Return Of The Cross

[Pahoran]

Wouldn't either your hypothesis or Mike's hypothesis be "hidden agendas" since there is no public statement as to the meaning of the cover art?

Well, I suppose you could see it that way. The difference is that my hypothesis requires no manipulative intent, but falls more within what has traditionally been seen as the function of art.

In a way, Mike and I are both doing the same thing: he looks at the cover and sees something that resonates with his interest in crosses as a religious symbol; I look at it and see something that resonates with my experience as a New Zealander who lived two decades in Australia, both of which countries feature the Southern Cross prominently on their national flags. The Southern Cross is one of the circumpolar constellations, so it can only be seen in the Southern hemisphere.

However, I have noted that Mike can also see deep significance in the fact that the panelling in a Victorian-style wooden door may be generically cruciform. I see that as, well, a lot less significant. In that regard, I think his interest in crosses comes close to being an obsession.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70, on 01 February 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

2 Nephi 10:24 ("it is only in and trough the grace of God that ye are saved"), 2 Nephi 25;23. Also, Moroni 10:32-33 (which also discusses the Wesleyan "second grace," or "holiness" doctrine).

Call for references, please. This means quote and explain.

I thought that's what I was doing. Take 2 Nephi 10:24, which says that "it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." Likewise, 2 Nephi 25:23 states that we should believe in Christ, and be reconciled to God, because after all we can do, "we know that it is by grace that we are saved." Moroni 10:32-33 is actually more about the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection, by which, through the "second grace," one who has already received an initial grace, may receive further grace until they are perfected in Christ, to become holy and spotless. Nothing I know of that the Book of Mormon says about grace is inconsistent with Methodism.

[Pahoran]

I thought that's what I was doing. Take 2 Nephi 10:24, which says that "it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." Likewise, 2 Nephi 25:23 states that we should believe in Christ, and be reconciled to God, because after all we can do, "we know that it is by grace that we are saved." Moroni 10:32-33 is actually more about the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection, by which, through the "second grace," one who has already received an initial grace, may receive further grace until they are perfected in Christ, to become holy and spotless. Nothing I know of that the Book of Mormon says about grace is inconsistent with Methodism.

Try to pretend that you are a believing Latter-day Saint (like you have intermittently.) Take Methodism out of the equation. Is there anything in your darling prooftexts that is in any way inconsistent with the Bible?

Evidently not.

So explain, please, why Methodism needs to be part of the equation at all?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

You, Cobalt, are entitled to your opinion. Believing Latter-day Saints would say that the overlaps between Arminian Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist for the same reason as overlaps between other forms of Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist, namely because there is no form of Christianity that gets absolutely everything wrong. They all get some things right, and wherever they do, they will agree with the Book of Mormon.

I don't recall suggesting a mechanism to explain why the Book of Mormon teaches Protestant ideas. But let me note that before Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he dictated a revelation predicting that the book would settle doctrinal differences of Smith's era, and reduce religious contention. (D&C 10:62-63). How else was the book going to do that unless it discussed Christian doctrines in terms that 19th century Protestants could understand? The book would have to take sides, as it did, on the important Christian controversies of Smith's generation. Also, there is a mechanism even on the book's own terms by which the book could discuss modern Christianity. According to Mormon 8:34-35, Moroni saw the day in which the Book of Mormon was to come forth, including the churches of that day, and speaks to that generation "as if ye were present."

[Pahoran]

I don't recall suggesting a mechanism to explain why the Book of Mormon teaches Protestant ideas.

You are getting ahead of yourself.

Before you can start discussing why a certain state of affairs exists, you must first demonstrate that it does exist. This, you have not done.

It has not been established that "the Book of Mormon teaches Protestant ideas." All that has been shown is that there are areas of overlap between some Protestant ideas and some Book of Mormon teachings Upon closer examination, we discover that the overlap is greatest where the Protestant idea most closely follows the Bible.

