Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[Calm]

They (beginning with Joseph Smith) crossed our line first

 

Well, that justifies everything, doesn't it?

[3DOP]

I watched the video, TheSkepticChristian. Funny!

There are anti-Mormon Donall and Conall videos on YouTube, too. But it would be rude to post a link, since I am a guest here.

As far as 1= 3, that would indeed be illogical. But it is not what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, which is 1 in 3. I do agree that there can be no good analogy, for nothing God has created has one being in three persons. I suppose that God would be unique, more complex and unlike anything he created, if the doctrine is true.

Spockrates, hi. Not more complex...simple. Meaning...not made of components...one. If that is helpful, fine. If not, forget it. Simplicity does not in this instance at least, imply comprehensible. The simplicity of God, if the doctrine is true (your words), would be deeper than anything complex. But stick to "unique...unlike anything he created" if what I said about complexity isn't helpful.

 

Anyway...I so much appreciate your academic effort to understand what you don't believe. It is a very rare quality and I thank you for trying. It shows a hearty faith when the believer doesn't need to mock that with which they disagree.

 

God bless and guide you.

 

3DOP

Edited June 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Spockrates, hi. Not more complex...simple. Meaning...not made of components...one. If that is helpful, fine. If not, forget it. Simplicity does not in this instance at least, imply comprehensible. The simplicity of God, if the doctrine is true (your words), would be deeper than anything complex. But stick to "unique...unlike anything he created" if what I said about complexity isn't helpful.

 

Anyway...I so much appreciate your academic effort to understand what you don't believe. It is a very rare quality and I thank you for trying. It shows a hearty faith when the believer doesn't need to mock that with which they disagree.

 

God bless and guide you.

 

3DOP

It's pretty clear to me that spockrates is a Catholic or perhaps an Episcopalian.  Hope all is well with you!

[Bobbieaware]

Stephen, your explanation in the opening post is not consistent with how Jesus identifies with Human beings in order to suffer death for us, not the angels. Angels have already been judged with no chance of changing their future state (that is those of Matthew 25:41):

 

 

 

 

Jesus wasn't elevated to Godhood, He was already God before the incarnation. We become like Jesus in the resurrection of our body (glorified not deified), not His Deity.

If, according to your understanding, God is incapable of sharing his divine nature with men, what do you believe Peter meant when he said the following?

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

[mfbukowski]

If, according to your understanding, God is incapable of sharing his divine nature with men, ......

An interesting point that would make him no longer omnipotent.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The one God is believed to have three persons to his one being--three minds, so to speak 

 

What do you mean by "three minds"? Do you mean a being with multiple personalities? That is modalism. 

Do you mean a being with three minds? 

 

 

The trinity teaches that "three persons existing simultaneously... As Athanasius coined the phrase "not dividing the substance nor confusing the persons."" - letusreason.org

 

 

We each have one person to our being--one mind, so to speak. The one God is believed to have three persons to his one being--three minds, so to speak. I believe that is correct

 

That is the logical contradiction. A being cannot be in three persons because one person is one being 1 = 1, not 1 = 3 or 3 = 1

 

 

You are correct that if Trinitarians believed God was one being in three beings, then they would illogically believe 3 = 1, and I would have to reject their irrational beliefs. But this is not what they believe. They believe God is one being in three persons, and each of the persons are not separate beings. One being has three persons. This is not the same as saying one being is three persons. You see?

 

Logic tells me that a person is a being 1 = 1 

Trinity teaches "God in three persons" 1 = 3 

 

I still don't see the difference between "God is three person" and "God in three persons" 

What does all of that even mean? 

 

 

There is no Biblical evidence for it?

 

According to serious Bible scholars the Doctrine of the Trinity is not explained in the Bible. 

 

 

and there is no mathematical, scientific, or philosophical evidence for the Trinity. There is no evidence that shows the Trinity is even possible.

 

 

But I don't yet see what this has to do with our discussion. Please explain

 

Never mind, but it is clear that the Trinity God does not think because he is spaceless and timeless. Trinitarians believe God created time and all dimensions, so that means the Trinity God exist outside space and time. Time is required to think. 

 

The doctrine of the Trinity has many logical contradictions. 

 

Edited June 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Sp0ckrates]

It's pretty clear to me that spockrates is a Catholic or perhaps an Episcopalian. Hope all is well with you!

I'm neither, though I have asked a lot of questions at a Catholic forum. As I said, I'm carefully considering each Christian religion to see which one teaches the full truth.

