Jump to content

Cain Descendants and No Priesthood


alter idem

Recommended Posts

I didn't want to derail existing threads, so I'm starting another Cain, Blacks and the Priesthood thread (sorry :P )

This is really bothering me because I feel there's got to be bits of truth in this, but I think there is also a lot of error.

In trying to understand, I like to start with the scriptures as the basis for 'what we know' and then look at facts or evidence (if there is any) and then consider the statements or writings of others and traditions.

Scripture tells us Cain killed Abel and was cursed for the killing.

What was the curse? Gen. 4:11-12 'and now art thou cursed from the earth,..when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a figuitive and a vagabond shalt though be on the earth." Verse 14 also tells us from God's face would he be hid, clearly a part of the curse. Moses 5:41 gives additional information that "Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord"

When Cain cries that he will be killed for his sin, verse 15 tells us "the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him'.

Where is the explanation that this 'mark' would be handed down through his descendants? Where is the explanation that this mark was that his skin turned black? This is the first point that a person who wishes to defend the belief that ALL Cain's descendants were black and would pass on this blackness to their children. Can it be proven in scripture? I don't believe it can.

Some might cite Moses 7:8

"..the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people" There is no mention of them being the descendants of Cain and it says the 'blackness came upon them. There is no connection made between these "children of Canaan" and Cain's descendants and it sounds more like the heat of the land and barrenness was what affected their skin.

Is there a basis in scripture for believing Cain's descendants were forbidden the priesthood? I would say the best evidence is in that statement of being 'shut out of the presence of God'--as others I've read have noted, when we enter the temple, we 'enter the presence of God' and so, being forbidden the temple and the ordinances of the Priesthood blessings of the Temple could justify that interpretation.

But still, we have not made the connection of Cain to Ham and I do not believe we can.

I think some have made the assumption by working backward using what is mentioned in the Book of Abraham and assuming that since they are talking about a 'curse' then this is the same 'curse' that was on Cain. But, there is no scriptural evidence (as I see it) to prove it.

We next turn to Canaan(yet there is no mention of Cain; once again, only assumptions). The story of Noah's drunkenness and Ham's disrespect and the subsequent cursing of Canaan, his son. There just is not enough information in the scriptures to explain exactly what happened so all we can do is use what we have. Canaan would suffer for what Ham's wickedness. And the pronouncement was that Canaan's descendants would be the servants to Ham's brothers' descendants. This did happen. Canaan's descendants, the Canaanites (those who weren't killed) were subjugated by the Children of Israel, not to mention the Persians, Romans, etc.

It was the story of Canaan that Protestants used to justify slavery. IMO, it was these same protestant beliefs that Brigham Young used to fill in the blanks to justify forbidding Black Africans from holding the priesthood.

Why did he do it? He believed he was fulfilling the desire of God, though he never sited a revelation for this, nor could one ever be found. Was he inspired by God in his actions? I do not know. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.

Brigham Young believed and taught a number of things on this topic, but many of them were not scriptural. First, he assumed that Cain's descendants were Black Africans. There was no scriptural basis for this belief, only traditions that Cain's seed was preserved through Ham. This was a protestant belief and in reading some scriptures in the Book of Abraham, one could work backward to make assumptions to support this claim--speculation clearly.

However, we must face reality. Brigham Young claimed that Cain's descendants would not receive the priesthood until all others' descendants received it and that his lineage was specifically kept from having these blessings. However, as one poster mentioned, an understanding of population Genetics would have helped him realize that this was not possible (See Uncertain's post with accompanying link on the other thread)

As his/her post explains, if Cain still had descendants today, that would mean virtually all of us would be Cain's descendants so if a drop of his blood REALLY means no priesthood, then none of us today would be eligible. ;)

When Bruce R. McConkie said that he and others spoke with limited knowledge on this subject, he was correct. Brigham Young's knowledge was limited and his explanations for the policy were based on beliefs born during the dark ages of apostasy and to justify slavery. If the ban was approved or appointed by God, then there must have been some other reason for it than what he identified.

