Jump to content

Neutral Scholarship Re: Joseph Smith - Is it Even Possible?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, technically he was already enlightened and then he heard the voice of the God Brahma telling him to go teach his path ;) 

Yeah but that conceptually is redundant.

Before you climb the ladder you have to know it's there to climb.   So there we go.  Chicken/ egg time.  ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, are you pulling my leg??? If anyone knows about Prop 8 it's california boy. 

IF that is true, it still does not follow that he is from California.

Prop 8 was obviously incredibly important for gay people- justifiably!  It would not be uncommon for a gay person to know all about Prop 8 and NOT be from CA

Link to post

I participate in LDS discussion because I still have a history with the church and friends and family who are still in. I try to hold back harsh criticism in favor of civil and honest discussion. I have no desire to try to prove Mormonism "wrong" as I am content to acknowledge Mormonism is impossible for me to believe. I've heard people say that their "shelves" broke. I simply dissected my "shelf" (an absolutely ridiculous analogy), realized that said shelf was unnecessary and then began to find (what I believed to be) authentic truth in the historical Church rather than a church that was a product of the "Second Great Awakening".

Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, not at all.  Voting is simply a way for an individual person to speak out to tell others what that person approves of and does not approve of.  An individual's vote does not speak for other people unless those other people happen to agree with that individual.  So nobody is forcing anyone else to do anything, and each individual's vote should reflect what that person personally approves of or does not approve of.

The two-edged sword of personal agency.  Each person is free to think and feel whatever they think and feel even when that causes disagreements.

We're going to continue to share what we think and how we feel even when other people do not agree with us, if that's what you are wondering.

If that's what enough people are willing to stand up for, to say what they want, then I might be okay with putting all of that up to a vote. Any opposed will still be able to speak up and make their views known.

So basically you are saying that laws against any religious belief is up for a vote if there is enough support?  Wow.  I guess you have figured out a way to justify Prop 8 at the expense of the religious liberty.  

Link to post
4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I didn't write the Bible, but that is how marriage functions in the Bible (with and without polygamy).  People often don't like the polygamy part so they try to get around it by using arguments like you did to justify their ideas.

So is it your position that if you can find it in the Bible, then that justifies being able to participate in that act in modern day?  You seem to be ok with marriage functioning the same way as in the Bible.  How about divorce? Or punishing sins?  Or all the other crazy things that were practiced in the Bible.  

Link to post
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

IF that is true, it still does not follow that he is from California.

Prop 8 was obviously incredibly important for gay people- justifiably!  It would not be uncommon for a gay person to know all about Prop 8 and NOT be from CA

Well, did you ask him? I may have my facts wrong, I'm willing to admit.

Link to post
16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

You sound like you're doing precisely that here, implying that the people who "get it" are the ones who know God's voice. 

It's comments like these which imo undermine your pages of philosophising, making all that effort appear to be for naught.

Perhaps it would be better for me to post an example of the philosophy I follow so that you can understand it better.

This is a summary of Rorty's position on language and the representation of "reality" and why it is that from a religious point of view,  I am a mystic - which is primarily because I find that language itself cannot possibly be "objective" nor can the illusion of objectivity actually "represent reality".

Beliefs are tools to help us understand principles which are useful to us, and in my opinion the Church of Jesus Christ presents the best possible paradigm for belief in God- that we are "made in His image" which is itself a highly complex idea, but a highly significant way for us to see the world- it is a belief which I think could cure mankind if all could understand its basis better.

We have not done well in taking the gospel to secular folks because we do not generally speak their language.   If they understood the below, they would understand that their fixations with Joseph's foibles, historical anachronisms, translation issues and his personal life are irrelevant to the IMPORTANCE of his thought - which we believe to be inspired and "from God"

I firmly believe that if they understood texts in general as it is here suggested that we understand them, all in the world would be far closer to understanding all these alleged "problems" with Josephism and go beyond it all to a deep deep understanding of God.

In the past I have tried to water down these explanations, but now I will give it to you straight.