It's logical to carefully consider the concept of the Trinity. if it can be shown to be incorrect, then I will have saved time in my search for the truth. For I will be able to focus only on those Christian religions that do not believe in it.

Makes sense?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Spockrates, hi. Not more complex...simple. Meaning...not made of components...one. If that is helpful, fine. If not, forget it. Simplicity does not in this instance at least, imply comprehensible. The simplicity of God, if the doctrine is true (your words), would be deeper than anything complex. But stick to "unique...unlike anything he created" if what I said about complexity isn't helpful.

Anyway...I so much appreciate your academic effort to understand what you don't believe. It is a very rare quality and I thank you for trying. It shows a hearty faith when the believer doesn't need to mock that with which they disagree.

God bless and guide you.

3DOP

3DOP: I don't understand what you are saying, but I'm intrigued and so I want to. Let me know if you have time for me to ask you about it.

I appreciate your kind words about my effort to understand what and (more importantly) why Mormons like yourself believe. For the most part, I have always been impressed with the way most Mormons treat me.

But the fact that I don't yet believe doesn't mean I never will believe. I'll go wherever the truth leads me. Your blessing is much appreciated.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Flyonthewall]

3DOP: I don't understand what you are saying, but I'm intrigued and so I want to. Let me know if you have time for me to ask you about it.

I appreciate your kind words about my effort to understand what and (more importantly) why Mormons like yourself believe. For the most part, I have always been impressed with the way most Mormons treat me.

But the fact that I don't yet believe doesn't mean I never will believe. I'll go wherever the truth leads me. Your blessing is much appreciated.

3DOP is a highly respected Catholic poster on this forum so he would be a good source to ask Trinitarian quesitons to.

[Sp0ckrates]

What do you mean by "three minds"? Do you mean a being with multiple personalities? That is modalism.

Do you mean a being with three minds?

Yes, unless I'm mistaken, the doctrine teaches one being with three minds. But this is different from Modalism, I believe. Modalism is the belief that God has three modes--he is one being with one mind. Sometimes he is the Father. Sometimes he is the Son. Sometimes he is the Holy Ghost. Rather than the Godzilla's nemesis Ghidorah, a more apt illustration would be The Changeling from the X-Men movies or comic books. She could make herself look and sound like anyone she desired to change into.

Of course, Trinitarians believe differently than Modalists do. I think they and Mormons have good reason to reject Modalism. For the Bible has instances where the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all present at the same moment in time. If you discuss this with any Modalists, consider asking them how it is possible the three are all present at Jesus' baptism:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

(Matthew 3)

The trinity teaches that "three persons existing simultaneously... As Athanasius coined the phrase "not dividing the substance nor confusing the persons."" - letusreason.org

Yes, and as just explained, the doctrine also rejects Modalism. So I think this addresses your objection sufficiently. But please let me know if it doesn't.

That is the logical contradiction. A being cannot be in three persons because one person is one being 1 = 1, not 1 = 3 or 3 = 1

In my limited understanding of what the Bible and Book of Mormon teaches, God is pretty good at doing and being what is impossible for me to do and be. It's not illogical to believe something impossible for you and me is not impossible for God, I think. Does the Bible or Book of Mormon say something different to you?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

(Matthew 19:26)

Logic tells me that a person is a being 1 = 1

Trinity teaches "God in three persons" 1 = 3

I still don't see the difference between "God is three person" and "God in three persons"

What does all of that even mean?

There is a difference between logic and facts. A beginning student of logic is taught that an argument (i.e., a collection of premises that attempt to support a conclusion) can have no logical errors (LE), yet still not support it's conclusion, because it has factual errors (FE). It can be logical but not factual. An argument can also have LE, but no FE, and so it also fails to support its conclusion. It can be factual but not logical.

So let's please consider your argument to see if it is both factual and logical:

Premises:

1. A person is a being

2. The Trinity doctrine teaches "God in three persons"

3. There is no difference between "God in three persons" and "God is three persons"

4. Since a person is a being, The Trinity doctrine teaches God is one being in three beings, or 1 = 3.

5. It is an illogical contradiction to believe God is one being and not one being

Conclusion:

Therefore, The Trinity is illogical.

Please tell me if this is a correct depiction of your logical argument.

According to serious Bible scholars the Doctrine of the Trinity is not explained in the Bible.

I believe it is taught in the Bible but not fully explained, yes. But I've been wrong, before. Would you like to explain how it is not taught in the Bible?

and there is no mathematical, scientific, or philosophical evidence for the Trinity. There is no evidence that shows the Trinity is even possible.

