Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you are mindreading and into the future even.  You won’t deal with what if questions yourself for what you would do, why are you answering them for others?

 And seeking has said plenty of positives in the past.

I don’t like it when nonmembers and critics stereotype members and I assume you don’t either…

I think you are doing it here to those involved in the thread.  Seeking, Teancum, and Analytics are very different people.  Assuming they would respond the same in complicated situations (which large amounts of charitable giving is) is assuming too much imo.

I will add for @smac97that this raving critic made generous fast offering donations to my local ward for two years after leaving the church. Right up until the Washington post report. While I have no doubt that fast offerings are used to good effect, the church certainly doesn’t need my money to maintain the program. I took my money elsewhere and the report was also the biggest factor in the timing of my decision to remove my name from the roles (though there were other contributing factors as well). 
 

I don’t think that informed consent is too high a bar to expect from any organization especially one that names itself as God’s own church. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For those who no longer donate to the church because of the whistleblower report, has it been difficult to find other places to donate to that claim 100% of it goes to helping?

Many organizations will allow this, but it’s always money shuffling (even with the church). Tithing pays the overhead for fast offerings. Many organizations give me the choice to include money to run the charity or not. But money is fungible so if I’m not paying to run the organization, someone else will be. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.  And maybe that's where Analytics got the 90% of its income is used to support itself figure.  We reinvest 100% of our investment earnings and about 1% of our income as well (my husband is hoping to up that eventually but who knows) so that doesn't seem scandalous to me.

But I get people who think it's immoral for the church to do to not donate anymore money to it.  That position isn't nefarious either.  

Did the report mention what happens to the humanitarian donations?  Neither one of those would be covered in tithing or investment revenue.

Don't answer if this is rude. Do you have a financial advisor? My husband and I are wondering if we should take his 401 and let a financial advisor run it. We wish we were smart enough to do it on our own. Sorry if this is too personal.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is not one or the other thing though.  One can have a target of spending 5% while finding ways to do so responsibly. 

They haven't been presenting it as a "target," but as a pre-set sum that the Church should pay out.  When billions of dollars are the proposed pay-out, figuring out how to spend funds responsibly should be a threshold and primary concern, not just an afterthought or something to figure out along the way. 

And if the Church can't find sufficient numbers of vectors through which it can channel these many billions of dollars, then it ought not to "Just Throw Money At It!," and instead ought to hold such funds and continue to preserve and grow them until such time that the Church can responsibly utilize them in humanitarian efforts.

The Church has been making these "responsible" efforts for years, and publicly said so nearly four years ago, and yet Roger and Teancum and SU are acting as if these efforts don't exist.  They do not acknowledge them at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Maybe this can help.

HEY @Teancum AND @Analytics: Please tell us a little about your thoughts regarding how the church should engage in more charitable works.

- To which charitable organizations should we donate?
- To which existing relief teams should we partner, (or increase partnership)?
- Every charity/relief org has financials.  They can be looked at in terms of % of each donated dollar taken by admin costs/salaries/operations/etc, and % of each donated dollar that actually reaches the target.  Do you have thoughts about, say, the church giving a billion dollars to a charitable organization that only spends perhaps 10% of it's income on it's target groups?

Speaking as a member of the peanut gallery, without hearing good answers from you both on such matters, whenever you suggest the church give 5%, you might as well be saying "Throw money at it".  Without some clear understanding about how you give a crap, I can't discern any substantial difference between the phrase, and what you are saying.

 

Answer: Caritas Internationalis

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Don't answer if this is rude. Do you have a financial advisor? My husband and I are wondering if we should take his 401 and let a financial advisor run it. We wish we were smart enough to do it on our own. Sorry if this is too personal.

We don’t but we don’t have that much money invested. My parents love theirs. She’s been incredibly helpful for them, especially in regards to their retirements. I’d pm you her info but she’s out of Wyoming.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Don't answer if this is rude. Do you have a financial advisor? My husband and I are wondering if we should take his 401 and let a financial advisor run it. We wish we were smart enough to do it on our own. Sorry if this is too personal.

We are doing so.  Neither of us are up to doing the research and just letting it sit in a bank doesn’t make much sense.

We just started as my husband is retiring this year and I am 65 and I feel uncomfortable recommending anyone we have not proven yet or I would share the info. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They haven't been presenting it as a "target," but as a pre-set sum that the Church should pay out.  When billions of dollars are the proposed pay-out, figuring out how to spend funds responsibly should be a threshold and primary concern, not just an afterthought. 

How many decades should be dedicated to figuring that out before spending a dollar on charity?  But malls and bailing out church business that church leaders (or their grandkids) have always had their hands in have the green light!   