My belief is that it was 'allowed' by God. IMO, Brigham Young was speaking in hyperbole, not literally when saying Blacks would have to wait. He recognized that one day they would hold the priesthood. I think his establishing the policy had to do with the cultural sensitivities of the majority of members who were products of American/European culture-most of whom at the time were clearly prejudiced. I believe the people were not capable of seeing past the boundaries of race to be a Zion people--and God did not force them to accept a higher standard when clearly they were not capable of it. Like Moses having to veil his face before the Israelites, God would have to suffer the people to enforce their prejudices until they were sufficiently prepared to grow spiritually beyond them--As a people. He must allow for the 'weakest of saints' at times and often we are unable, as a people to enjoy greater knowledge and blessings because we are not at that level yet. Line up line, precept upon precept.

Who suffered? The Black's to be sure, and clearly there will be need for repentance and forgiveness on the other side for the suffering and injustice this caused. But the LDS people suffered as well because they limited themselves on the blessings they could have enjoyed. Just think if they'd read the stories of the Nephites and the Lamanites and how they became one righteous people and lost their animosity for eachother..they could have accepted all peoples, rather than worrying about ethnicity and limiting the blessings of the gospel by their cultural prejudices. Just think of what could have been.... :crazy:

We today in the church aren't getting a pass for their choices either..we are still dealing with the fall out from the consequences of the past. But Heavenly father has infinite patience and he knows we learn and grow spiritually from our failings as well as our triumphs.

Link to comment

Brigham Young believed and taught a number of things on this topic, but many of them were not scriptural.

Perhaps one of the greatest contributions of LDS apologists to the Church (and the world) is the knowledge that LDS prophets aren't the most reliable interpreters of scripture.

I imagine this idea certainly would have been news to many of the prophets themselves, including President Benson...

The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtiand in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God.

The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: "You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them."

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, "Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God." Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.

And now," said he, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." [in Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18-19)

Link to comment

I didn't want to derail existing threads, so I'm starting another Cain, Blacks and the Priesthood thread (sorry pardon.gif )

This is really bothering me because I feel there's got to be bits of truth in this, but I think there is also a lot of error.

In trying to understand, I like to start with the scriptures as the basis for 'what we know' and then look at facts or evidence (if there is any) and then consider the statements or writings of others and traditions.

Scripture tells us Cain killed Abel and was cursed for the killing.

What was the curse? Gen. 4:11-12 'and now art thou cursed from the earth,..when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a figuitive and a vagabond shalt though be on the earth." Verse 14 also tells us from God's face would he be hid, clearly a part of the curse. Moses 5:41 gives additional information that "Cain was shut out from the presence of the Lord"

When Cain cries that he will be killed for his sin, verse 15 tells us "the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should kill him'.

Where is the explanation that this 'mark' would be handed down through his descendants? Where is the explanation that this mark was that his skin turned black? This is the first point that a person who wishes to defend the belief that ALL Cain's descendants were black and would pass on this blackness to their children. Can it be proven in scripture? I don't believe it can.

Some might cite Moses 7:8

"..the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people" There is no mention of them being the descendants of Cain and it says the 'blackness came upon them. There is no connection made between these "children of Canaan" and Cain's descendants and it sounds more like the heat of the land and barrenness was what affected their skin.

Is there a basis in scripture for believing Cain's descendants were forbidden the priesthood? I would say the best evidence is in that statement of being 'shut out of the presence of God'--as others I've read have noted, when we enter the temple, we 'enter the presence of God' and so, being forbidden the temple and the ordinances of the Priesthood blessings of the Temple could justify that interpretation.

But still, we have not made the connection of Cain to Ham and I do not believe we can.

I think some have made the assumption by working backward using what is mentioned in the Book of Abraham and assuming that since they are talking about a 'curse' then this is the same 'curse' that was on Cain. But, there is no scriptural evidence (as I see it) to prove it.

We next turn to Canaan(yet there is no mention of Cain; once again, only assumptions). The story of Noah's drunkenness and Ham's disrespect and the subsequent cursing of Canaan, his son. There just is not enough information in the scriptures to explain exactly what happened so all we can do is use what we have. Canaan would suffer for what Ham's wickedness. And the pronouncement was that Canaan's descendants would be the servants to Ham's brothers' descendants. This did happen. Canaan's descendants, the Canaanites (those who weren't killed) were subjugated by the Children of Israel, not to mention the Persians, Romans, etc.

It was the story of Canaan that Protestants used to justify slavery. IMO, it was these same protestant beliefs that Brigham Young used to fill in the blanks to justify forbidding Black Africans from holding the priesthood.

Why did he do it? He believed he was fulfilling the desire of God, though he never sited a revelation for this, nor could one ever be found. Was he inspired by God in his actions? I do not know. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.

Brigham Young believed and taught a number of things on this topic, but many of them were not scriptural. First, he assumed that Cain's descendants were Black Africans. There was no scriptural basis for this belief, only traditions that Cain's seed was preserved through Ham. This was a protestant belief and in reading some scriptures in the Book of Abraham, one could work backward to make assumptions to support this claim--speculation clearly.

However, we must face reality. Brigham Young claimed that Cain's descendants would not receive the priesthood until all others' descendants received it and that his lineage was specifically kept from having these blessings. However, as one poster mentioned, an understanding of population Genetics would have helped him realize that this was not possible (See Uncertain's post with accompanying link on the other thread)

As his/her post explains, if Cain still had descendants today, that would mean virtually all of us would be Cain's descendants so if a drop of his blood REALLY means no priesthood, then none of us today would be eligible. shok.gif

When Bruce R. McConkie said that he and others spoke with limited knowledge on this subject, he was correct. Brigham Young's knowledge was limited and his explanations for the policy were based on beliefs born during the dark ages of apostasy and to justify slavery. If the ban was approved or appointed by God, then there must have been some other reason for it than what he identified.

My belief is that it was 'allowed' by God. IMO, Brigham Young was speaking in hyperbole, not literally when saying Blacks would have to wait. He recognized that one day they would hold the priesthood. I think his establishing the policy had to do with the cultural sensitivities of the majority of members who were products of American/European culture-most of whom at the time were clearly prejudiced. I believe the people were not capable of seeing past the boundaries of race to be a Zion people--and God did not force them to accept a higher standard when clearly they were not capable of it. Like Moses having to veil his face before the Israelites, God would have to suffer the people to enforce their prejudices until they were sufficiently prepared to grow spiritually beyond them--As a people. He must allow for the 'weakest of saints' at times and often we are unable, as a people to enjoy greater knowledge and blessings because we are not at that level yet. Line up line, precept upon precept.

Who suffered? The Black's to be sure, and clearly there will be need for repentance and forgiveness on the other side for the suffering and injustice this caused. But the LDS people suffered as well because they limited themselves on the blessings they could have enjoyed. Just think if they'd read the stories of the Nephites and the Lamanites and how they became one righteous people and lost their animosity for eachother..they could have accepted all peoples, rather than worrying about ethnicity and limiting the blessings of the gospel by their cultural prejudices. Just think of what could have been.... sad.gif

We today in the church aren't getting a pass for their choices either..we are still dealing with the fall out from the consequences of the past. But Heavenly father has infinite patience and he knows we learn and grow spiritually from our failings as well as our triumphs.

Brigham Young was a Prophet, seer and revelator, perhaps he was given a vision to withhold the Priesthood from the Black Skin? Or maybe another prophet the same before him? Why does everything need scriptural support? When the Blacks received the Priesthood in 1976-1977 I have yet so find "Scripture" varification for this matter? Can you? Don't we believe in as the Articles of Faith provide, about our Prophet receiving revelation?