This is Kai Nielsen comment on Rorty.   This particular article appeared in "Dialog" which is an LDS oriented philosophical journal.   I suspect that Nielsen is an ex-mormon, but know almost nothing about his life.  What I do know is that he wrote the introduction to Riskas' "Deconstructing Mormonism", which I find ironic, but that is neither here nor there.

The transcription process was a bit raggedy and done electronically so I apologize  for typos etc- it would take hours to go through it and correct them all.

But it IS legible as it is, so I will post it.

Nielsen's page has a link to the article- it is titled "Taking Rorty Seriously" and was published I believe in 1999- at least I am sure it was in the "90's"

This may not be your cup of tea - uh- postum ;) but here it is.   https://www.kainielsen.org/articles.html

I take this as philosophical evidence that "objective thinking" is impossible, and incoherent.   I am not pulling this our of my rather unreliable brain.  ;)

https://www.kainielsen.org/articles.html


 

Quote

 

Taking Rorty seriously


Richard Rorty, in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), and even more so in his more recent writing, has stressed his adherence to an ti- Taking Rorty Seriously 505 representationalism , by which he means an account "which does not view knowledge as a matter of getting reality right, but rather as a matter of acquiring habits of action for coping with reality" (Rorty 199la, p. 1). Beliefs, on an anti-representationalist account, do not represent reality, but a re tools fo r dealing with reality. Rorty is frequently accused of being an a nti-realist, and, if we mean by "anti-realism" that no linguistic items represent any non-linguistic items, then Rorty is indeed an anti-realist, a nd D onald Davidson is as well. On such a construal, anti-realism and a nti-representationalism just come to the same thing. But that is not how " realism" and "anti-realism" have standardly been understood. Realism is usually taken to be the belief that a certain class of statements (say, scientific statements), but not all types of statement (say, value judgements), has a n objective truth-value- has obj ective truth-conditions-which o bta ins independently of our means of knowing them. Put otherwise, these statements a re true or fa lse of a reality that is utterly independent o f us. The anti-realist, by contrast, denies that the claimed type of statement has such a status. Pace the realist, these statements, anti-realists a rgue, can only be understood by reference to the thing that counts as evidence for them. They are denying that statements of such a type have the sort of the objective status claimed by the realist. What they are deny ing is that there these particular types of true statements- in our case, scientific statements- stand in representational relations to non-linguistic items, while admittin g that some other kinds of statement (say, matter-offac t, commo n-sense statements) can co rrespond to facts of the matter th ey represent. Some of their te rms, the claim goes, can represent nonlinguistic items. This, as Rorty points out, is an in-house dispute that a rises only within a representationalist framework. Anti-representationalists, by contrast, eschew the whole problematic, denying th at either the notio n of "representation" or that of "fact of the matte r" has "any useful role in philosophy" (Rorty 199 1 a, p. 2). So, while Rorty is emphatically rejecting realism- including, of course, metaphysical realism and "scientific realism" - he is not an anti-realist. He is neither a realist nor an antirealist. He is rejecting the whole idea, as Davidson does as well, that beliefs, any beliefs at all, can represen t reality. It makes no sense to say either that they represent rea lity or fa il to represent reality. Neither " represent" nor "fails to represent" has a coherent use here. Anti-rep resentationa lism, which goes well with the perspectivism and co ntex tualism of pragmatism, rejects the so-ca lled discipline of epistemology as well as metaphysics. There is no grand appearance/reality distinction as we find in Plato, Descartes, or Kant, fo r on an antirepresentionalist account there can be no gaining a glimpse at how things a re in themselves: the reality behind the appearance. Some allegedly privileged types of vocabulary- say, physics, or (as would have been claimed in another age) metaphysics or theology- do claim accurately to represent 506 Dialogue reality while the other discourses are said to be mired in appearance. But with the demise of representational ism goes the very idea that there is some determinate way the world is there to be discovered and accurately represented (depicted) by some "true philosophy"- perhaps an epistemology or a philosophy of language (a la Michael Dummett) taken as First Philosophy, a philosophy foundational for the rest. And there is no science- neither physics, linguistics, nor cognitive science- that is going to be able to step in and do the job- the giving of the one true description of the worldthat philosophy cannot do (Rorty 1997, pp. 6-16). Such a conception, i.e., the uniquely true description of the world, is incoherent if anti-representationalism is on the mark. For there is no sense to the claim that one vocabulary is closer to reality than another. There are just different forms of discourse answering to different more-or-less-distinctive interests. Given the concerns of fundamental physics, a description of the world in terms of colours has no place. Given common-sense observation and aesthetic interests, it does. It is not that one form of discourse gives us a truer account of reality than another. They are all- or, at least, most of them are-valuable for certain purposes and not for others. The idea of a discourse telling us what reality really is, what the world is like in itself, is without sense. It is not just (pace what Rorty sometimes says) that it is not a useful idea; it is an incoherent one. (Rorty should have stuck with his ea rlier Carnapian scorn- Rorty l 993a, pp. 444-46). We can speak of reality-versus-appearance in some specific context (e.g., real gold versus fool's gold, real beer versus beer without alcohol), but not, at least if we want to make sense, in the broad way of the tradition of metaphysics or foundationalist epistemology. This big reality-versus-appearance dichotomy is not, to repeat, just useless; it could not be useful for it is incoherent, unless we want to say some incoherencies (perhaps 'some conceptions of God) are sometimes useful. (Rorty should have stuck with his ea rlier Carnapian scorn- Rorty l 993a, pp. 444-46). We can speak of reality-versus-appearance in some specific context (e.g., real gold versus fool's gold, real beer versus beer without alcohol), but not, at least if we want to make sense, in the broad way of the tradition of metaphysics or foundationalist epistemology. This big reality-versus-appearance dichotomy is not, to repeat, just useless; it could not be useful for it is incoherent, unless we want to say some incoherencies (perhaps 'some conceptions of God) are sometimes useful.