As a Mormon, is there anything in the Book of Mormon that you believe, which has no other evidence to support it besides what the book says?

Never mind, but it is clear that the Trinity God does not think because he is spaceless and timeless. Trinitarians believe God created time and all dimensions, so that means the Trinity God exist outside space and time. Time is required to think.

The doctrine of the Trinity has many logical contradictions.

Well, I'm not yet convinced eternity is an absence of time rather than an enhanced type of time. Also I'm sure the celebrated atheist Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in the Mormon gods either. But I don't think that makes him right.

It seems to me he is a good scientist, and so an expert on what we see in the universe. God is unseen, so the atheist is out of his area of expertise. Hawking is an expert in Physics, not Metaphysics. So we really shouldn't trust his opinion that there is no God nor gods of any kind, I think.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

Flyonthewall: Thanks for the info. Yes, I've found Catholics to also be tolerant of my skepticism and kind enough to answer some of my questions.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Sp0ckrates]

TheSkepticChristian:

If you only have time to answer one of my questions, please let me know if this is an accurate depiction of your reason why you believe the doctrine is untrue:

Premises:

1. A person is a being

2. The Trinity doctrine teaches "God in three persons"

3. There is no difference between "God in three persons" and "God is three persons"

4. Since a person is a being, The Trinity doctrine teaches God is one being in three beings, or 1 = 3.

5. It is an illogical contradiction to believe God is one being and not one being

Conclusion:

Therefore, The Trinity is illogical.

I want to see if your reason is a good reason why I should reject it, too.

[mfbukowski]

Logic is nice but but unfortunately the meanings of words are not consistent from one context to another and not even from one person to the other. Logic only really works in math, with consistent definitions.

How does one define "being"? Am I "being" understood? Is a unicorn a being? Is a dog the same kind of being as a man?

What does any of this matter? And what is pure "being" in itself?

What color is courage? How high is up? What is north of the north pole?

[mfbukowski]

Three persons can have God in them without making three Gods.

Kind of like soup. Three persons can have soup in them without being soup or making three soups

[Anakin7]

    "Being" in theological terminology means - essence,nature,substance = what makes something what it is.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

[TheSkepticChristian]

    "Being" in theological terminology means - essence,nature,substance = what makes something what it is.

 

What does all of that even mean? Can a person be essence, nature, and substance too? 

 

 

Yes, unless I'm mistaken, the doctrine teaches one being with three minds. But this is different from Modalism, 

 

I understand, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to tell you. 

 

 

God is pretty good at doing and being what is impossible for me to do and be. It's not illogical to believe something impossible for you and me is not impossible for God,

 

So you believe in the Trinity because of faith, not because you understand it. If you won't understand the Trinity, how do know that it is not a logical contradiction? So the Trinity is not a logical contradiction because the Bible says so?  

 

 

I believe it is taught in the Bible but not fully explained

 

Why did God not fully explain one of the most important doctrines of Christianity? The Bible does not say "God in three persons" or "essence,nature,substance" what ever that means. 

 

 

Please tell me if this is a correct depiction of your logical argument.

 

Premises

1. A person is a being

2. Three persons are three beings

 

Conclusion Therefore "A being in three persons" is a logical contradiction.

 

How can a being be in three persons? It sounds like mfbukowski is saying. 

 

Three persons can have God in them without making three Gods.

Kind of like soup. Three persons can have soup in them without being soup or making three soups

 

and that is what I am thinking, their definition is simply not clear. 

 "God in three persons" is not well defined. Here is a better definition as I understand it. 

 

Trinity - God is three persons, but at the same time one person (or being)

 

 that is why it is a logical contradiction.  

 

Well, I'm not yet convinced eternity is an absence of time rather than an enhanced type of time. 

 

So you believe that God is co-eternal with some type of time? Don't you believe that God created everything? 

Edited June 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

That is the logical contradiction. A being cannot be in three persons because one person is one being 1 = 1, not 1 = 3 or 3 = 1

 

 

 

 

I seem to remember some time ago, in another incarnation, you posted something about not always being able to trust logic.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I seem to remember some time ago, in another incarnation, you posted something about not always being able to trust logic.

 

Nice straw man 

 

I am talking about Mathematical logic, not your common sense. 

 

Macro-Evolution doesn't make sense to you, so that means it must be false.  

 

Creation by catastrophism doesn't make sense to me, so it must be false. 

 

another difference is that there is no shred of evidence for the Trinity, but there is powerful evidence that proves Macro-Evolution. 

Edited June 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[mfbukowski]

    "Being" in theological terminology means - essence,nature,substance = what makes something what it is.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

Yah I know.

 

But those are also meaningless.  Define each one of them and all the definitions use those same words.  What is man's "nature"?  To be a man.  What is God's "nature"? to be God.

 

What is a dog's nature? to be a dog.

 

In each of those you can substitute "substance" or "being" or "essence" and it all has the same meaning- nothing.   A dog is a dog, a man is a man.  Yawn.

 

No information is conveyed by any of those statements.

 

It is what it is. 

[mfbukowski]

What does all of that even mean? Can a person be essence, nature, and substance too? 

 

 

 

I understand, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to tell you. 

 

 

 

So you believe in the Trinity because of faith, not because you understand it. If you won't understand the Trinity, how do know that it is not a logical contradiction? So the Trinity is not a logical contradiction because the Bible says so?  

 

 

 

Why did God not fully explain one of the most important doctrines of Christianity? The Bible does not say "God in three persons" or "essence,nature,substance" what ever that means. 

 

 

 

Premises

1. A person is a being

2. Three persons are three beings

 

Conclusion Therefore "A being in three persons" is a logical contradiction.

 

How can a being be in three persons? It sounds like mfbukowski is saying. 

 

 

and that is what I am thinking, their definition is simply not clear. 

 "God in three persons" is not well defined. Here is a better definition as I understand it. 

 

Trinity - God is three persons, but at the same time one person (or being)

 

 that is why it is a logical contradiction.  

 

 

So you believe that God is co-eternal with some type of time? Don't you believe that God created everything? 

God can only "explain" what makes sense in the first place.

 

That's why you don't find any of those words in the Bible.  Of course then you still have the question of who wrote the Bible in the first place.

 

Nobody says that pens floated guided by the hand of God.  Nobody says the words just appeared on the pages.   We have human beings to thank for the bible.  Perhaps inspired human beings- which is arguable.  Yes I personally believe they were "inspired" but still human beings.

 

It cannot be otherwise.   If it is in human language, it is ambiguous.  Even if God wrote every word, using human language, it is still ambiguous.  There is no escape. 

 

Is God incapable of writing a sentence that everyone understand clearly, without 4 thousand years of debate on what it means, between the Old and New Testaments and all the Jewish arguments about the meanings?

 

I guess the only conclusion is that almighty God is not capable of writing a clear sentence, OR it was written by fallible humans.

 

Take your pick!

[3DOP]

3DOP: I don't understand what you are saying, but I'm intrigued and so I want to. Let me know if you have time for me to ask you about it.

I appreciate your kind words about my effort to understand what and (more importantly) why Mormons like yourself believe. For the most part, I have always been impressed with the way most Mormons treat me.

But the fact that I don't yet believe doesn't mean I never will believe. I'll go wherever the truth leads me. Your blessing is much appreciated.

 

Hey Spockrates...

 

Weekdays are a little difficult...I'd enjoy discusssing though. That is why I am here! I'll get up an explanation of what I mean eventually. Thanks for your interest.

 

3DOP

[Calm]

If true, deification is one of the best selling points is Mormonism--though it still takes a back seat to exaltation. 

Deification is exaltation for us...or the reverse, however you want to say it.

 

You can see that LDS define it as the same thing by the Gospel Topic "Deification" linking to the same page as the "Exaltation" one, which is actually under "B" for "Becoming Like God".

[3DOP]

Spockrates...

 

The mockers keep banging on us because we supposedly think one equals three. No. We believe that there is a sense in which God is One while at the same time there is also a sense in which God is Three. If you conflate the senses, of course you have confusion.

 

Have you never heard of Muslims also banging on us because we are tritheistic? They DO have a point because there is no sense in which they believe God is Three. They win the gold ribbon if the goal is to prove that you are the most rigorous monotheist imaginable. I fully admit that I am not the most rigorous monotheist around. It so happens that Catholics think revelation has indicated a plurality as well as singularity in God.

 

Unlike Muslims, Christians have to reconcile oneness with the Son and the Holy Ghost as God. That is why Mormon Christians are also committed to the idea that there is a sense in which God is one and senses in which God is three. One in purpose? Is that adequate? They are not necessarily unified on it, having no creedal authority, but many of them think so. It isn't an unreasonable point of view given their sources of revelation. Catholics, having different sources of authoritative revelation than they, have faith that it goes deeper than that. Unfortunately, the silliness about how Catholics supposedly think one equals three will never go away, because there are always those who would prefer to mock rather than understand. Nevertheless, Mormons are virtually in the same boat when it comes to reconciling their own revelation which sometimes speaks of oneness and sometimes multiplicity.

 

That was easy. Simplicity...not so much. Gimme a day or two on that as I said.

 

Thanks,

 

Rory

Edited June 18, 2015 by 3DOP

[stephenpurdy]

 

In my limited understanding of what the Bible and Book of Mormon teaches, God is pretty good at doing and being what is impossible for me to do and be. It's not illogical to believe something impossible for you and me is not impossible for God, I think. Does the Bible or Book of Mormon say something different to you?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

(Matthew 19:26)

 

 

 

Sorry, I have to give my two cents concerning CONTEXT.  Here is the the context of that verse you just gave:

 

²³ Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

²⁵ When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

²⁶ Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

²⁷ Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

²⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

That verse is not teaching that God can do things that are contradictory or illogical. 

 

Can God lie?  Can God sin and still be God?

 

The context is teaching that while it seems impossible for sinners to be saved, ... it IS possible for those who follow Jesus Christ to be saved. 

 

Also, concerning that word that is translated to "all things".  It is not as comprehensive as a literalist would like it to mean.  For example, when the text says that "all of Jerusalem" went to hear the preaching, it isn't true that every single person in Jerusalem went; much less the animals, rocks , buildings etc which make up Jerusalem.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Spockrates...

 

The mockers keep banging on us because we supposedly think one equals three. No. We believe that there is a sense in which God is One while at the same time there is also a sense in which God is Three. If you conflate the senses, of course you have confusion.

 

....Mormon Christians are also committed to the idea that there is a sense in which God is one and senses in which God is three. One in purpose? Is that adequate? They are not necessarily unified on it, having no creedal authority, but many of them think so.....

 

I think we as Mormons have strong ground to stand on.  For starters, the term "monotheism" isn't even Biblical either, so who cares who wins that gold ribbon.

 

Let me reiterate this point, with the verses that support the LDS view of Biblical/Scriptural "Oneness":

 

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same being/person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.  There are more...

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

 

The most significant one, however, was previously mentioned.  Much of John chapter 17 describes this "oneness":

 

John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

 

The reason why this is significant, is because Trinitarians want to claim that the "oneness" that the Father and Son has is this "oneness of substance and being".  However, here Christ says that we are to be "one" with God in the same sense that Jesus is "one" with the Father. 

 

So, if you ask a Mormon, "in what sense is Jesus Christ 'one' with God the Father?"

 

Answer:  In the same sense that multiple persons are called to be "one" EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE TEXT, which is not a literal metaphysical oneness of being.

 

I am always amazed anytime someone makes the claim that LDS views on this are "unBiblical".  Um , no.  It is the most Biblical view on this, if anyone cares about textual consistency that is.

 

Sp0ckrates wrote: But the passage also doesn't say there isn't one God in three persons, and I don't recall any Trinitarian using it as proof of the doctrine.

 

Of course Trinitarians avoid the use of this passage ... it throws a huge wrench in the middle of the idea that God the Father and Jesus are supposedly literally a single Being ... along with all the other passages I mentioned above, but this is a bigger wrench. 

 

------------------------------

 

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.  (Colossians 2)

Sp0ckrates wrote: Notice that Paul says the Godhead dwells in Christ. So I'm confused when you say Christ dwells in the Godhead.

 

The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version.  Acts, Romans and this one.  The verses refer to "God" or “deity” or “divine nature”, however, different Greek words are used in each of these verses. 

In Acts 17,  the word translated to Godhead is theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity and no reference to a particular member of the Godhead.

In Romans 1,  Paul explains that nobody in humanity lives up to God's divine standard, and says that all should understand by creation that God exists. “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”. Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s point here is that the natural world reveals the divine nature of God.

Col 2:9  states,  “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés although translating it as "Deity" is probably a better fit, and many translations do translate this word that way.  The point is that Jesus embodies all (“the fulness”) of God.

 

So, let me turn a question back to the Trinitarians... if the nature of God/Deity includes literal omnipresence, or literally three persons in one substance/being ... then how can the fulness of Deity dwell in a single person with a local presence (ie, not omnipresent, not "Triune")?

 

-Stephen

Edited June 22, 2015 by stephenpurdy