Let us take, for example, your favourite chestnut about "original sin." Inasmuch as the Protestant idea follows biblical teachings about the "natural man" (Paul goes into some detail on that subject) then naturally it resembles the Book of Mormon teachings on the same subject (which are and always have been fully orthodox LDS doctrine, just so you know.) However, when certain essential corollaries of the Protestant/Catholic doctrine of "original sin" come into view, such as the notion of inerited guilt, or that people (including unbaptized babies) who die without being purged of "original sin" necessarily go straight to hell, they find themselves entirely out of harmony with the Book of Mormon.

Incidentally, in your zeal to school me about Protestant teaching, you seem to have made an error yourself. "Total depravity" is a Calvinist doctrine, not an Arminian one.

And when Calvinists tell me that they are totally depraved, I see no reason to argue with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

You are getting ahead of yourself.

Before you can start discussing why a certain state of affairs exists, you must first demonstrate that it does exist. This, you have not done.

It has not been established that "the Book of Mormon teaches Protestant ideas." All that has been shown is that there are areas of overlap between some Protestant ideas and some Book of Mormon teachings Upon closer examination, we discover that the overlap is greatest where the Protestant idea most closely follows the Bible.

Let us take, for example, your favourite chestnut about "original sin." Inasmuch as the Protestant idea follows biblical teachings about the "natural man" (Paul goes into some detail on that subject) then naturally it resembles the Book of Mormon teachings on the same subject (which are and always have been fully orthodox LDS doctrine, just so you know.) However, when certain essential corollaries of the Protestant/Catholic doctrine of "original sin" come into view, such as the notion of inerited guilt, or that people (including unbaptized babies) who die without being purged of "original sin" necessarily go straight to hell, they find themselves entirely out of harmony with the Book of Mormon.

Incidentally, in your zeal to school me about Protestant teaching, you seem to have made an error yourself. "Total depravity" is a Calvinist doctrine, not an Arminian one.

And when Calvinists tell me that they are totally depraved, I see no reason to argue with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not just Calvinists. Arminius and Wesley taught total depravity too.

Where I come from, we have a saying that if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If the Book of Mormon teaches original sin, total depravity, and salvation by grace, then it is Protestant even if it is a total coincidence that passages of the Book of Mormon read like an anti-Catholic, Methodist tract.

That the Book of Mormon teaches that unbaptized babies are saved by the grace of Christ even without baptism is yet another reason why the book almost reads, in some parts, like a Protestant tract (in this case, most like the Disciples of Christ or Baptists). Condemnation of infant baptism far predates Joseph Smith. But not even Catholics, nowadays, believe that unbaptized babies go straight to hell.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Pahoran]

Not just Calvinists. Arminius and Wesley taught total depravity too.

Where I come from, we have a saying that if it walks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If the Book of Mormon teaches original sin,

Which it does not. It teaches some things which are consistent with the Bible and which form part of the idea of "original sin," while ignoring or rejecting other parts of that doctrine. Where in the Book of Mormon, for example, can you find the Augustinian notion that "original sin" is passed down via "concupiscence," and that all human beings inherit Adam's guilt?

total depravity,

Which it does not.

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

Note that the Book of Mormon teaches that, despite our fallen natures, men and women are at all times "free to act for themselves." Furthermore, it teaches that this state obtains precisely because of the Fall. This directly contradicts the notion that the Fall is what makes people "utterly unable to choose to follow God."

and salvation by grace,

And yet the Book of Mormon teachings on the relationship between grace, faith and works have been the very passages that have most consistently reduced Protestant commentators to a state of near-apoplectic rage. Why is that?

then it is Protestant even if it is a total coincidence that passages of the Book of Mormon read like an anti-Catholic, Methodist tract.

He sneered, sarcastically.

Fortunately, however you might choose to "read" it, no part of the Book of Mormon would serve very well as "an anti-Catholic, Methodist tract."

That the Book of Mormon teaches that unbaptized babies are saved by the grace of Christ even without baptism is yet another reason why the book almost reads, in some parts, like a Methodist tract.

Yes, the Methodists escaped from the trap by declaring that baptism was not essential for salvation. The Book of Mormon maintains that baptism is both essential and efficacious; not very Methodist of it, is it?

