustle and bustle, let's not forget that my question centered around your providing a legitimate reading of the text in question that entails a command consonant with your interpretation! I have yet to see anything approaching this. Are you simply incapable of addressing this fundamental question? That is the heart of my inquiry. You haven't addressed it, at all, despite your insistence that you have. Again, I would ask that you cite your post that does, in fact, address this claim. Please, provide the link!

Surely, you're capable of this.

CKS

To respond to your first rude remark:

Hebrews is not considered a true Pauline text. But then neither are the pastorials far from being suspect of being authored by someone else.

T

Link to post

To respond to your first rude remark:

Hebrews is not considered a true Pauline text. But then neither are the pastorials far from being suspect of being authored by someone else.

T

Link to post

Okay. To add to the list: please show where I've referenced the Apocrypha.

Yes, it would "show [my] self-serving hand too clearly" if you were to address and engage the text at hand. I mean, it's really self-serving for me to expect you to provide some sort of legitimate reading for your interpretation of the text under discussion, right?

Obviously.

You keep making personal insults, but you haven't yet engaged the text at hand. Why is that?

Is it that you are not capable of addressing the Greek, not Hebrew, text in question?

Must you keep attempting to divert the issue at hand?

CKS

PS. First, I'm a slothful servant, then I don't understand Peter or Paul, then I'm referencing the Apocrypha. What about cutting to the chase and addressing the actual text in question, in Greek? Where is the command here?

Please show me. I'm all ears.

CKS

:P

You are not all ears unless you are referring to your species.

You should become a professional dodge ball player. You have yet to really do anything but egg on while I have jumped through hoops. You will have to do your own jumping and you can state that same old tired phrase that seems to be all you can produce--i.e. what you give me is nothing, give me something else. You are like my granddaughter who seems to be a little more estute at age 4 months, though she keeps asking for something else and crying when she gets it, asking for yet something else.

You really do need to get T

Link to post

You should become a professional dodge ball player. You have yet to really do anything but egg on while I have jumped through hoops.

Welcome to the echo chamber, Hammer. You have again failed to address the text in question. You have failed to link to where you have responded to the text in question.

I don't fault you for this. I truly believe you really don't have any legitimate answer for the question at hand. You certainly haven't demonstrated any. Every time I've asked for you to provide a link or reference to your response, you respond with more vitriol, but no clear answer. If there were such a link, surely, in the interest of decency, you would've provided it. I must assume that you really just don't know what you're talking about. If you did, you could surely provide a link. Or a statement. Or a scripture reference. You've done none of the above.

For the sanity of both of us, I will ignore your future posts. Feel free to do the same. I have no interest in dialoging with someone who refuses to address the issues, but who, at the same time, feels compelled to insist that he has, wholly engaged them, without any sort of reference.

Best.

CKS

Link to post

Bernard - yeah, the links give me a headache too!

Salvation by faith is supported throughout the Bible by verses such as Gen 15:6 (Rom. 4:3, Gal. 3:6), John 3:16, and Eph. 2:8-9. Baptism isnâ??t required for salvation. Baptism is talking about the Hebrew immersion or ritual cleansing, which the Jews of Jesusâ?? day understood. This immersion wasnâ??t anything new to them, and it wasnâ??t a magical formula that made something spiritual happen either. It was what they did to symbolize repentance and/or to symbolize a cleansing and a change. The person usually immersed themselves with a witness watching. Baptism is for us, not for God. It helps us touch on the reality of the spiritual. It is great for us to do, but not required for salvation.

From the LDS point of view, you are correct. Baptism is not required for

salvation, but it is required for exaltation. On the other hand, it is a hot

issue among Christians, and this particular event is used by both sides

to support their causes, as the cited web pages attest. Are you suggesting

that Christian baptism is merely Jewish ceremonial washing? In counter

to your scriptural citations, I would give the conversion of Saul. (Acts 9:5-6,

17-19), and every other conversion story in Acts where both Jew

and Gentile became Christians.

I donâ??t need the story of the thief on the cross to illustrate salvation by faith - there are so many other verses.

So, since it is an example of Biblical contradiction, let's remove it from

scripture, or at least refrain from its use in this matter.

As far as the concept of Paradise - I donâ??t consider that a major doctrine. Major doctrines - we all have eternal life, which means we will live after our death of this world; we will either be eternally with God in Heaven or we will have chosen separation from God in Hell. I know Paradise is important to Catholics . . . but I am not Catholic.

I find it curious that you don't consider the state of the soul

between death and resurrection a major doctrine. It is unfortunate that you were not around during the Reformation. Perhaps the division between Protestant and Catholic could have been avoided.

Bernard

Link to post

You do error in your facts about the BoM, but I certainly am not surprised. The changes in the BoM are a few words, gramatical changes like commas etc and spelling corrections. Not one of the changes made a doctrinal difference in their text.

The Bible has several passages, as proven by the upgrades from JS that were totally changed and confused the doctrines. Of course you won't see that either.

The 1830 edition of the BoM did not have verse numbers, so when I compare the 1830 edition to the present edition I am taking the text that corresponds -

1 Nephi 11:18 -

And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, (1830)

And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, (present)

1 Nephi 13:40 -

These last records, . . . shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; (1830)

These last records, . . . shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; (present)

These are just two examples. Is Mary the mother of God, or the mother of the Son of God? Is the Lamb of God the Eternal Father or the Son of the Eternal Father? If you do not see this as a doctrinal difference please explain.

JS wrote down what the golden plates said, correct? He received the translation from God, correct? Did God have to be edited? Did the golden plates have to be edited?

As far as spelling errors, they would be due to the BoM scribes, and not to JSâ??s supposedly lack of education. (For Zakuska)

â??The Bible has several passages, as proven by the upgrades from JS that were totally changed and confused the doctrines. Of course you won't see that either.â?

Itâ??s not that I wonâ??t see this but that I donâ??t see this. I have seen no evidence of this outside of JSâ??s words. But if this is true, then why does the JST of the Bible include the Johannine Comma? It supports the Trinity (as many Mormons have pointed out to me) and is known to be a very late addition.

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...