And the place where incoherence is useful, I think are those discussions of God which make him transcendent, and not of this world- and therefore in no sense our "Father".   But that is for another day.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, did you ask him? I may have my facts wrong, I'm willing to admit.

Didn't have to.

The whole thing was irrelevant to the question at hand- I just wanted to show that passions ran deep and that objectivity is a myth.

I acknowledged that I did not know where he lived.   My point was merely that he knew about Prop 8.  That's why I said he was "allegedly" from CA because I didn't know.

Sorry genuinely if I offended someone by the use of the world "allegedly".  It was not intended. 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Didn't have to.

The whole thing was irrelevant to the question at hand- I just wanted to show that passions ran deep and that objectivity is a myth.

I acknowledged that I did not know where he lived.   My point was merely that he knew about Prop 8.  That's why I said he was "allegedly" from CA because I didn't know.

Sorry genuinely if I offended someone by the use of the world "allegedly".  It was not intended. 

Thanks for the apology! I was probably the only one offended by it, and that is because it seemed to be groundless. But you are a stand up guy for admitting that. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, did you ask him? I may have my facts wrong, I'm willing to admit.

I live in San Francisco.  There is no secret about that.  I have mentioned it many times in past posts.  This is mfbukowski just being mfbukowski.  He thinks its cute.  Let him enjoy his little joke and not take him seriously.  

I, in fact, know a LOT about Prop 8 campaign since I was living in San Francisco at the time.  I know exactly what the Mormon Church did towards Prop 8. I heard all the Yes on 8 ads.  The yes on 8 campaign said in their ads that unless Prop 8 passes, it would mean that we would give up our rights of speech and religious freedoms.  Churches could be FORCED to hold same sex marriages on their properties, religious adoptions agencies may be forced to place children in same sex marriages. In fact, while they can loose government funding, no religious adoption agency has ever been forced to place children in gay marriages.  The campaign won on lies and distortions paid for by members of the Church.

