"great and abominable church"


dahlia
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, I've finally decided to stop reading bits and pieces and to read the BOM everyday until I'm done. I've come across several mentions of a "great and abmoniable church," frequently referred to as a whore.

Is there a generally accepted view of what this church is? Is it the Catholic Church? There was, and still is, a certain amount of anti-Catholic feeling amongst many Protestants, so I wonder if these phrases reflect an anti-Catholic bias?

And yes, I know JS translated the BOM, but I hope it's not wrong to realize that he may also have been affected by the mores of his time. I'm just asking a question here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a personal opinion, one which I am entitled to because this church is also mentioned in Revelation...but I can see many similarities between this horrific church and America's allegiance to ESPN. Maybe the whoredom...that abomination of desolation...will come when ESPN merges with MTV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've finally decided to stop reading bits and pieces and to read the BOM everyday until I'm done. I've come across several mentions of a "great and abmoniable church," frequently referred to as a whore.

Is there a generally accepted view of what this church is? Is it the Catholic Church? There was, and still is, a certain amount of anti-Catholic feeling amongst many Protestants, so I wonder if these phrases reflect an anti-Catholic bias?

And yes, I know JS translated the BOM, but I hope it's not wrong to realize that he may also have been affected by the mores of his time. I'm just asking a question here.

It is my opinion that it is not the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that was the only religious society to come to the Mormon’s aid when we were being driven from Nauvoo. I just do not see this as behavior that defines the great and abominable church.

I believe the reference is symbolic along the lines of “the great and spacious building”. I believe them to be one and the same.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its the Catholic church either.

My thoughts are more along the lines of the things that Satan uses to distract us from following Christ. Sometimes we (generally speaking) seek after worldly things with the fervency that should be reserved for following our Savior. In that sense, worldly things and organizations would loosely fit the "church" definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a personal opinion, one which I am entitled to because this church is also mentioned in Revelation...but I can see many similarities between this horrific church and America's allegiance to ESPN. Maybe the whoredom...that abomination of desolation...will come when ESPN merges with MTV?

I'm still trying to figure out of you're serious :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is any organization that leads people away from Christ. This can/could be a religion, but also can be companies, nations, and other organizations.

The great whore of all the earth is that which deceives us into worshiping the world and materialism, and not Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've finally decided to stop reading bits and pieces and to read the BOM everyday until I'm done. I've come across several mentions of a "great and abmoniable church," frequently referred to as a whore.

Is there a generally accepted view of what this church is? Is it the Catholic Church? There was, and still is, a certain amount of anti-Catholic feeling amongst many Protestants, so I wonder if these phrases reflect an anti-Catholic bias?

And yes, I know JS translated the BOM, but I hope it's not wrong to realize that he may also have been affected by the mores of his time. I'm just asking a question here.

It is not any one church, but a system. There is a book called "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil”, written by (somebody Anderson)

Also Elder McConkie said as much but later took the comment out of Mormon Doctrine in 1966. In any event it is churches, governments or any other organizations that appose the teachings of the true and living God of Israel. Listed below is the BoM reference (or one of them), but it is any who “fight against the Lamb of God”.

1 Nephi 14: 10

10And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dahlia, the understanding of what Nephi was speaking of has undergone some shift as the study of what lead to loss of plain and precious truths has advanced. Early protestant efforts were aimed at demonizing the Catholic church, and many early LDS picked up where they left off. However, more recent research notes that "plain and precious" parts were removed from the scriptures before the Catholic church was even organized in the third and fourth century.

Noel B. Reynolds gave a interesting discourse on all of this at BYU-Idaho in 2004. See: http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=1010 A small part of that devotional is reproduced below.

Myth 3: The Roman Catholic church specifically is the great and abominable church spoken of in Nephi’s vision.

Given the dependence of the early LDS writers on Protestant historians, who were themselves often anti-Catholic, it is not surprising that Latter-day Saints tended to interpret Nephi’s vision in this way. The Protestant emphasis on the corruption in medieval Christianity naturally suggested the Catholic Church as the church of the devil described by Nephi in his vision. But if we look more closely at these scriptures, we will see that the church of the devil arose centuries before the Catholic Church was established as such, and we will see that it includes much more than just one such organization. There is much more to it.