Condemnation of infant baptism far predates Joseph Smith.

Indeed. It goes all the way back to Mormon, in the 4th century.

But not even Catholics, nowadays, believe that unbaptized babies go straight to hell.

This is true. And a little amusing, when Catholic anti-Mormons jump on the "Mormonism keeps changing" bandwagon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

The Book of Mormon is mostly Arminian because Joseph Smith said he had an affinity toward Methodism.

That would only make sense if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Which he didn't. He translated it.

[Mike Reed]

Well, I suppose you could see it that way. The difference is that my hypothesis requires no manipulative intent, but falls more within what has traditionally been seen as the function of art.

What do you know about the history of art in LDS magazines? Have you read the MA thesis on this topic?

In a way, Mike and I are both doing the same thing: he looks at the cover and sees something that resonates with his interest in crosses as a religious symbol

No I am not. I am also judging the art by what is published in the magazine, and do so with an understanding of the history of art in LDS magazines..

I look at it and see something that resonates with my experience as a New Zealander who lived two decades in Australia, both of which countries feature the Southern Cross prominently on their national flags.

Neither Australia nor New Zealand are a theme in February's magazine.

The Southern Cross is one of the circumpolar constellations, so it can only be seen in the Southern hemisphere.

Keep going with that. Now in what way is this relevant to the magazine? I only found one place where "south" is relevant, and that is a brief "did you know" entry about Monarch Butterflies flying from Canada to Mexico during the Winter for warmer weather. Tie this to the rest of the magazine's message, particularly with the first presidency message, and we get a more detailed understanding.

In that regard, I think his interest in crosses comes close to being an obsession.

The only obsession that I see here is in your protest. The possibility that the Church might somehow learn from the work of skeptics (ark steadiers, as you call them) sickens you, which is why you so you rant and tirade about (even in threads that are quite cordial). You protesteth too much, Pahoran. If you don't want the Church to learn from skeptics, then maybe you should beat them to it by making your own contributions to Mormon Studies. The topic of Mormons and the Cross has been a controversy how long now, and what have you produced? I've filled a void, and now you bite the hand feeds you.

Consider the following notes I gathered while reading the magazine:

The Magazine’s opening first presidency message is about using the “Book of Mormon” as “our sure

path on the way to God

,” and quotes 2 Nephi 31:20: “Wherefore, ye must press forward with a

steadfastness in Christ

, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward,

feasting upon the words of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life

.” (p. 2) The story following this article is about the distractions of technology, and a boy who learns to make good choices through prayer, reading the scriptures, and being

guided

by the Spirit. “When Jeffrey knelt to pray that evening, he knew he had made good choices. The

Holy Ghost guided

his thoughts and feelings. Heavenly Father was helping him. Jeffrey closed his eyes, knowing that the next day would bring many of the same situations, but also knowing that as long as he continued to read his scriptures and pray for help, he could be ready to make good choices.” (9) The next article is titled “Unplugged,” and again has to do with the potential

distractions that might cause us to lose sight of the path

God wishes us to walk. The images include a small photo a family with a computer, but the main artwork above is of a boy, girl, and dog (family setting?) fishing

outdoors

. The articles starts, “With so many fun technologies at our fingertips, it is easy to spend too much time with them and not enough time doing important activities like reading, playing outside, or spending time with family and friends.” The next entry in the magazine gives a puzzle for the reader to figure out and “find three important things you can do to build a testimony.” The answer (spoiler alert!) is “Search, Ponder, and Pray.” The next publishes two testimonies that have to do with setting a good example and sharing the gospel with others.