The truth of all of this finally came out.  After the passage of Prop 8, those claims and many more had to be proven.  And of course they were all bogus.  When Prop 8 made it to the courtroom, they could not verify a single one of those claims. All of those Yes on 8 ads are still on line.  You can still look at the distortions and lies that were put over by that less than honorable campaign.  Now whether you like it or not, the Church has to live with what it did.  

Edit.  I see that Mfbukowisky answered you question.  Not sure I believe he didn't know where I live.  Kinda hard to plead total ignorance when it is in my avatar.  But oh well. It is just his way of undercutting what I have to say.

Edited by california boy
Link to post
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps it would be better for me to post an example of the philosophy I follow so that you can understand it better.

This is a summary of Rorty's position on language and the representation of "reality" and why it is that from a religious point of view,  I am a mystic - which is primarily because I find that language itself cannot possibly be "objective" nor can the illusion of objectivity actually "represent reality".

Beliefs are tools to help us understand principles which are useful to us, and in my opinion the Church of Jesus Christ presents the best possible paradigm for belief in God- that we are "made in His image" which is itself a highly complex idea, but a highly significant way for us to see the world- it is a belief which I think could cure mankind if all could understand its basis better.

We have not done well in taking the gospel to secular folks because we do not generally speak their language.   If they understood the below, they would understand that their fixations with Joseph's foibles, historical anachronisms, translation issues and his personal life are irrelevant to the IMPORTANCE of his thought - which we believe to be inspired and "from God"

I firmly believe that if they understood texts in general as it is here suggested that we understand them, all in the world would be far closer to understanding all these alleged "problems" with Josephism and go beyond it all to a deep deep understanding of God.

In the past I have tried to water down these explanations, but now I will give it to you straight.

This is Kai Nielsen comment on Rorty.   This particular article appeared in "Dialog" which is an LDS oriented philosophical journal.   I suspect that Nielsen is an ex-mormon, but know almost nothing about his life.

The transcription process was a bit raggedy and done electronically so I apologize  for typos etc- it would take hours to go through it and correct them all.

But it IS legible as it is, so I will post it.

Nielsen's page has a link to the article- it is titled "Taking Rorty Seriously" and was published I believe in 1999- at least I am sure it was in the "90's"

This may not be your cup of tea - uh- postum ;) but here it is.   https://www.kainielsen.org/articles.html

I take this as philosophical evidence that "objective thinking" is impossible, and incoherent.   I am not pulling this our of my rather unreliable brain.  ;)

https://www.kainielsen.org/articles.html


 

And the place where incoherence is useful, I think are those discussions of God which make him transcendent, and not of this world- and therefore in no sense our "Father".   But that is for another day.

I am not seeing how these descriptions of Rorty correspond well with your claims about Mormonism. Indeed, perhaps it would also be well to observe that Mormonism even in any one of its various separable forms or iterations may not express the ideas people need to live with reality. Indeed in my own experience, it was the way the LDS gospel functioned on the spiritual level that destroyed my trust in it. So I think you are probably overconfident in your regard of it in reference to its compability with others even if it were to be better communicated.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not seeing how these descriptions of Rorty correspond well with your claims about Mormonism. Indeed, perhaps it would also be well to observe that Mormonism even in any one of its various separable forms or iterations may not express the ideas people need to live with reality. Indeed in my own experience, it was the way the LDS gospel functioned on the spiritual level that destroyed my trust in it. So I think you are probably overconfident in your regard of it in reference to its compability with others even if it were to be better communicated.

They define a materialistic vocabulary with which we can conceive an immanent image of God and a channel for communication with such an entity, and create a framework for post-postmoderns to envision God while admitting that such a view is simply a language-game like any other.

It eliminates the problem of literal scripturalism or that scriptural statements have any "correspondence" to scientific beliefs or any other beliefs about "reality" other than the presentation of spiritual models which help serve the function of finding meaning in life.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The principles of Mormonism do not bring all earnest believers joy, contrary to its promises. For these individuals, once they realise it fails them, talking about and listening to others talk about the experience can be very helpful in identifying why it failed so that they can rebuild their lives on better principles.