In the vision recorded in 1 Nephi 13, Nephi saw that the great and abominable church was formed in the first century when the record of the Jews went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles (v 25-26) and that it was founded in opposition to the Church of God (v. 5), which tells us that the two existed simultaneously. Nephi saw further that the devil’s church took away many parts of the gospel, including the covenants, as verse 26 tells us, and later took away many precious things out of the Bible (v. 28). Now, in the first century, the Christian scriptures consisted principally of the Old Testament, available principally in a Greek translation, called the Septuagint. A few years ago I had a personal experience that confirmed Nephi’s account in a dramatic way. I was a guest of the director of the Vatican Library in Rome, and he brought out their fourth century copy of the complete Bible for me to see—Codex Vaticanus B. The first page we looked at had numerous erasures, additions, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands! I asked, pointing to some of these, “What is that?” The reply: “Oh, that’s where they made corrections.” Over the last two decades, many New Testament scholars have argued convincingly that the final texts of the gospels and the epistles that were eventually canonized, took shape during a long period in which they were modified as necessary to support the emerging theological orthodoxy among the leaders of the Christian churches. Their principal evidence comes from scriptural quotations in second century documents which are different and which would not have supported the theological orthodoxy that emerged later.

Nor did this process of change go unnoticed in those early centuries. Paul warned the Thessalonians that some people might try to stir them up with false letters addressed from the apostles. Peter said that many in his day were “wresting” the scriptures, or distorting their true meaning (2 Pet 3:15-16). Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop who was martyred around 110 AD said that he could not write down all of the teachings of the apostles because they were too sacred. Justin Martyr, whom we mentioned before, accused Jewish leaders of deliberately removing passages from the Old Testament. During the second century, many bishops and writers in the church accused “heretics” of changing the scriptures. Tertullian of Carthage claimed that Marcion, a leader in what is now Turkey, deliberately cut out pieces of the scriptures that he did not like, and Clement of Alexandria accused some people of rewriting parts of the gospels. By the third century, the accusations of changes in the scriptures die down. However, we have virtually no texts predating the third century by which to verify this. Less than one percent of the existing New Testament fragments can be dated to the second century, and those are mere fragments. We also have other writings, letters primarily, from the second century which quote scriptures and these quotations frequently differ from what we have in the New Testament today.

In 1 Nephi 13:4-9, Nephi lists several identifying features of the church of the devil. He says they will torture and slay the saints. They will bind down the people with yokes of iron, which recalls Joseph Smiths comparison of creeds to iron yokes (Doctrine and Covenants 123:7-8 ). Nephi further tells us that this church was founded by the devil, followed materialistic pursuits, and sought worldly praise. He further tells us that there are only two churches, the church of God, and the church of the Devil, which is the great and abominable church. It seems, then, that Nephi did not have a single ecclesiastical organization in mind, but rather he was describing all organizations (for that is the original meaning of the word church, or ekklesia, in Greek) that sought worldly rewards and opposed the Saints of God. In summing up the constituents of this evil church, Nephi later says,

For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet (1 Nephi 22:23).

Furthermore, as Nephi tells us later, many people throughout the ages preceding the Restoration and the Second Coming would be true, humble followers of Christ who erred only because of their leaders (2 Nephi 28:14). We know further that the Spirit continued to strive with men and that some men were inspired. Nephi said of Columbus that he was inspired by God. Joseph Smith, when he read Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs which records all those who have died for the faith from the early Apostles to the Protestant movements, said that many of these people were true disciples who would receive salvation. President John Taylor said in 1873, “There were men in those dark ages who could commune with God, and who, by the power of faith, could draw aside the curtain of eternity and gaze upon the invisible world… have the ministering of angels, and unfold the future destinies of the world” (JD 16:197). As the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed in these latter days, all those who died without knowing the gospel, who would have embraced it and lived it had they had the chance, will be heirs of the celestial kingdom. We must, therefore, be careful when we judge what the final state of others will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a bit blunt and I would like to know what others think of this but my feelings about who the "great and abominable church" and also know in revelations as “the great whore” and “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” Is more accurately displayed by unfaithful members the “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints “ more than another denomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casper at least would be right in the sense that judgement begins in the household of faith. People often say, "God's going to judge America." Well, if He does, it will begin in America's churches! So, any member of any Christian church ought to think, "Maybe the harlot of churches is the unfaithful in my own?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casper at least would be right in the sense that judgement begins in the household of faith. People often say, "God's going to judge America." Well, if He does, it will begin in America's churches! So, any member of any Christian church ought to think, "Maybe the harlot of churches is the unfaithful in my own?"

A connection with those failing to live up to their covenants (in a rather aggravated way rather than the human imperfection way) and adultery or harlotry is a connection we see multiple times in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've finally decided to stop reading bits and pieces and to read the BOM everyday until I'm done. I've come across several mentions of a "great and abmoniable church," frequently referred to as a whore.

Is there a generally accepted view of what this church is? Is it the Catholic Church? There was, and still is, a certain amount of anti-Catholic feeling amongst many Protestants, so I wonder if these phrases reflect an anti-Catholic bias?

And yes, I know JS translated the BOM, but I hope it's not wrong to realize that he may also have been affected by the mores of his time. I'm just asking a question here.

there are many who say it would be the catholic church. however it does not name one church of man it names the church of the devil, and if any church is not CHrist's then it's devil's. So that would include any church that leads people away from all the blessings of the gospel (IE what is available froom the LDS church).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be a bit blunt and I would like to know what others think of this but my feelings about who the "great and abominable church" and also know in revelations as “the great whore” and “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” Is more accurately displayed by unfaithful members the “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints “ more than another denomination.

How do you fit in the impossibility that "unfaithful [LDS]" were around to remove "plain and precious" parts out of the stick of Judah at a time when removing such parts would have been possible?

Why would Nephi bother to describe systems and organizations if he was talking about individual choices? Clearly, when Nephi wanted to address individual choices, he did not beat around the bush in doing so. So, how does a "church" equate "unfaithful members". I can't understand where you are coming from without your fleshing out your thoughts more.

I also take the position that calling all "unfaithful" members as "display[ing]" the epitome of the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth is painting a diverse group with an awfully wide brush stroke. Are you instead meaning to refer to a select subset that are wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, what leads people to Christ, even on a Terrestrial level, is not of the devil. D&C 76 teaches us that the Terrestrial are the honorable men of the Church, who just were not valiant in their testimonies of Christ.

That pretty much describes most Christian churches today. The Catholic Church does a great job of leading people to Christ. It has prepared many to then take the next step and accept the fullness of the gospel offered in the Restoration.

For me, that means it could not be the abominable church that so many think about. In fact, the concept comes initially through the Bible from John's Revelation. Many scholars believe he was viewing the Roman culture under Nero as the great and abominable whore of all the earth. That being the case, then for the latter days, John and Nephi were seeing the world's materialism, secularism, and humanism as the whore of all the earth. For it truly is these things that lead us away from Christ.

Can a Christian church be a part of this abomination? Of course. If it latches onto riches and fame, rather than focusing upon the atonement and doctrine of Christ (3 Nephi 11), then it can be part and parcel of that abomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the abominable church is a system of control over the children of men. I used to think it might be a "church" but, I am becoming more convinced that it is a secular-governmental system. It is a scientific, high tech, system of control to dominate man kind by taking away free agency and teaching us that we are all mere animals. It is a system dominated by men at the top who are filled with greed and lust for power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the abominable church is a system of control over the children of men. I used to think it might be a "church" but, I am becoming more convinced that it is a secular-governmental system. It is a scientific, high tech, system of control to dominate man kind by taking away free agency and teaching us that we are all mere animals. It is a system dominated by men at the top who are filled with greed and lust for power.

It can be, i'm pretty sure that has helped contribute.

It's anything that claims or makes itself to be the way to salvation when it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meeting the Challenges of Today - Neal A. Maxwell

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities--when faced with clear alternatives--would make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play--especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat's burden, you see.

It is my opinion that irreligion is the "great and abominable" church. It's the religion where "bad is good" and "good is bad". And we can see evidence of this "church" all around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are many who say it would be the catholic church. however it does not name one church of man it names the church of the devil, and if any church is not CHrist's then it's devil's. So that would include any church that leads people away from all the blessings of the gospel (IE what is available froom the LDS church).

I would be careful with such a statement. I think all churches can help one grow their relationship with Christ. Not all churches have the fullness of the Gospel that we believe we have. Each will bring a follower closer.

The way other churches describe heaven sounds just like the Terrestrial Kingdom. They just don't know about, nor do they have the priesthood and other necessary ordinances required for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

Now, was it the Catholic Church? The areas where "sins are forgiven with money" and other such references are certainly not good considering the history of the Catholic church. Perhaps it was back then, but I wouldn't think that about them today.

And darn that Bruce R. McConkie and that 1st edition of his book "Mormon Doctrine" who really blasted the Catholic church in that book.

Of course, if the Catholic Church was "perfect", we wouldn't have had any protestant religions "protesting" the Catholic Church. Martin Luther and others who helped to pave the way for the protestant religions were inspired men. If it wasn't for them, there wouldn't have been the religious reformational movement... nor the multiple choices for Joseph Smith Jr. to ponder when he went to the Grove.

So, is it the Catholic Church today? I don't think so. I think that irreligion is the "church of the devil" to watch out for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you fit in the impossibility that "unfaithful [LDS]" were around to remove "plain and precious" parts out of the stick of Judah at a time when removing such parts would have been possible?

Why would Nephi bother to describe systems and organizations if he was talking about individual choices? Clearly, when Nephi wanted to address individual choices, he did not beat around the bush in doing so. So, how does a "church" equate "unfaithful members". I can't understand where you are coming from without your fleshing out your thoughts more.

I also take the position that calling all "unfaithful" members as "display[ing]" the epitome of the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth is painting a diverse group with an awfully wide brush stroke. Are you instead meaning to refer to a select subset that are wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Just a not this got a lot longer then I first expected

Where I’m coming from is that I don’t believe the great and abominable church is any specific denomination. There is no denomination that has ever completely fitted the description.

In 1Nephi 10:10-12 Nephi describes the church of the devil, that she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations kindreds, tongues, and people.

He then describes the church of the Lam of God, its numbers were few as a result of the wickedness and abominations of the church of the devil but it also was upon all the face of the earth.

There is no single denomination that has had dominion over all the earth wither for good or evil.

I believe them both to be an inner churches or a churches of the heart. The Lord has always need the heart and looked at the heart.

1Samuel 16:7…for man looketh on the outward appearance but the LORD looketh on the heart.

D&C 64:22… for, I the Lord require the hearts of the children of men.

When Christ was asked about the Kingdom of God in Luke he replyed

...The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo there! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21-22

The savior is talking about an inner church it is about our hearts, this church is spread over all the world among all nations kindreds tongues, people and also includes some members of the LDS Church.

Likewise the church of the devil is made up in the same way spread over all the world among all nations kindreds tongues, people and also includes some members of the LDS Church.

With this view I look at anyone that loves the Lord and is committed to live as close as they can to his the amount of knowledge they have belong to the Church of the Lamb of God, and those how do the opisite belong to the church of the devil how is also called by both Nephi and John “the whore of all the earth.

Sow my resin for what I said in my other post is that as a member of the LDS Church I believe that the LDS Church is the only church that has the authority of God to perform binding ordinances that are recognize by God, this is a great blessing. When a person is baptized into the LDS Church they covenant to take upon themselves the name of Christ, the same way a women would take on the name of a man she was engaged to marry in the days of Christ.

The church is often called Christ’s bride, not married but awaiting the return of the bridegroom to be married. So as members of the LDS Church we are the only ones that can truly make this covenant with the Lord, by virtue of the authorized priesthood that we have, so being a member of the LDS Church and having covenanted to the Lord, to faithfully keep ourselves clean and pure, loving him above all the world, we are counted as worthy brides.

But then on the other hand when we make this covenant to love the Lord and keep ourselves for him and then set our hearts on something that is not of him we become the whore, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Because we are the only church that can truly make the covenant we are the only church that can truly break it and become the whore, in its most true and complete way.

There are other groups of people that have done things like change parts of the bible and cloud the minds of people to follow after ways that are incorrect, but they never had the power to covenant with the Lord and take his name upon themselves in the first place to become a whore when they break it, I would still count them as members of the church of the devil but that they are not as abominable if that makes sense.

I hope this helps to show were I’m coming from

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be careful with such a statement. I think all churches can help one grow their relationship with Christ. Not all churches have the fullness of the Gospel that we believe we have. Each will bring a follower closer.

The way other churches describe heaven sounds just like the Terrestrial Kingdom. They just don't know about, nor do they have the priesthood and other necessary ordinances required for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

Now, was it the Catholic Church? The areas where "sins are forgiven with money" and other such references are certainly not good considering the history of the Catholic church. Perhaps it was back then, but I wouldn't think that about them today.

And darn that Bruce R. McConkie and that 1st edition of his book "Mormon Doctrine" who really blasted the Catholic church in that book.

Of course, if the Catholic Church was "perfect", we wouldn't have had any protestant religions "protesting" the Catholic Church. Martin Luther and others who helped to pave the way for the protestant religions were inspired men. If it wasn't for them, there wouldn't have been the religious reformational movement... nor the multiple choices for Joseph Smith Jr. to ponder when he went to the Grove.

So, is it the Catholic Church today? I don't think so. I think that irreligion is the "church of the devil" to watch out for today.

No I don't think it specifically means catholics, but I mean exactly what I said. How many churches did God claim were his when Joseph smith asked him? Has that gone past the 1 church God restored shortly afterward?

A whore is an unlawful replacement for a wife or bride. Anyone who claims authority but does not have it or who claims to have everything needed for salvation but doesn't is again an unlawful replacement for what God implemented.

Does that mean that everyone within such an organization is a prostitute or does not have faith in God? no. Does that mean that everyone in that orginization is going to hell? no. Does that mean no good can come out of it? no. Is it something that you should use with other people, probably not, especially if you don't discuss the symbolism.

Can irreligion be part of it? most certainly.

Christ only said that there was one church.. so whichever one it is, is the right one.. the rest that claim they are God's or have the means to grant salvation, are part of the whore in some manner or another.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nephi says there are three distinct groups of people as stated above. The first are those who chose a worldly life including the knowing choice to live a hedonistic life, knowingly reject God and all things that are good. They call good things evil and evil things good. They are followers of Satan's way.

The other groups are those people who chose to live a holy life to the best of their ability and understanding. They would have chosen to be righteous people regardless of which religious tradition they were born into. The difference between these two groups is that one has taken on themselves the added responsibilities of the Priesthood as found in the restored gospel. Both are of the Church of the Lamb of God.

Religious denomination is not part of the calculus as all people will have an equal opportunity to hear the gospel and make informed decisions about which path to take. There are no distinct religious denominations in the next life. Just those who who take on the responsibilities of the priesthood and those who do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two interpretations I've seen and heard are:

A. Catholic Church

B. All that oppose Jesus Christ's church is considered the abominable church

The reason the Catholic Church is seen as the interpretation is due to the wording in the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 13:26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men,

These are the specific verses that cause people to interpret it as the Catholic Church. It was in fact ancient Catholic scribes that translated the scriptures. They decided what was canon and what wasn't. However, when the scriptures were translated the scribes did not understand the wording of all the original scriptures so they included words to get the scriptures to mean what they (the scribes) thought they meant. An example is the phrase "God is spirit" while according to historical documents of the languages at the time the word "is" would not have been used so it would actually translate to "God spirit". Since it was their council that decided what was canon and what wasn't then indeed some things that were precious were taken out. I'm not saying the Catholic Church is the abominable church the Book of Mormon speaks of, I'm just going by their history as well as the wording of the Book of Mormon. Since the Catholic Church was the one that decided what was canon they were also ultimately the ones that caused the Bible to go throughout the nations across the waters.

The reason people interpret it as anyone that is opposed to Jesus Christ's true church is actually pretty simple and makes sense. Jesus Christ said in the New Testament that if you're not with him you're against him.

I'm not giving my opinion one way or the other, I'm just giving unbiased information on why people interpret it the way they do. I hope I've helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share