Seems like it would take WAY more time and resources to work with city planners and government officials, design, finance, construct, and run a giant mall in down-town SLC than it would to vet one charity.   Yet, they seem to find the time and means for that! 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And if the Church can't find sufficient numbers of vectors through which it can channel these many billions of dollars, then it ought not to "Just Throw Money At It!," and instead ought to hold such funds and continue to preserve and grow them until such time that the Church can responsibly invest such vast sums.

The church has plenty of vetted channels they could give more money to in a measured and responsible fashion but have chosen to hoard instead.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church has been making these efforts for years, and publicly said so nearly four years ago

Under 4 years ago?  They've been hiding their money since 1997...why did it take so long to start thinking about ways to use it?  Why was not one dollar from the reserves spent on charity since 1997???  Com'on Smac, there is a wide chasm between "Just throw money at it" blindly and irresponsibly (which NO ONE has vocally advocated for) and spend NOTHING on charity with the reserves - that chasm is not being acknowledged here.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

One strategy is a Charitable Remainder trust combined with a life insurance trust.

Check it out-definitely from an advisor.   Whats left over goes to the church,(or any 501 c-3)  but there is life insurance which replaces the amount going to the kids, and they get the same money amount tax free. Great for real estate in many cases.

But that's all I am saying.   You can't do financial planning over the internet!

Link to comment

Thank you for your good attempt at answering my questions, @Tacenda!

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know I'm not who this post is for, but if you don't mind me chiming in I think start with the members that donate.

1. Take care of the many starving children that are actually starving in the church. Maybe it's getting better.

Starving, in the church?  Is there a source other than slogging through a half hour podcast?  I'd like to know more.

I'm the finance clerk.  I've been involved in the fast offering check-writing end of things for a decade, with experience going back further than that.  ~3 wards, ~5 stakes, 2 states.   I've seen miracles and a tiny bit of fraud.  I've seen endless gratitude, and much more than a tiny bit of entitled butthurt.  I've seen bishops with the attitude of "I'll bend over backwards to pay your cell phone bill in support of your efforts to get a job, lazy teen", and the next bishop be all like "a sister in subsidized housing was here before I met with you, she legitimately goes without food twice a month so she can pay fast offerings.  Do you think I should take her money and pay your cell phone bill?"

For everything I do, the bishop's food orders are much more expansive.  They can do food orders without involving the finance clerk.   We clerks see the bishop's storehouse totals in the monthly finance report, and there's always activity there.  I don't know what it's like to be a finance clerk in the 3rd world, but in my experience, if there's going to be starving children in the church, it's because the parents won't do what's required to feed them.  And when it comes to the church feeding them, what's required amounts to "put individualized effort into this benefit, and work towards self-sufficiency".   Even if your circumstances dictate that the absolute most you can do is "attend church".

 

Quote

3. Help with the homeless, I know they do many things. Maybe something super creative that no one has come up with yet. The church is incredible at doing things like this in organizing and planning and then putting into action. And their perpetual education plan is wonderful too. 

4. Donate to world hunger, I currently donate to World Food Program USA. It comes out of my bank account monthly. I do know the church donates often for world hunger. But maybe do more, since it can. 

FYI, "help with the homeless" and "donate to world hunger", and "IDK, figure it out" = "throw money at it".  

As for your suggestion of World Food Program USA, can you tell me how much of your donation actually turns into food that hungry people actually consume?   Is it 5%?  80%?  These folks were unable to tell:  https://www.charitywatch.org/charities/world-food-program-usa

These folks like them: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/133843435.   Looks like >90% of their funds are "program funds", but again, there's no indication of how much it costs to run the program, and how much actually makes it to the people the program is intended to help.   

Isn't that information, sort of the basement, basic information you might want to know before contributing?

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

How many decades should be dedicated to figuring that out before spending a dollar on charity? 

None.  But we're not talking about "a dollar," are we?  We are talking about billions of them.  Every year.

Figuring out how to responsibly and effectively distribute such vast sums in the nonprofit/humanitarian sector is a very difficult endeavor.  There are "mega-wealthy" billionaires who are eager to give away portions of their vast holdings, but are finding substantial difficulties in doing so.  The Church faces similar challenges.

You and Teancum and Roger and such are not addressing this point in any meaningful way.

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

But malls and bailing out church business that church leaders (or their grandkids) have always had their hands in have the green light!

Investing in a money-making endeavor (City Creek was only nominally so) in Salt Lake City is vastly different from figuring out how to spend billions every year on hundreds or thousands of separate humanitarian projects in hundreds of areas in many dozens of countries.

You and Teancum and Roger and such are not addressing this point in any meaningful way.

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Seems like it would take WAY more time and resources to work with city planners and government officials, design, finance, construct, and run a giant mall in down-town SLC than it would to vet one charity.   Yet, they seem to find the time and means for that! 

This is a facile and unserious dig, unworthy of a response.

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church has plenty of vetted channels they could give more money to in a measured and responsible fashion but have chosen to hoard instead.

CFR, please.  Why should I believe your unsubstantiated say-so over the word of the Presiding Bishopric?

35 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

The Church has been making these efforts for years, and publicly said so nearly four years ago

Under 4 years ago?  They've been hiding their money since 1997...why did it take so long to start thinking about ways to use it? 

You are only proving my point about not giving the Church credit for its efforts.  You just shift the goalposts and carry on.  Such are the bitter fruits chewed on by faulfinders.  I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Analytics said:

I never believed, said, or thought that the Church or anybody else should ever donate a single penny "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds." That is totally made up.

In fact, I believe the opposite: every individual and every institution should be conscientious and diligent with their donations to be sure that they will be put to good use.

And that is why organizations that receive donations ought to be transparent: they need to be transparent to allow donors to perform their due diligence when making decisions about how to donate.

I hope you see the irony here. If somebody wants to donate to the Church, they're certainly donating to an organization with high integrity, and the money won't be used to support opulent lifestyles of Church leaders. Of course. But on the margin, it won't be used to support the Church's  religious, educational, or charitable missions, either. Rather, it will be used to buy stocks and bonds to be saved for a hypothetical rainy day. I agree that the worlds problems won't be solved by just throwing money at it. But they won't be solved by donating money to Ensign Peak Advisor's stock and bond portfolio, either.

And that is the real issue that is in our respective circles of control. On this narrow issue we agree about what the Church should do (i.e. only donate to organizations that will put the money to good use). Should individuals follow that same advice? If so, they shouldn't donate it to the Church.

I wasn't addressing the question of how organizations should spend money. I was addressing the question of what's the proper balance between saving and spending. Those are two totally different issues. Just because Harvard University endeavors to distribute 5.5% of their endowment every year doesn't mean that they subscribe to your imaginary  "just throw money at it" philosophy and think the 5.5% distributions should be made "with no regard for or consideration of the actual efficacy of such disbursements, or the competency and integrity of the recipients of such funds."

And essentially this is my point. Though you do a better job outlining it.  For the record:

I don't think the church is a malicious organization.

I don't think top leaders are trying to live high on the hog off donations.

I think the leaders are well intended on the use of the donations  members give them.

I do commend what the church does for humanitarian aid even at the same time believing  they can and should do more based on the very large amount of assets the church controls.

I believe the church has accumulate excessive wealth. At the same time I understand a large organization like the church needs to have reserves enough to maintain itself if donations slow down and decrease due to a variety of factors.  I personally believe the church has reached and far exceeded that number.  A rough estimate is that in the EPA fund, the church has 18-20 times its current annual operating expenses.

I believe that the EPA fund has sufficient assets to maintain the church at minimum, their current level of operating expenses and that they could do this without any future donations.

Based on current levels of assets the church holds in EPA, and based on accepted best practices, the church could increase it work in humanitarian aid to a level that approximates 5% of the funds in EPA.  This would be around $5-$7 billion per year.

I have never advocated that the church simply willy nilly toss and extra $5 billion per year at any organization that might fit the bill of humanitarian aid.  Quite to the contrary I have suggested the church ramp up over time and do it prudently.

I understand managing giving of large sums for humanitarian aid is difficult and fraught with bumps and pitfalls. But I believe the church has access to talent that could do this work. They either work for the church now, or the church could hire them.

So no, I do not advocate for "just throwing money at the problem" nor have I dismissed the challenges of giving. I just am more confident in the church's ability to manage this. And saying this is hard to do is no excuse to not do this.

It seems odd to me that the church that claims to be The Church of Jesus Christ amasses as much wealth as the church has and that it does no do more to relieve human suffering.  Maybe they are moving more in that direction.  It also seems odd to me that so many believing member are quite fine with that along with cheering it and/or vehemently defending it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We don’t but we don’t have that much money invested. My parents love theirs. She’s been incredibly helpful for them, especially in regards to their retirements. I’d pm you her info but she’s out of Wyoming.

Thanks, we do have someone we've met up with a couple of times. My husband is just so hesitant not knowing how many people do this sort of thing. His two brothers use the same one my in-laws use. But husband is just hesitant. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

We are doing so.  Neither of us are up to doing the research and just letting it sit in a bank doesn’t make much sense.

We just started as my husband is retiring this year and I am 65 and I feel uncomfortable recommending anyone we have not proven yet or I would share the info. 

Good to know Calm! Just knowing others do this, helps a lot.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Thank you for your good attempt at answering my questions, @Tacenda!

 

Starving, in the church?  Is there a source other than slogging through a half hour podcast?  I'd like to know more.

I'm the finance clerk.  I've been involved in the fast offering check-writing end of things for a decade, with experience going back further than that.  ~3 wards, ~5 stakes, 2 states.   I've seen miracles and a tiny bit of fraud.  I've seen endless gratitude, and much more than a tiny bit of entitled butthurt.  I've seen bishops with the attitude of "I'll bend over backwards to pay your cell phone bill in support of your efforts to get a job, lazy teen", and the next bishop be all like "a sister in subsidized housing was here before I met with you, she legitimately goes without food twice a month so she can pay fast offerings.  Do you think I should take her money and pay your cell phone bill?"

For everything I do, the bishop's food orders are much more expansive.  They can do food orders without involving the finance clerk.   We clerks see the bishop's storehouse totals in the monthly finance report, and there's always activity there.  I don't know what it's like to be a finance clerk in the 3rd world, but in my experience, if there's going to be starving children in the church, it's because the parents won't do what's required to feed them.  And when it comes to the church feeding them, what's required amounts to "put individualized effort into this benefit, and work towards self-sufficiency".   Even if your circumstances dictate that the absolute most you can do is "attend church".

 

FYI, "help with the homeless" and "donate to world hunger", and "IDK, figure it out" = "throw money at it".  

As for your suggestion of World Food Program USA, can you tell me how much of your donation actually turns into food that hungry people actually consume?   Is it 5%?  80%?  These folks were unable to tell:  https://www.charitywatch.org/charities/world-food-program-usa

These folks like them: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/133843435.   Looks like >90% of their funds are "program funds", but again, there's no indication of how much it costs to run the program, and how much actually makes it to the people the program is intended to help.   

Isn't that information, sort of the basement, basic information you might want to know before contributing?

I should have posted this to begin with, I clicked "Our Story" to find the reason it all began. I have donated to it in the past. https://bountifulchildren.org/about-us/our-story/ He talks about learning about the LDS starving children on his mission in the podcast, and maybe on the link, I don't have time to read clear through.

And thanks for the links about the charity that I pay out each month currently. If it's a bad one, wasn't when I check it out at first, I'll go elsewhere. 

ETA: no wonder they're so nice in their correspondence to me, they make good sums of money. :( I thought I totally checked them out. Wrong! I think the Bountiful Children's Foundation is better. I'll maybe look into donating there instead.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Answer: Caritas Internationalis

Catholics rock at charity and doing right by the poor and needy.  My ward has been doing regular service at various Catholic soup kitchens and food banks for decades. 

That said, remember, the challenge is to come up with a specific detailed option that the church can pour their billions per year into.   And with financials like this, if we did so with Caritas, it would no longer be a Catholic organization, but an LDS organization run by the Catholics.  

xTl8npT.png

 

(Note - It's possible these dollars are $k.  I couldn't see anything to indicate one way or the other.  Even if they are, the LDS church's donations would at least double the size of the organization, if Analytics' and others' estimates are accurate.)

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t think that informed consent is too high a bar to expect from any organization especially one that names itself as God’s own church.

Totally get the opinion.  Totally valid opinion.

For me and my house, we'll continue to contribute.  Fully aware that the church doesn't need our money.

I paid my tithing the other day.   As usual, 10% of my increase to tithing, with a fixed sum split between FO and Humanitarian aid.  Last month, I taught my daughter to pay tithing for the first time, now that she has a job.   I told her the church is embarrassingly bloated with cash and wealth these years, but even if the world plunged into a decade long deep depression and economic collapse, that's still not why we pay tithing.   She got it.  She even told me why we pay tithing, before I could expound further.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment

Another random thought: 

Anyone else like the SciFi show The Expanse?  High acclaims for being one of the more accurate sci-fi shows out there.  In the future, the UN runs earth.  There's a Universal Basic Income program covering everyone and everything.   There is still a massive ongoing unemployment crisis.  Illiteracy, poverty, drug dependency, and social violence are orders of magnitude higher than present day in reality.  But nobody is starving because of the UBC.  And everyone has a sci-fi cell phone.  Interesting stuff. 

And they didn't stop global warming either:

screen-shot-2015-12-31-at-11-36-15-am-e1

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

None.  But we're not talking about "a dollar," are we?  We are talking about billions of them.  Every year.

We are talking about any money, even a single green dollar...anything...something...

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Figuring out how to responsibly and effectively distribute such vast sums in the nonprofit/humanitarian sector is a very difficult endeavor.  There are "mega-wealthy" billionaires who are eager to give away portions of their vast holdings, but are finding substantial difficulties in doing so.  The Church faces similar challenges.

Yet, the ultra-rich who have had money since 1997 somehow find a way to give something...anything...

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You and Teancum and Roger and such are not addressing this point in any meaningful way.

You are not raising this point in any meaningful way.  How do you account for 0 dollars in giving from the EP funds since 1997???  "It is difficult" is not an excuse for giving NOTHING in over 2 decades of accumulating exorbitant wealth and only using it to further profit-making purposes despite being a charitable not-for profit organization.  That is unreasonable to the max and you are not addressing it in any meaningful way by blaming 2 decades of hoarding with ZERO giving on "difficulties".  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Investing in a money-making endeavor (City Creek was only nominally so) in Salt Lake City is vastly different from figuring out how to spend billions every year on hundreds or thousands of separate humanitarian projects in hundreds of areas in many dozens of countries.

They could start with one organization.  One dollar.  One person helped.  And grow from there.  They have done NOTHING but spend time and money to further their profit seeking endeavors in over 2 decades. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is a facile and unserious dig, unworthy of a response.

No, this happens to be a very real and serious concern for countless members and non-members, alike.   What is facile is your dismissal of it and refusal to respond to the legitimate concern of so many people. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Why should I believe your unsubstantiated say-so over the word of the Presiding Bishopric?

CFR for what?  That they have vetted charities in the past?  I seem to recall a list of vetted charities that the church supports (like The World Food Programme) - anyone recall where to find that?  That seems like a silly CFR.  Clearly they have vetted and donated to charities in the past.  The problem is that they haven't dipped into the EP funds for that...at all.   They can certainly give more than they have in a reasonable and measured way.

What has the Presiding Bishopric said on the matter?  CFR. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are only proving my point about not giving the Church credit for its efforts. 

I'll wait to see the fruits.  I have no reason to just trust words without fruits. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 I'll leave you to it.

No you won't.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do you account for 0 dollars in giving from the EP funds since 1997???  "It is difficult" is not an excuse for giving NOTHING in over 2 decades of accumulating exorbitant wealth and only using it to further profit-making purposes despite being a charitable not-for profit organization.

EP is the charity.  EP is a massive reserve fund used by a charitable organization.   

As for the notion of 0 dollars given, EP invests in businesses which employ people, allowing them to earn paychecks and support themselves.  EP invests in productive farms which feed the world.  

How does EP serve the world?  By being a reserve.  Laying up stores against the season.  The next painful negative economic downturn, (and yes, there's always the next painful negative economic downturn), we'll see the church able to use these funds to benefit it's members, and probably the communities in which we live, and probably the rest of humanity.  While the rest of the world, who had been happily following the Analytics' of the world's mindset, was caught unprepared and all go bankrupt.

We won't be part of that great depression blip, or the '80's blip:E24Riy0WUAMfHgi.jpg:large

 

What kind of mindset writes that off as "NOTHING"?  Melodramatic all-caps are melodramatic, but hardly as outrage producing as one might think.

 

 

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Very much so. It's at the higher end of my all time favorite SciFi series list, up near Firefly and BSG (so say we all).

 

I gave up on it when it started using the F word all the time and sex scenes were popping up out of nowhere.  I really liked it until then though.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

EP is the charity.

They are supposed to be anyway.  EP, a separate legal entity registered as a nonprofit charitable organization for tax purposes which has amassed hundreds of billions through investments in the stock market with its only expenditures being a mall business venture and bailing out a for-profit company with zero dollars spent on things that actually qualify legally as charity.  

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

EP is a massive reserve fund used by a charitable organization.   

I agree that is how it behaves, but it is registered as a distinct charitable organization.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

As for the notion of 0 dollars given, EP invests in businesses which employ people, allowing them to earn paychecks and support themselves.  EP invests in productive farms which feed the world.

Investments in the stock market don't count as charitable "giving".  Using the word "giving" and "charity" as a synonym for investing in the stock market should raise some eyebrows.   

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

What kind of mindset writes that off as "NOTHING"? 

The legal mindset.  The charitable mindset.   WWJD? - that mindset. 

What kind of mindset considers an organization which has only invested in the stock market and hoarded hundreds of billions with the only expenditures being a for-profit mall and bailing out a for-profit business, a "charity"?

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

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...