So, I'm assuming you mean, teaching them 'better principles' than the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, alter idem said:

So, I'm assuming you mean, teaching them 'better principles' than the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I would like to see those.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

So is it your position that if you can find it in the Bible, then that justifies being able to participate in that act in modern day?  You seem to be ok with marriage functioning the same way as in the Bible.  How about divorce? Or punishing sins?  Or all the other crazy things that were practiced in the Bible.  

My position is that the Bible and other scripture have always been intended to function under the direction of a prophet of God, and the word of the Lord through the prophet determines what is applicable in any given time and place.  And in this day and age polygamy is not practiced as part of the same long established marriage covenant as it was given originally.  But with regard to Bible history, it's not just the fact that polygamy is in the Bible, but that it was practiced by righteous prophets of God like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Gideon, and it was even condoned and supported by God as it was to David. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

 I have mentioned it many times in past posts

Oh gosh.

I have read and memorized every post you ever made, and here I forgot that.

Silly me.

 

Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

I live in San Francisco.  There is no secret about that.  I have mentioned it many times in past posts.  This is mfbukowski just being mfbukowski.  He thinks its cute.  Let him enjoy his little joke and not take him seriously.  ....  

 

...  But oh well. It is just his way of undercutting what I have to say.

But of course we are supposed to take you seriously?

Besides misspelling my name which IS not a fake "avatar" but IS, my name, the irony of the rest is... palpable.

All on a thread about objectivity 

Hilarious but very sad.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course we are supposed to take you seriously?

Besides misspelling my name which IS not a fake "avatar" but IS, my name, the irony of the rest is... palpable.

All on a thread about objectivity 

Hilarious but very sad.

Nevermind, not worth it. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
10 hours ago, alter idem said:

So, I'm assuming you mean, teaching them 'better principles' than the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not necessarily teaching, no. But the process of extricating from harmful principles can help people discover better principles.

And to connect back to the OP topic directly, I think that extricating from harmful principles present in Mormonism can mean simultaneously moving toward better scholarly practices.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They define a materialistic vocabulary with which we can conceive an immanent image of God and a channel for communication with such an entity, and create a framework for post-postmoderns to envision God while admitting that such a view is simply a language-game like any other.

It eliminates the problem of literal scripturalism or that scriptural statements have any "correspondence" to scientific beliefs or any other beliefs about "reality" other than the presentation of spiritual models which help serve the function of finding meaning in life.

That still admits (what I see as) fundamental problems into the spiritual model of the LDS gospel. 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would like to see those.

I'm satisfied with my principles so far as being far better, and I believe I have encountered others who feel similarly about theirs.

Link to post
16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Even then, you are misrepresenting the people named. If you spend some time listening to their views, the Book of Mormon is clearly not credible to them and they can support that position very reasonably.

And of course it strikes a nerve when people repeat harmful falsehoods. This "us versus them" of Mormondom is just lousy.  

I have listened, I have phoned in and been quoted on his podcast, and they use the same circular reasons as do atheist to discredit the Bible. In fact their primary belief, is “non-belief”, I am not speaking of people I don’t know, nor of subject matter I am unaware of...besides you know me, and you know I am not mean spirited enough to do this. 

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I have listened, I have phoned in and been quoted on his podcast, and they use the same circular reasons as do atheist to discredit the Bible. In fact their primary belief, is “non-belief”, I am not speaking of people I don’t know, nor of subject matter I am unaware of...besides you know me, and you know I am not mean spirited enough to do this. 

Bill Reel, John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnels all communicate very reasonable objections to The Book of Mormon. You can disagree with their reasoning, but they are still using reasonable arguments. The podcasters invite and listen to varying points of view including experts specializing in various fields in multiple episodes. You of course can opine about the content, but we can say with confidence that they have very reasonable objections.