Neither kid was from New Zealand

, by the way. One was from California and the other from Idaho. The next is about Journal writing, and a girl from Nebraska mentions baptism, and

thinking about what “Jesus does for us

and how we should do more for him. So every time I write in my journal I pray before and after to thank Heavenly Father.” The next article is about Lehi’s

vision of Jesus

, saw “12 others brighter than the

stars

,” the “

tree of life,” Jesus’ crucifixion

, and the “

promised land"

. After several years, Lehi’s family was led by the Lord

across the ocean to that new land

.” (15) The next has to do with a boy’s search of his lost dog, and after prayer the Lord answering his prayer. The dog (“taken care” of by “Heavenly Father”) returns home. (17). The next is about a girl from Kenya, who “loves learning about Jesus Christ.” The next is about a boy who wears a CTR ring, but learns that life is

not always as simple as “Choosing the Right.”

Sometimes we are in positions where we need to figure out how we can “Choose the Best,” and it is through the Holy Spirit (not flipping a coin, or looking at a CTR ring) that best helps us do that. The article ends with a quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “We have to forgo some good things in order to choose others that are better or best because they develop faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and strengthen our families.” (21) The next entry is an activity intended to encourage children to eat vegetables by making a snack in the shape of a

butterfly

. There is then a “fun fact” about Monarch butteries flying “from Canada and the United States to Mexico every year to

find warmer weather during the winter

.” (23) The next activity asks kids to

“follow the lines

” where they will be able to figure out the answer. The answer is (spoiler alert!) “ask and ye shall receive.” The next page lists members from various wards in Utah, Missouri, Idaho, and Colorado—none from New Zealand. The next story teaches that through serving others with “love” we serve God, and ends with a quote from Elder Amado, “[service] teaches us to love and understand our fellowmen…. It teaches us to think of the needs of others.” The next page publishes remarks from children giving valentine “candy,” keeping the sabbath day holy, helping friends in need, and being like Jesus has taught us to be. The next is the children’s hymn “Nephi’s Courage,” followed by entry about learning how to pray correctly, and then a picture story about King Benjamin teaching the Nephites about Jesus and the importance of following him and keeping the commandments. The next is about a girl giving a primary talk on valentine’s day about makes our hearts happy, list several examples and ends with “My heart is happy because

Jesus Christ is my Savior. I know that he loves me

.” (37) The next page includes poems and artwork. Two poems have to do with nature, one is about missionary work (“telling of baby

Jesus and Mary”

). Another poem is a about girl’s thoughts during the sacrament. “I try to think of how Jesus died,” he says, and then proceeds to describe Jesus

wearing a “crown of thorns,” with “sore” hands “pierced” and “bleeding,” and Jesus dying for us “That we might live again

.” The next story is about Choosing The Right, followed by a comic about a boy who got a math problem wrong after praying for help. The lesson learned was that he didn’t study, but only prayed. The next story starts with the statement

“I love Nature

” and is about a girl who

wanders

away while collecting seashells, and gets trapped by a rising tide. After praying her father’s friend “pulls her to safety.” Lesson learned was to stay close to her family, just as she is to stay close to “Heavenly Father.” The next story is about a young boy who missed his buss and was

walking home in the dark

, praying for help. A woman was prompted by the spirit to help “the boy return home.” The story ends saying, “We can all pray when we need help…. You too can receive promptings

through the Spirit that will help guide you safely home to Heavenly Father

.” (46) Finally, kids gives tips on what they can “do to stop fighting.“ (47)

It is probably safe to assume that the cover art was intended to draw together a collective theme in the entire magazine. I therefore imagine the magazine's theme to be something like this:

We are on a journey (in darkness),

walking a path that will ultimately lead to the promised land (warmer weather to escape the cold winter past).

We should not be distracted (by technology and the vain things of the world)

We should enjoy nature and the world that God has created,

and continue in obedience, together with our families,

while following the direction of the stars (apostles/who testify of Christ)

If we do this, we will partake of the "fruit" of he who makes our entrance into the promised land possible:

Jesus Christ, the creator of our beautiful earth that we have to enjoy, and who died for our sins

He is our savior.

His hands were pierced, bleeding, and "sore," as he hung on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns.

He opened the way for us, and showed us how to live.

We should "not to fight" fight with our brothers and sisters.