Link to comment

Brigham Young was a Prophet, seer and revelator, perhaps he was given a vision to withhold the Priesthood from the Black Skin? Or maybe another prophet the same before him? Why does everything need scriptural support? When the Blacks received the Priesthood in 1976-1977 I have yet so find "Scripture" varification for this matter? Can you? Don't we believe in as the Articles of Faith provide, about our Prophet receiving revelation?

Wait. Do you really not know the year that blacks received the priesthood? (Hint: It's in the scriptures.)

Link to comment

Wait. Do you really not know the year that blacks received the priesthood? (Hint: It's in the scriptures.)

No, actually I was absent the day they taught that in Seminary, Church and the MTC. Please enlighten me! And if you have time, please explain why it took until 1976 and a national uproar before our beloved Prophet finally started the policy? Thank you!

Link to comment

What! An 8 year old being baptized into a church that they don't even understand! Unheard of!

I was brainwashed, they twisted my arms, my Dad had a belt, I was going to get held back a grade. Did I miss anything?

Link to comment

I'm going to repeat what I said on another thread.

While Joseph may have ordained certain blacks, it does appear that this stopped while he was still alive and therefore was implemented by him. Since we don't have a specific account of when and why it was implemented, everything is based on conjecture and hearsay. In any case once the ban was implemented it could only be removed by revelation. The fact that all subsequent prophets upheld the ban until 1978 is evidence that however it started, the Lord upheld it until the time was right.

Priesthood has always had certain requirements and those requirements have changed throughout history. Furthermore I think people forget how much authority God has given his prophets. Matthew 18 has some interesting words on this:

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

However, it was instituted it was binding until the Lord allowed it to be unbound.

Link to comment

I'm going to repeat what I said on another thread.

While Joseph may have ordained certain blacks, it does appear that this stopped while he was still alive and therefore was implemented by him. Since we don't have a specific account of when and why it was implemented, everything is based on conjecture and hearsay. In any case once the ban was implemented it could only be removed by revelation. The fact that all subsequent prophets upheld the ban until 1978 is evidence that however it started, the Lord upheld it until the time was right.

Priesthood has always had certain requirements and those requirements have changed throughout history. Furthermore I think people forget how much authority God has given his prophets. Matthew 18 has some interesting words on this:

However, it was instituted it was binding until the Lord allowed it to be unbound.

Thank you, this is what I was aware of as well. I was trying to see where others would go with this. Altar edem was suggesting or not suggesting there was scripture to back up what you have just written. I suggested there was none as did you. It was simply removed by commandment and then restored in 1978. Thank you for straightening this out!

Link to comment

This topic gets beaten to death every few years. The Church officially currently maintains silence about the reasons for the practice, including when and how it started. This allows a multiplicty of beliefs in the Church without any of them being heretical, including (1) a belief that the practice traces back either to Cain or Ham and continued uninterrupted (except for some erroneous ordinations permitted by Joseph Smith) until 1978, and that this principle was revealed in some manner to Joseph Smith (or perhaps Brigham Young) (2) a belief that the practice did not pre-exist the Restoration, and began either during the ministry of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young by unrecorded revelation, (3) a belief that the practice began on a pragmatic basis (or a culturally conditioned one), by Brigham Young, during the time that the issue of Black African American slavery was tearing apart the United States, but over time became so entrenched that the Brethren determined that it could be ended only by a special "revelation" as distinct from the ordinary "inspiration" under which other changes are made in the Church. One can also believe, without being heretical, that Black Africans are descendants of either Cain or Ham or both, and that the practice really did apply to anyone with any Black African ancestry (including a disbelief in population dynamics and genetics that indicate that everyone has Black African ancestors). One can also believe, without being heretical, that the practice was not tied to a "curse" of Cain or Ham, but simply a policy, principle or practice that was timebound and tied to those identified as of Black African descent.

Link to comment

This topic gets beaten to death every few years. The Church officially currently maintains silence about the reasons for the practice, including when and how it started. This allows a multiplicty of beliefs in the Church without any of them being heretical,

I suppose that silence is a result of nothing more of just not knowing the answer. I can't remember where I read it, but I remember hearing that Lester Bush's groundbreaking research in his 1972 Dialogue article about the origins of the ban made waves throughout the Church office building, as it presented the best understanding of the shaky grounds upon which the ban was instituted.

Link to comment
Don't we believe in as the Articles of Faith provide that man shall be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's (or Cain's) transgression?
Well said, and very profound!

Not really. Is being born to a lineage that does not have the right to the priesthood a punishment for the person being born?

Link to comment

Don't we believe in as the Articles of Faith provide that man shall be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's (or Cain's) transgression?

Does that mean "punished" in the sense that there are never any negative consequences for others caused by someone else's sin or in an eternal judgment sense?

I think many, many children have been 'punished' for their parents' sins (child abuse being one such 'punishment'). OTOH, no one's eternal state is shorted due to someone else's mistake or sin or whatever. God makes sure that justice prevails eternally speaking even if it doesn't do so during mortal life.

PS: I don't believe Cain's lineage was punished by withholding of the priesthood solely from them at anytime in the past. They likely were punished by having a poor example as their ancestor who might have passed on his pride etc. to his children and his children's children etc., thus the whole "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children

Link to comment

This topic gets beaten to death every few years. The Church officially currently maintains silence about the reasons for the practice, including when and how it started. This allows a multiplicty of beliefs in the Church without any of them being heretical, including (1) a belief that the practice traces back either to Cain or Ham and continued uninterrupted (except for some erroneous ordinations permitted by Joseph Smith) until 1978, and that this principle was revealed in some manner to Joseph Smith (or perhaps Brigham Young) (2) a belief that the practice did not pre-exist the Restoration, and began either during the ministry of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young by unrecorded revelation, (3) a belief that the practice began on a pragmatic basis (or a culturally conditioned one), by Brigham Young, during the time that the issue of Black African American slavery was tearing apart the United States, but over time became so entrenched that the Brethren determined that it could be ended only by a special "revelation" as distinct from the ordinary "inspiration" under which other changes are made in the Church. One can also believe, without being heretical, that Black Africans are descendants of either Cain or Ham or both, and that the practice really did apply to anyone with any Black African ancestry (including a disbelief in population dynamics and genetics that indicate that everyone has Black African ancestors). One can also believe, without being heretical, that the practice was not tied to a "curse" of Cain or Ham, but simply a policy, principle or practice that was timebound and tied to those identified as of Black African descent.

Good comment.

We don't have all the information we need to understand the ban. The problem occurs when someone dogmatically makes claims about the reasoning of the ban and about intentions of current and past Church leaders, and presents them as fact, when they are only based on inferences and extrapolations of vague statements on the subject.

Enemies of the Church do this all the time, and then demand that the Church and its leaders admit wrongdoing. However, such accusations virtually never stand up upon further study of the evidence available.

So the best answer continues to be that we don't know why the ban was in place. What we do know is that it was rescinded, that it was done through revelation, and that the Lord evidently allowed the ban to continue in place for some time, despite repeated inquiries to the Lord from a number of prophets asking that it be lifted.

Link to comment
Does that mean "punished" in the sense that there are never any negative consequences for others caused by someone else's sin or in an eternal judgment sense?

This is a good point.

The interesting thing about AofF #2 is that it talks about punishment - and that punishment is part of the judgment, and not here in this life - and it also addresses the concept of original sin. To broaden the interpretation of AofF #2 to make some claim that the Lord will have everything be fair in this life, and that everyone should have equal opportunity in this life is simply not warranted. That concept has never been taught by the Church. It also doesn't happen in reality.

That's why the gospel is preached to the dead after this life. That's also why the prophets have taught that all blessings of the gospel in their fullness will be available to everyone, regardless of other circumstances, after this life if they have chosen to accept them and to be obedient to the covenants linked to those blessings. Whether it occurs in this life or after this life seems to be irrelevant to God; the fact that it will happen at some point is the main concept to understand.

If we talk about the priesthood ban being unfair or wrong, then I guess that we also have to talk about the fact that it must have been unfair and wrong for anyone living before 1830 to have the blessings of the restored gospel denied. The fact is, in this life, there are virtually always limitations concerning certain groups of people's choices to receive gospel blessings, and those limitations arise from a variety of sources and reasons. That's the fact, and that's the way it works here in this life, if one takes the opportunity to look around and observe what's going on.

Other religions don't have any way of dealing with this unfairness. The basic doctrine of the restored gospel that tells us that everyone will have an appropriate opportunity, either in this life or the next, to accept the gospel and to receive all of its blessings is the overriding principle that should govern us as we consider the priesthood ban in the bigger picture of things.

Link to comment

To broaden the interpretation of AofF #2 to make some claim that the Lord will have everything be fair in this life, and that everyone should have equal opportunity in this life is simply not warranted. That concept has never been taught by the Church.

As far as I can tell, that concept has never been taught by Katherine the Great either.

Suppose you were in the President Monson's ward, and committed some infraction against him. The next week, he stands at the pulpit and says "It is now apparent to me that the Priesthood, and the blessings of the Temple, are not to be made available to jwhitlock, or jwhitlock's descendants, until all of Adam's children have first had the opportunity." Your son who is turning 12 next month now realizes he won't get the priesthood; your daughter who is engaged can no longer marry in the Temple.

I suppose you might react by saying to yourself and others "That's fine. No one said that everything would be fair in this life, or that everyone would have an equal opportunity."

But to others, that may seem like a "punishment" of some sort, and an especially unwarranted one on your descendants who had no involvement in the original infraction.

Link to comment
As far as I can tell, that concept has never been taught by Katherine the Great either.

Actually, I was responding to cal and didn't mention KtG. However, the fact that you automatically made the connection to KtG's post seems to conflict with your denial here.

Suppose you were in the President Monson's ward, and committed some infraction against him. The next week, he stands at the pulpit and says "It is now apparent to me that the Priesthood, and the blessings of the Temple, are not to be made available to jwhitlock, or jwhitlock's descendants, until all of Adam's children have first had the opportunity." Your son who is turning 12 next month now realizes he won't get the priesthood; your daughter who is engaged can no longer marry in the Temple.

I'm not sure how this analogy relates at all to the priesthood ban. It presupposes that some infraction had been committed by Africans, and that the ban in itself was arbitrary - neither concept of which is supported by what we know. Seems stretched, to me.

However, the general point I made still stands. Guaranteed "fairness" is not part of our temporal existence - and it's most likely that way by design. In addition, until we have all the information available concerning the ban - which we don't at this point - it's premature to make any determination of whether the ban was fair, unfair, unjust, correct, wrong, a mistake, or whatever. I did note earlier what we do know concerning the ban; we just don't know for sure how or why it was put into place.

I suppose you might react by saying to yourself and others "That's fine. No one said that everything would be fair in this life, or that everyone would have an equal opportunity."

Actually - though you probably won't believe it - I've been able to do something like this sometimes when I've been the recipient of something that was extremely unfair. I either walked away, or just let it pass.

In fact, those who are faithful members of the Church and tend to have a longer view of things - often because of their experiences - handle unfairness in this manner. Hard to believe, isn't it?

But to others, that may seem like a "punishment" of some sort, and an especially unwarranted one on your descendants who had no involvement in the original infraction.

Depends on what perspective that you choose to take; there are several different ways of looking at it. I've been pretty clear on mine.

Link to comment

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...