I, for one, know lots of good and kind people who also do some less good and not kind things. I'm not going to say you are incapable of mischaracterising them just because I like you as a person and believe you have good intentions.

(Also FTR, the OP did say  

Quote

 

 On 8/29/2020 at 9:17 PM, bdouglas said:

What is it that prevents a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnells from doing the same? 

 

"a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnells" and while I do not have my own podcasts, I have appeared on several that can be included in those types of podcasts.)

Link to post
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh.

I have read and memorized every post you ever made, and here I forgot that.

Silly me.

 

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But of course we are supposed to take you seriously?

Besides misspelling my name which IS not a fake "avatar" but IS, my name, the irony of the rest is... palpable.

All on a thread about objectivity 

Hilarious but very sad.

You are being a jerk.  You are not usually like this towards me.  It is disappointing.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Bill Reel, John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnels all communicate very reasonable objections to The Book of Mormon. You can disagree with their reasoning, but they are still using reasonable arguments. The podcasters invite and listen to varying points of view including experts specializing in various fields in multiple episodes. You of course can opine about the content, but we can say with confidence that they have very reasonable objections.

I, for one, know lots of good and kind people who also do some less good and not kind things. I'm not going to say you are incapable of mischaracterising them just because I like you as a person and believe you have good intentions.

First of all, my original comments, were only to address the overall question(s), asked by the thread author, and to give my opinion concerning such “podcasts”, and their purposes thereof. I was also speaking to the claim and comments, again posed by the thread author, of how many (millions) were able to leave the Churches in which they were raised, and did not look back, with neither longing, or criticizing those many Faiths.
 

I was also pointing out, that I “too” was, or am one of those millions who have done so, left the Church in which I was raised, and the pulpit in which I first started began teaching, seeking to in my Father’s footsteps. But once I had found the Book of Mormon, and via the powerful testimony granted unto me, I was able to leave with “perfect and purposeful” ease. By so doing, I was able to do so without looking back, nor feel the need to criticize my former Faith. In short, I was able to let go completely, and did not feel the need to lead others out. In fact with this being your second or third reply, it seems you are making the point that many believer, “that those who leave the Church, can’t leave the Church alone”. So another point, just as disaffected members, in the early days of the Church, did set out too, and did secede in killing the Prophet Joseph Smith, many seek to kill him in every subsequent generation, and will long after you and I are gone. 

Also, to suggest that John, Bill’s, and others podcasts always have “experts”, who give “expert” opinions on these podcasts, is very disingenuous. Some, just like here, are there solely to give their “opinions”, and “exit testimonials”, with sole purpose of both “cleansing their consciences”, and to give aide and comfort, to those also seeking a way out. A sort of “odd“, strength in numbers. Therefore, just as we are a “missionary minded Church“, and our testimonies grow with every covert, they too have their decisions, or positions, “bolstered”, by the numbers that they lead away. The fact that I can call in, or have typed in with my “opinions”, and have them quoted is clear proof that not n the “Scholarly”, need apply to be heard. As I bring no such gravitas to the table, as my style of debate is different than most. I just “know”, beyond all doubt, a pure testimony. I have doubts about many things in my life, but my first exposure to the Book of Mormon and my four decades since, leaves no room for doubt. This is all I can bring to the table, where for the most part, their houses are built upon and girded about with only doubt, and the constant need to reinforce this doubt. 
 

Now, I fear this is all I can submit, because the manner in which I must post, and limitations of doing so, not to mention the physical difficulties and pain, I must bow out. I fear that it is best I only deal with one question at a time. Also, whatever slight you may have felt I was signaling, I assure you, my original comments were not directed at you personally, nor to every person who ever left the Church. A Church I have begun to wonder if I can ever physically attend again, as I am going to see yet another surgeon tomorrow, to see if anything can be done to improve the quality of my life. I just gone home a few days ago from a hospital stay, and pray that tomorrow does not put me back upon the same path. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
52 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

You are being a jerk.  You are not usually like this towards me.  It is disappointing.

Genuinely sorry. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...