So what does the art then communicate? Perhaps it communicates that the father and daughter realize the direction their journey must take, in order to arrive at the promised land ("warmer weather"). This direction is found through, and is opened by, Jesus' teachings and loving sacrifice (his valentine's day gift to us). His teachings sacrifice bring peace on earth (hence the animals looking with them) and unites families. This sacrifice is perceived/portrayed in the star constilation to which they look: The Southern Cross.

This interpretation fits well with the First Presidency message that the magazine opens with.

This would be a beautiful message, if accurate. Far better than a message about New Zealand's flag, if you ask me.... but that's just me, I guess. Who knows... there are probably things I've missed between the lines that you can see. You've surprised me more than once, finding things between the lines that I never knew existed-- in my own posts even.

Read the magazine, Pahoran. If you do, not only will you be in a position to better interpretation the cover, but you may also learn a message that we can all better internalize and practice: A message of peace and love. A message that teaches us that to love and serve our fellowmen is to also love and serve our God.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

All I'm saying is that eternal progression is an extension of Arminian sanctification doctrines such as Christian perfection. There is an established tradition within mainstream Christianity in which humans can become like God, or even in a sense gods. Where eternal progression departs from traditional Christianity is in the Mormon belief (widespread and important to Mormonism, but nowhere found within the Mormon canon or modern LDS publications) that God was once a man.

Well if you want to call anything an "extension" you can since that term is so ambiguous. If you want to you can just say it's an "extension" of the Catholic idea of sainthood and theosis. But it's hardly the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

Lehi, I wish to apologise to you. When Cobalt first appeared on this forum, you warned us that he was not being straight up with us. I thought you were being unfair to him. It is clear that your judgement has been fully vindicated.

You, Cobalt, are entitled to your opinion. Believing Latter-day Saints would say that the overlaps between Arminian Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist for the same reason as overlaps between other forms of Christianity and the Book of Mormon exist, namely because there is no form of Christianity that gets absolutely everything wrong. They all get some things right, and wherever they do, they will agree with the Book of Mormon.

The notion that the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith's own ideas and beliefs is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. No believing Latter-day Saint takes it seriously for a picosecond.

But as I said: you are entitled to your opinion.

Regards,

Pahoran

Definitely something funky going on here

[De Groote]

Mike Reed's presentation on the cross was very interesting and I enjoyed writing the article about it.

Here is another cross story: When I was on my mission in Belgium, the head of a local Catholic convent joined the LDS Church. She was right near her retirement and lost her pension and everything as I recall. She wore a cross to church and nobody ever bothered her about it.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed's presentation on the cross was very interesting and I enjoyed writing the article about it.

You did a fine job.

Here is another cross story: When I was on my mission in Belgium, the head of a local Catholic convent joined the LDS Church. She was right near her retirement and lost her pension and everything as I recall. She wore a cross to church and nobody ever bothered her about it.

Wow. It's a good thing they didn't. Poor lady endured enough hardship for her conversion. I suppose you served your mission several years ago. When is the last time you talked to her about it?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Cobalt-70]

Which it does not. It teaches some things which are consistent with the Bible and which form part of the idea of "original sin," while ignoring or rejecting other parts of that doctrine. Where in the Book of Mormon, for example, can you find the Augustinian notion that "original sin" is passed down via "concupiscence," and that all human beings inherit Adam's guilt?

As I mentioned in the prior post, the Book of Mormon teaches a stronger version of original sin than Augustine's view of concupiscence, which is also reflected in the Catholic Catechism. This concupiscence is the "inclination towards sin" that Catholics believe is the result of the Fall. To most Protestants, I think that the term "concupiscence" is basically synonymous with the terms "carnal and sensual" as found in the Book of Mormon.

Note that the Book of Mormon teaches that, despite our fallen natures, men and women are at all times "free to act for themselves." Furthermore, it teaches that this state obtains precisely because of the Fall. This directly contradicts the notion that the Fall is what makes people "utterly unable to choose to follow God."

To the contrary, 2 Nephi 2:26 states that freedom of people to act for themselves is because of the (prevenient) grace of Jesus. Had there been no fall, humans would not be "free to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." This is classic Methodism. Certainly, Adam and Eve were free to act for themselves, but when they fell, they lost that freedom, and would have forever been consigned to a state of being "acted upon," but for the Atonement of Jesus.

