Jump to content

It'S Too Sacred


Rob Bowman

Recommended Posts

Perhaps a review is in order.

Deborah,

You wrote:

As I said above "Joseph Smith revealed what he did to the world to move the church forward and to establish the nature of God and Heaven. Otherwise he was very careful who he shared experiences with. The fact that others may have taken those experiences and talked about them is a different matter and one which often brought persecution on the church."

The nature of God is accepted now by the members of the church and Joseph Smith's testimony is given on that. Modern prophets and Apostles have actually said many things that allude to a personal knowledge of the Savior, but as in the Parables of old they are only for the faithful to understand and hear.

Your comments appear to reflect the idea that Joseph Smith's First Vision established the nature of God in the sense of revealing that the Father and the Son were both separately embodied beings of flesh and bones.

Well, it appears that Bowman is either reading things into Deborah's comments or he is attempting to create a strawman.

Nowhere in any of Joseph's numerous writings and recorded sermons did he ever claim that the First Vision revealed the truth about the nature of God.

It clearly reveals the separateness of the Father from the Son.

The earliest known statements citing the First Vision as proving the embodied nature of God the Father were made in the 1880s.

Although that may be true, it is rather irrelevant when considering D&C 130:22.

Rob Bowman:

Incorrect. The first Vision established that God the Father, and his Son are two distinct individuals.

saint,

You wrote:

CFR.

JSH 1:17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Bowman's CFR has been addressed and his argument rendered silly.

Link to post
I have been criticized and even excoriated on another thread for supposedly not understanding that when Mormons say that temple rituals should not be publicized because they are "sacred," this term has limited application to rituals. I do understand that context. However, I have noticed in other threads that the idea of something being "sacred" has been used to explain lack of information on non-ritual matters. Three examples come to mind.

(1) I have been told that the reason why very few LDS apostles since Joseph Smith have spoken publicly about seeing the risen Jesus is that the experience was too sacred.

(2) I have also been told that the details of a Mormon's spiritual testimony or experience by which they know that the Book of Mormon (etc.) is true are also too sacred to discuss publicly.

(3) A current thread includes the statement that the reason why we don't hear more stories from Mormons about miracles occurring in fulfillment of a priesthood blessing is that "The experience is not going to be publicized because it is simply [too] sacred." (I understand that the priesthood blessing might be described as a sacred ritual, but not the promised miracle itself.)

So, what should I think about those Mormons who criticized me for not understanding that the temple rituals are secret because they are sacred rituals and not merely because they are "sacred" in a broader sense? Were they wrong? Or were these Mormons wrong to appeal to the "sacred" nature of various non-ritual experiences (visions of Jesus, personal testimonies of the Book of Mormon's truth, miracles of healing, etc.)? Is it possible that Mormons too easily appeal to sacredness to rationalize lack of information on a wide variety of issues?

That might be one possibility.

Here's another: it's a fairly simple truism that only a believer can really say what is sacred in the context of her belief. To me, a boulder in a creek bed is only a boulder in a creek bed, but to an Australian Aborigine, that particular boulder in that particular creek bed may well have sacred significance.

Confronted with that fact, I've got a choice: either I can be respectful about it, or not.

Which is the same choice you have regarding LDS beliefs and practices.

So I guess the only real question before you is: can your career survive you showing actual respect (as opposed to mere lip service to the idea) for things that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to post

Pahoran,

You wrote:

That might be one possibility.

Here's another: it's a fairly simple truism that only a believer can really say what is sacred in the context of her belief. To me, a boulder in a creek bed is only a boulder in a creek bed, but to an Australian Aborigine, that particular boulder in that particular creek bed may well have sacred significance.

Confronted with that fact, I've got a choice: either I can be respectful about it, or not.

Which is the same choice you have regarding LDS beliefs and practices.

So I guess the only real question before you is: can your career survive you showing actual respect (as opposed to mere lip service to the idea) for things that are sacred to the Latter-day Saints?

Regards,

Pahoran

Your comments do not address the issue I raised.

Whereas you did not answer my question directly, I will answer yours directly. Yes, my "career" can survive me showing actual respect for things sacred to LDS. My career would in fact do just fine if I never said another things about Mormonism. But I'm not measuring what I say or do with regard to the LDS religion by how it might affect my "career." I'm only concerned with doing what I think is right.

Link to post

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

The first vision does not establish them as personages of flesh and bone.

In fact, the Lectures on Faith, written by Sidney Rigdon, but approved and used by Joseph and printed with the Revelations as the "Doctrine" of the "Doctrine and Covenants" in 1835 presents the Father as a personage of Spirit, and the Son as a personage of Tabernacle (flesh and bones), with the Holy Ghost being their shared mind.... The recognition of the physical corporeality of the Father appears to be a much later (and perhaps one of the latest) development in Joseph's understanding/teachings.

Exactly. The Lectures on Faith shows that the use of the term "personages" in JS-H does not establish that the Father was a personage of flesh and bones.

Link to post

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Exactly. The Lectures on Faith shows that the use of the term "personages" in JS-H does not establish that the Father was a personage of flesh and bones.

Good thing no one is arguing that.

BUT "personages" DOES establish the separateness of the Father from the Son, AND D&C 130:22 DOES establish the Father IS a personage of flesh and bones.

Link to post

Yes, my "career" can survive me showing actual respect for things sacred to LDS. My career would in fact do just fine if I never said another things about Mormonism. But I'm not measuring what I say or do with regard to the LDS religion by how it might affect my "career." I'm only concerned with doing what I think is right.

You could always prove this statement by "showing actual respect for things sacred to LDS" by removing the temple content from ALL of your and IRR's material. Anything less is just hot air.

Link to post

Whereas you did not answer my question directly, I will answer yours directly. Yes, my "career" can survive me showing actual respect for things sacred to LDS. My career would in fact do just fine if I never said another things about Mormonism. But I'm not measuring what I say or do with regard to the LDS religion by how it might affect my "career." I'm only concerned with doing what I think is right.

"...what I think is right."

Think or know?

Bernard

Link to post

So, what should I think about those Mormons who criticized me for not understanding that the temple rituals are secret because they are sacred rituals and not merely because they are "sacred" in a broader sense? Were they wrong?

You should question your understanding of what they said.

There is no evidence that you do.

Or were these Mormons wrong to appeal to the "sacred" nature of various non-ritual experiences (visions of Jesus, personal testimonies of the Book of Mormon's truth, miracles of healing, etc.)?

No. See the above comment.

Is it possible that Mormons too easily appeal to sacredness to rationalize lack of information on a wide variety of issues?

No. But it is possible they easily appeal to sacredness because they have an understanding of sanctity.

What is yours?

When are you going to add graphics to your website's desecration of the LDS temple?

Bernard

Link to post

One reason for the flood of Noah was the desecration and mockery of sacred things that were revealed. This is a sign of the last days, that our evil will surpass their evil.

"What does it hurt?" you ask. We shall see what we shall see.

There are those who have violated their sacred oaths, and they have found partners.

Indeed, there is one among us who defends his participation with those covenant breakers. I'm sure he will be able to find some greek word or phrase that justifies what he is doing.

Link to post

Indeed, there is one among us who defends his participation with those covenant breakers. I'm sure he will be able to find some greek word or phrase that justifies what he is doing.

How do you say "It takes one to know one" in Greek? One who makes a living from those who break their covenants...make a living from those who break their covenants.

To All:

When the doctrine of the bodily nature of God was first taught is irrelevant to anything. The importance was that it was taught. "Line upon line, precept upon precept...."

As has been said, in hindsight, after one knows the doctrine, it can be found everywhere including the Bible.

The very notion of a "Restoration" is that doctrines once lost, are taught again, and when the true doctrine is known, it is seen in the original sources.

One could just as easily argue that the Protestant theology of the "Eucharist" (or any Evangelical interpretation of the Bible for that matter) was not taught until the 16th century and therefore could not possibly represent the "true meaning" of the New Testament, because it was not (apparently) taught in New Testament times.

That the bodily nature of God was not fully understood until later is irrelevant to anything.

Link to post

Nah, what you guys REALLY believe is that there is a single being with a multiple personality disorder. But you won't admit THAT so you call each personality a person but you don't really mean person but personality.

You are describing modalism here as in a 'multiple personality disorder' (more correctly known as "dissociative identity disorder") only one personality is present at a time and the 'personalities' take turns manifesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder

Link to post

That the bodily nature of God was not fully understood until later is irrelevant to anything.

Not quite irrelevant to anything :) (I can think of several things outside this conversation it is relevant too), but certainly not an obstacle for LDS considering the LDS position on continuing revelation and "line upon line". In fact, given our perception of revelation, it would have been odd for Joseph to have gotten it completely complete in one go...we don't even assume we have complete understanding at this point.

Link to post

This thread has been wondering off track for quite some time. I never gave a detailed reply to the OP, so this will hopefully bring the thread back on the original track.

I have been criticized and even excoriated on another thread for supposedly not understanding that when Mormons say that temple rituals should not be publicized because they are “sacred,” this term has limited application to rituals.

I don’t know who said that, as I haven’t been following all the threads; but I wouldn’t say that correctly describes the LDS position. Sacred means sacred. A lot of things can be sacred; and all sacred things need to be spoken of or treated “with care, and by the constraint of the Spirit” (D&C 63:64). It doesn’t have to be a ritual. Some personal experiences can be too sacred to talk about, and collective experiences in the Church too can be too sacred to talk about openly.

I do understand that context. However, I have noticed in other threads that the idea of something being “sacred” has been used to explain lack of information on non-ritual matters. Three examples come to mind.

(1) I have been told that the reason why very few LDS apostles since Joseph Smith have spoken publicly about seeing the risen Jesus is that the experience was too sacred.

That is right. When God gives such a revelation or manifestation to someone, it is left up to the individual to decide when would be a right time for them to talk about it and when it would not be; and God expects them to use their inspired judgement to know when to do so. That is how it was in ancient times (Matthew 7:6; Mark 4:11-12, 34). Joseph Smith had many visions, angelic ministrations, and revelations that he never talked about. There were very few that he did talk about, the First Vision being one of them; and the reasons for it should be obvious. It dispels centuries of error, and establishes a very important doctrine of the Church—that God the Father is a distinct and separate personage form the Son. But he had a lot more such experiences than he ever talked about.

The Lord’s commandment to Latter-day Saints is to “say nothing but repentance unto this generation” (D&C 11:9). That is the same commandment that was given to the early Church (Luke 24:47). It is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign, and “there shall no sign be given unto it” (Matthew 16:4; Mark 8:12). “And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation” (D&C 63:7-12).

(2) I have also been told that the details of a Mormon’s spiritual testimony or experience by which they know that the Book of Mormon (etc.) is true are also too sacred to discuss publicly.

That depends on the individual experience. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to different people in different ways, depending on their past experiences, faith, and level of spiritual development. Most of the time the experience is not something that can actually be described. It is the Spirit speaking to the spirit. On rare occasions, however, it has been accompanied with more extraordinary experiences, such as a vision or ministration of an angel; and in those situations it is up to the individual to decide when it is the right time to talk about it and when it is not. If I had had such an experience, I don’t think I would want to share it on an open forum such as this for example. I would rather stick to the Lord’s dictum: “say nothing but repentance unto this generation”.

(3) A current thread includes the statement that the reason why we don’t hear more stories from Mormons about miracles occurring in fulfillment of a priesthood blessing is that “The experience is not going to be publicized because it is simply [too] sacred.” (I understand that the priesthood blessing might be described as a sacred ritual, but not the promised miracle itself.)

It is not because it is the “ritual” that is sacred, but the healing experience in demonstration of faith. Jesus couldn’t perform miracles when those around Him didn’t have faith (Mark 6:4-6); and when He did perform miracles, He told the people not to publicise it or talk about it (Mark 5:43; 7:36; Luke 5:14; 8:56). He also told them not to reveal other sacred experiences they had had, until the time was right for them to do so (Mark 8:30; 9:9).

So, what should I think about those Mormons who criticized me for not understanding that the temple rituals are secret because they are sacred rituals and not merely because they are “sacred” in a broader sense? Were they wrong?

I don’t know who told you that. If they did, then I would say they were wrong. Lots of things could be too sacred to talk about, be they ritual or not ritual.

Or were these Mormons wrong to appeal to the “sacred” nature of various non-ritual experiences (visions of Jesus, personal testimonies of the Book of Mormon’s truth, miracles of healing, etc.)? Is it possible that Mormons too easily appeal to sacredness to rationalize lack of information on a wide variety of issues?

Not correct. Lots of things could be too sacred to talk about. See above.

One should respect what anybody holds sacred, be they of whatever religion they might. The Muslims hold the Koran sacred. To them the actual physical object is sacred, so they treat it and handle it with care and respect. The late Pope, when he visited an Islamic country, kissed the Koran to show his reverence for what they consider sacred. I think that was a right gesture. We should respect whatever anybody holds sacred, and seek not to give offence. Portraying the Prophet Mohamed as a terrorist in a cartoon, for example, is showing deliberate disrespect to what someone else holds sacred, and it should not be done. Interestingly, the Muslims consider Jesus to be a great prophet, and hold Him in respect. They would never want to retaliate by depicting Jesus in a disrespectful cartoon for example.

Link to post

calmoriah,

The articles to which I provided a link in my previous post directly respond to the arguments of the FAIR wiki article you cited. I have invited LDS apologists to respond to my articles and so far have heard nothing.

I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that since FAIR is staffed by volunteers (save for one employee who is paid for bookstore maintenance), unlike yourself who is paid for his work, they must find time outside of supporting themselves and their families, family needs and activities, educational pursuits, church positions etc to devote to apologetics, FAIR has established the policy of only responding to criticisms in general and not each occurrence of such, except in the cases of original or highly visible (usually measured by the frequency of questions FAIR receives on a specific source of a criticism) incidents. In this specific case, sufficient responses can be found (though I am sure you will disagree) by looking at the FAIR webpages dealing with the topic already so an original response isn't necessary.
If we accept the claims of the FAIR article without question, the earliest they can push back any possible references to the First Vision would be 1831. My point stands--there is no evidence that anyone in the 1820s even knew about the First Vision, let alone persecuted Joseph Smith over it. There is no evidence for anything like the First Vision story until after Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church.

Since I developed the habit of relying primarily on the Spirit when reading the Bible to confirm the many accounts of events written down long after their occurrence, I am not particularly troubled by having to do the same for Joseph's First Vision as say for Paul's 'First Vision' whose first account is 20 years or so, I believe, after the event. Since you apparently depend on contemporary evidence to grant possible validity to earlier events detailed long after their occurrence, you must be aware of some significant sources substantiating many biblical events that I am not aware of. I hope you share such accounts as I would find them very interesting.
Link to post

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that since FAIR is staffed by volunteers (save for one employee who is paid for bookstore maintenance), unlike yourself who is paid for his work, they must find time outside of supporting themselves and their families, family needs and activities, educational pursuits, church positions etc to devote to apologetics,

I'm somewhat sympathetic, as the fact is that I have devoted tens of thousands of hours of unpaid time over the years to evangelical Christian apologetics. I still put a lot of unpaid time into those efforts. But I guarantee you that if I had received notice of several thoughtful, carefully researched and documented articles online by a fairly well-known and published Mormon apologist that claimed to dismantle my arguments on an important point, I would have at least acknowledged that notice! Furthermore, I would have made an effort to respond to the substance of such a critique.

You wrote:

FAIR has established the policy of only responding to criticisms in general and not each occurrence of such, except in the cases of original or highly visible (usually measured by the frequency of questions FAIR receives on a specific source of a criticism) incidents. In this specific case, sufficient responses can be found (though I am sure you will disagree) by looking at the FAIR webpages dealing with the topic already so an original response isn't necessary.

You don't seem to get it. My articles specifically refute arguments presented in the FAIR websites on the issue of early references to the First Vision. The ball is now in their court. For example, FAIR cites a Fredonia Censor article from 1832 and claims that it includes six elements of the First Vision (see here and here). One of my articles specifically critiques this claim.

You wrote:

Since I developed the habit of relying primarily on the Spirit when reading the Bible to confirm the many accounts of events written down long after their occurrence, I am not particularly troubled by having to do the same for Joseph's First Vision as say for Paul's 'First Vision' whose first account is 20 years or so, I believe, after the event. Since you apparently depend on contemporary evidence to grant possible validity to earlier events detailed long after their occurrence, you must be aware of some significant sources substantiating many biblical events that I am not aware of. I hope you share such accounts as I would find them very interesting.

The issue here is not the time lag per se, it is the nature of the claim in the context of who is making it and in what circumstances. No one seriously questions that Paul persecuted Christians and then became a Christian after a religious experience of some kind. The reason is that Paul tells on himself in his own letters about his guilt in persecuting Christians. Moreover, Paul told the same story from day one, reporting in his earliest epistles the same facts: that he had been a persecutor of the church; that Christ had been revealed to him; that this experience turned him from persecutor to apostle. Paul's earliest reference to these facts is probably in Galatians, dated about AD 49--perhaps 15 years or so after his conversion. That is also his very first writing. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, left quite a paper trail of stories about his earliest religious experiences prior to the account that became the official, scriptural account in JS-H. In that earlier paper trail we find that Joseph told the same story from the mid-1820s through 1832, and that was that his "first vision" was the first appearance of the angel in 1823 telling him about the Book of Mormon. The account of 1832 in Joseph's own handwriting is the first account that reports an earlier vision of Christ. The 1838 account, first published in 1842, is the first version of the account in which Joseph claims he was persecuted because of his vision of the Father and the Son. It is the preceding paper trail going back more than a decade prior to that account that raises serious questions about the veracity of that claim, which is why it is significant that other than that account there is no evidence that Joseph Smith was persecuted for claiming to have seen the risen Christ. That lack of evidence is situated in a mound of texts from both Mormons and non-Mormons that give all sorts of information about how people reacted to Joseph's claims about the angel and the book, but never say anything for or against his claim to have had a vision of Christ. Furthermore, unlike Paul's conversion story, Joseph's history is perfectly comprehensible without the supposed First Vision. Indeed, the evidence shows that no one outside of a couple of scribes knew anything about it until 1842.

Link to post

I'm somewhat sympathetic, as the fact is that I have devoted tens of thousands of hours of unpaid time over the years to evangelical Christian apologetics.

Sorry to nit-pick, but you know...

Tens of thousands of volunteer hours? If one were to work 8 hours a day without a break, 365 days a year for 10 years, one would have worked 29,200 hours. I would consider that on the low end of tens of thousands. The range of 40,000-60,000 would be more in the realm of tens of thousands, and that means 15-20 years of 8 hour days, every day.

Care to recalculate, or do you stand by the claim?

Link to post

Sorry to nit-pick, but you know...

Tens of thousands of volunteer hours? If one were to work 8 hours a day without a break, 365 days a year for 10 years, one would have worked 29,200 hours. I would consider that on the low end of tens of thousands. The range of 40,000-60,000 would be more in the realm of tens of thousands, and that means 15-20 years of 8 hour days, every day.

Care to recalculate, or do you stand by the claim?

Perhaps his jobs have been more sinecure than you thought.

Link to post

Sorry to nit-pick, but you know...

Tens of thousands of volunteer hours? If one were to work 8 hours a day without a break, 365 days a year for 10 years, one would have worked 29,200 hours. I would consider that on the low end of tens of thousands. The range of 40,000-60,000 would be more in the realm of tens of thousands, and that means 15-20 years of 8 hour days, every day.

Care to recalculate, or do you stand by the claim?

I think this graphically illustrates the quality of the work he produces. "Tens of Thousands" indeed.

Link to post

The issue here is not the time lag per se, it is the nature of the claim in the context of who is making it and in what circumstances. No one seriously questions that Paul persecuted Christians and then became a Christian after a religious experience of some kind. The reason is that Paul tells on himself in his own letters about his guilt in persecuting Christians. Moreover, Paul told the same story from day one, reporting in his earliest epistles the same facts: that he had been a persecutor of the church; that Christ had been revealed to him; that this experience turned him from persecutor to apostle. Paul's earliest reference to these facts is probably in Galatians, dated about AD 49--perhaps 15 years or so after his conversion. That is also his very first writing.

The naivete of your fundamentalism is breathtaking.

How could anyone possibly know that "that is also his very first writing?" How many accounts of Paul's conversion have been lost?

Do you think perhaps there is a difference between the literacy rate in the 19th century, post-printing, with people following Joseph around and writing down his every word, with all the opportunities that presents for distortion, and what has survived from Paul's time?

Besides the fact that we are talking about 150 years for Joseph vs 2000 for Paul- do you think it is perhaps more likely that fragile documents would be lost or suppressed or whatever over a 2000 year period, as opposed to a 150 year period?

Are you even aware of the notion of "presentism"?

You also write as if you are the main opponent of FAIR or something and that they should even notice you and your efforts when in fact you are a very fun-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with all the old same arguments, and a rather obscure website.

Get over yourself.

Link to post

ERMD,

Let's see.... I would estimate that I have spent at least an average of two hours a day in uncompensated apologetics labors during the past 35 years (I'm kinda getting up there in years). That would be over 25,000 hours (2 x 365 x 35 = 25,550). That's a plurality of tens of thousands of hours. It's beyond nit-picky to claim that unless it's 40,000 or more it isn't "tens of thousands."

If the true number is somewhat less than that, I won't be embarrassed. On the other hand, it could be much more. I honestly haven't kept a running tab, you know? But I stand by my claim.

Sorry to nit-pick, but you know...

Tens of thousands of volunteer hours? If one were to work 8 hours a day without a break, 365 days a year for 10 years, one would have worked 29,200 hours. I would consider that on the low end of tens of thousands. The range of 40,000-60,000 would be more in the realm of tens of thousands, and that means 15-20 years of 8 hour days, every day.

Care to recalculate, or do you stand by the claim?

Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

The naivete of your fundamentalism is breathtaking.

The ignorance of your anti-fundamentalism is amusing.

You wrote:

How could anyone possibly know that "that is also his very first writing?" How many accounts of Paul's conversion have been lost?

You are being obtuse. Obviously, I meant his earliest extant writing.

You wrote:

Do you think perhaps there is a difference between the literacy rate in the 19th century, post-printing, with people following Joseph around and writing down his every word, with all the opportunities that presents for distortion, and what has survived from Paul's time?

Besides the fact that we are talking about 150 years for Joseph vs 2000 for Paul- do you think it is perhaps more likely that fragile documents would be lost or suppressed or whatever over a 2000 year period, as opposed to a 150 year period?

You are so blinded by your antagonism toward me that you have missed how this point actually supports what I am saying. It would be unfair to expect the same sort of paper trail from Paul in the first century that we have from Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century. How this undermines my argument I am sure I do not know.

You wrote:

Are you even aware of the notion of "presentism"?

Of course. The problem is that you are seemingly unaware that the presentism is on the side of those who try to appeal to the time lag between Paul's conversion and the earliest written account of it as precedent for the time lag between Joseph Smith's alleged First Vision and the first written account of it.

You wrote:

You also write as if you are the main opponent of FAIR or something and that they should even notice you and your efforts when in fact you are a very fun-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with all the old same arguments, and a rather obscure website.

Get over yourself.

I made no big claims for myself, but nor would I accept your deprecating and dismissive description (alliteration unintended). However, you have now sparked my curiosity. Whom do you consider to be the heavyweight critics of LDS apologetics?

Link to post

The naivete of your fundamentalism is breathtaking.

How could anyone possibly know that "that is also his very first writing?" How many accounts of Paul's conversion have been lost?

Do you think perhaps there is a difference between the literacy rate in the 19th century, post-printing, with people following Joseph around and writing down his every word, with all the opportunities that presents for distortion, and what has survived from Paul's time?

Besides the fact that we are talking about 150 years for Joseph vs 2000 for Paul- do you think it is perhaps more likely that fragile documents would be lost or suppressed or whatever over a 2000 year period, as opposed to a 150 year period?

Are you even aware of the notion of "presentism"?

You also write as if you are the main opponent of FAIR or something and that they should even notice you and your efforts when in fact you are a very fun-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with all the old same arguments, and a rather obscure website.

Get over yourself.

"obscure" is awfully generous.

And a word to the wise, don't find embarrassing holes in Rob's website for your will be the lucky recipient of private emails. rolleyes.gif

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...