[Cobalt-70]

Well if you want to call anything an "extension" you can since that term is so ambiguous. If you want to you can just say it's an "extension" of the Catholic idea of sainthood and theosis. But it's hardly the same thing.

It is related to theosis, but Joseph Smith was likely never exposed to that ancient doctrine. Smith's version comes more directly through Wesleyan holiness doctrine.

[Mike Reed]

I've gotta get back to my studies, and probably won't be back for a few weeks (if I can discipline myself), maybe longer. Bye.

[altersteve]

It is related to theosis, but Joseph Smith was likely never exposed to that ancient doctrine. Smith's version comes more directly through Wesleyan holiness doctrine.

No, Smith's version comes directly through revelation from God.

Edited February 3, 2012 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

No, Smith's version comes directly through revelation from God.

I don't disagree with you. But when has revelation ever come in a vacuum?

[mfbukowski]

Mike Reed's presentation on the cross was very interesting and I enjoyed writing the article about it.

Here is another cross story: When I was on my mission in Belgium, the head of a local Catholic convent joined the LDS Church. She was right near her retirement and lost her pension and everything as I recall. She wore a cross to church and nobody ever bothered her about it.

As an ordinance worker, I worked with a former Catholic priest- and let me tell you, we had some great discussions about the sign of the cross and other similar practices and how they relate to the initiatory ordinances, especially how they were practiced until recently.

Many ordinance workers, since we can speak freely to each other in the temple about such things, have an entire "lore" about such matters- it's pretty fascinating stuff that never makes it into print or discussions outside the temple.

[mfbukowski]

I've gotta get back to my studies, and probably won't be back for a few weeks (if I can discipline myself), maybe longer. Bye.

Thanks for stopping in, Mike!

[Cobalt-70]

If the anti-cross rationale is that we don't like to use symbols of Jesus that focus on his death, then I have to ask: what about the Sacrament? What about symbols used in the temple ceremony to reference Jesus' death by crucifixion?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't know if you intended for the OP topic to head in this direction, but why shouldn't Mormons be happy to use the cross as a symbol?

I would have no problem with using the cross, we have done so before and our new Temple in Italy does.

[Storm Rider]

If the anti-cross rationale is that we don't like to use symbols of Jesus that focus on his death, then I have to ask: what about the Sacrament? What about symbols used in the temple ceremony to reference Jesus' death by crucifixion?

Easy and you won't have to be a rock scientist, we don't wear the Sacrament around where all can see that we partook of it for the past 15 Sundays. Same thing with temple garments; they are not worn where all can see the symbols or anything else. Make sense?

I don't like to have anything on me that identifies my as a disciple of Christ. If my actions between me and my neighbor are such that they cannot tell that I am a follower of Jesus then wearning a cross around my neck, a fish on my back bumper, or any other symbol for the world to see will make anything I do better. I reject all exterior symbols and pray that my actions speak louder than my words or symbols.

[Cobalt-70]

Easy and you won't have to be a rock scientist, we don't wear the Sacrament around where all can see that we partook of it for the past 15 Sundays. Same thing with temple garments; they are not worn where all can see the symbols or anything else. Make sense?

I don't like to have anything on me that identifies my as a disciple of Christ. If my actions between me and my neighbor are such that they cannot tell that I am a follower of Jesus then wearning a cross around my neck, a fish on my back bumper, or any other symbol for the world to see will make anything I do better. I reject all exterior symbols and pray that my actions speak louder than my words or symbols.

How do you tell the difference, based on actions alone, between a good Christian and a good Buddhist or a good Jew? Your attempt to show the world that you believe in Christ by your actions alone could inadvertently have the result of showing them that you are Buddha-like. That's why Mormons put pictures of temples in their living rooms, and why missionaries look the same and wear name tags.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Peppermint Patty]

I don't mind if someone wants to wear a modest cross necklace. Now this, I have a problem with: