Adam & Eve idea, outside of the box?


NeedleinA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, do you ever have a moment when you learn/hear something different/outside of the box and go, "Hum, that was really interesting!". I just had one of those moments. I just finished up 40 minutes of watching a lecture: Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA, from a FAIR Conference. 

Perhaps old news to others, but new to me in several areas. If I understood the speaker correctly as he gave his opinion, I took away the following and would be interested in your thoughts.

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a particular part FP that strikes you as flat out wrong? I'm not defending his "theory". It struck me as something different and worth taking a moment to dissect, similar to many posts on here. Sharing it here, well...this is me dissecting it.;)

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

 

Don't have time for the video, but...

  1. I thought this point was not really up for debate.
  2. This makes sense in some ways.  But I also see problems with it.  Even so, it appears to be a non-starter.
  3. What was the interpretation?
  4. Alma 42:3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
  1. What was the interpretation?

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having nojoy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Carb,
I wish I had the short answer, but here are his words:


"Were Adam and Eve inherently immortal when they were placed in the Garden? If so, please give me all the scriptural references that you can find–the one that’s usually referred to is 2 Nephi 2:22. Let’s look at that scripture: “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.”

That seems fairly straightforward and it’s used quite commonly to establish the idea that there was a paradisiacal state and that all things, everything would have remained in the same state in which it was created. And in fact, the word “all things” there is used oftentimes to include literally all living things–not only Adam and Eve but everything else.

But let’s read the very next verse which is oftentimes left out, verse 23, which says, “And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”

Is this talking about grass? Or is this just talking about the humans?

Now, I have highlighted the word “they” because if we use–if we’re using proper grammatical construction “all things” or “things” indeed is the noun of that sentence; “they,” then, in both the remainder of that sentence and the following sentence should refer back to the previous noun. So “all things” are not talking about all things; it’s not talking about the grass, it’s not talking about the fruit tress necessarily. It seems to be talking, when we get down to verse 23, about something that’s capable of sinning, i.e., apparently Adam and Eve.

Now we use that same vernacular today. “Hey, if I hadn’t gotten in a car wreck, things would’ve been fine today.” Right? All things would have been hunky dory, they would have continued on just the way they had been.

Because if “all things” really refers to all things in the garden–including say the fruit–how do we account for this scripture: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” (Genesis 2:16). Now, look at something like a mango growing in the garden; in what inflorescent stage was the mango created in the first place? Or was it maybe a full-grown fruit and if it was a fruit, that suggests that there was reproduction going on in the garden. And when Eve prepared that mango for dinner that evening, how did it remain in a state in which it was created once it had been chowed down?

The most reasonable interpretation of 2 Nephi 2:22 is that it referred to Adam and Eve specifically, not to other organisms in the garden. Now, once 2 Nephi 2:22 is dealt with, then I would throw out the challenge (and I’ve done this to many students over a number of years) to identify any other scripture that tells us that Adam and Eve were inherently immortal. Interesting question!

Well where do we get the idea that we were inherently immortal? From St. John. He says in Paradise Lost, Book XI: “I, at first,” meaning God, “with two fair gifts Created him endowed; with happiness, And immortality.”8

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

And when Eve prepared that mango for dinner that evening, how did it remain in a state in which it was created once it had been chowed down?

Not sure, but if it stayed mango-scented, that certainly would have made things more pleasant the next day.

I'm still pondering what the heck snakes looked like before they were condemned to crawl on their bellies.  Did they have legs?  Wings?  Little helium balloons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Well, do you ever have a moment when you learn/hear something different/outside of the box and go, "Hum, that was really interesting!". I just had one of those moments. I just finished up 40 minutes of watching a lecture: Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA, from a FAIR Conference. 

Perhaps old news to others, but new to me in several areas. If I understood the speaker correctly as he gave his opinion, I took away the following and would be interested in your thoughts.

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

Have not watched the videos. Here are my initial impressions:

  1. "Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal."
    What does "inherently immortal" even mean? Heck, I'm "inherently immortal" in the sense that my natural and permanent state will be immortality. One widely accepted Mormon theory (and it most certainly is a theory, not to be confused with revealed doctrine) is that Adam and Eve were in a "natural" state of immortality that ended with their eating of the forbidden (note the word) fruit. This fruit somehow or other caused a biochemical and/or spiritual change in them, rendering them mortal. So, were they "inherently immortal"? Is it "inherent immortality" if we are told, "Okay, you will never die so long as you never do anything that might kill you"? That seems a pretty poor sort of "immortality" to me.
  2. " Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?"
    This is a word game, though one that I think might bear some fruit (no pun intended). Obviously, if we are talking about the life of the macroorganism, the "death" of cells within the organism is not directly relevant to the organism's survival. A related but more interesting question would be about the gut flora; does "immortality" apply to E. coli? In the end, I think we might do best to accept the teaching at what appears to be face value and wait on further light and knowledge to refine our understanding.
  3. "He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22"
    I expect we have all sorts of misinterpretations about the story (history) of Adam and Eve. I suspect that many of the parts we think of as "figurative" may turn out to be surprisingly literal, and some of the parts that many of us are absolutely conviced are exactly literal will in fact turn out to be figurative -- or perhaps literal, but not in the sense we understand them to be. Such things are made known by the Spirit and in no other way, and the Spirit does not always choose to reveal things in terms of current scientific models.
  4. "His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from 'continuing' to eat from it."
    I don't buy it, and I think it's skirting dangerous ground to openly propound such speculative "space doctrine". But I do not utterly disbelieve it; it might indeed be correct, or at least correctish. I fear that such things constitute looking beyond the mark.
1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Well where do we get the idea that we were inherently immortal? From St. John. He says in Paradise Lost, Book XI: “I, at first,” meaning God, “with two fair gifts Created him endowed; with happiness, And immortality.”

Not to belabor the joke, but that is "St. John" as in John Milton. IOW, the author is claiming that there is no scriptural justification for the innate immortality of Adam and Eve.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I expect we have all sorts of misinterpretations about the story (history) of Adam and Eve. I suspect that many of the parts we think of as "figurative" may turn out to be surprisingly literal, and some of the parts that many of us are absolutely conviced are exactly literal will in fact turn out to be figurative -- or perhaps literal, but not in the sense we understand them to be. Such things are made known by the Spirit and in no other way, and the Spirit does not always choose to reveal things in terms of current scientific models.

Thanks for your thoughts as always Vort, I appreciate it. Your quote above probably is the best advice for me when dealing with the entire explained theory in general. 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Is there a particular part FP that strikes you as flat out wrong? 

Well that could be debated for days. Perhaps it will be. Either way, right or wrong, it is no philosophy that comes from scriptures, revelation, or other authorized source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Well, do you ever have a moment when you learn/hear something different/outside of the box and go, "Hum, that was really interesting!". I just had one of those moments. I just finished up 40 minutes of watching a lecture: Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA, from a FAIR Conference. 

Perhaps old news to others, but new to me in several areas. If I understood the speaker correctly as he gave his opinion, I took away the following and would be interested in your thoughts.

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.
2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?
3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22
4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting enough to open up for a discussion if anyone had any thoughts about it. 

FYI: The videos are 4x 10min parts into 40min whole. Parts 3 & 4 are where he gets into his theory.

 

1) Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.

Doctrine is that Adam & Eve were "immortal" as they could not die. In lesson manuals provided by the Church to the youth we read, "Condition before the Fall... 3. No physical death (immortal)." (source)

The Church's Book of Mormon Student Manual provides a quote from Bruce R. McConkie, "If there had been no creation of all things in a deathless or immortal state, there could have been no fall, and hence no atonement and no salvation." (Source)

The concept of being restored, as in restoration of all things from Incorruption to corruption to incorruption, from being immortal to mortality to immortality, is a principle of revealed doctrine.  We are restored to a previous state (immortal physical body) we or our first parents once had.

2) Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?

One of my professors at BYU mentioned the notion that plants in relation to bodies (human and animal) may have a different sphere of truth, by which they were created. He professed the notion that plant life, within the sphere God created, were not in the same state as Adam, Eve, and other bodied creatures. Fruit was produced. Adam and Eve could eat. At the same time, we do not know what it means to be immortal regarding fruit. Interesting theory.

Nails, hair, etc...could easily have been the way God created the human body. Surely he knows how to create hair, nails, and human skin without having it be "dead." Which draws an interesting thought, does our hair continually grow as immortal beings like our Father in Heaven? Hmmm....or are they in such a perfect state it is not needed. What if I want to play a joke on my sister and pull her hair, and some breaks off, will it grow back, or will I be unable to break any hair? What if Adam caught on fire would he have burned? Would he have said "Ouch"?  The given questions appear to be in the same sentiment of thought as the questions I just proposed.

3) He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22

That is the way I understand it. No death. If one cannot die, that appears to be considered "Immortal."

4) Refer to the concept of restoration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

1. Adam & Eve were not inherently immortal.

Except they were immortal. The consequence of eating the forbidden fruit is that they would die (Gen. 2:17). That means they were, indeed immortal. Imagine if the consequence was something like "in the day you eat you will surely let the air flow through your lungs". The natural conclusion would be that they didn't breathe with their lungs before that.

Whether that's inherent, I'm not sure what's meant here. Was there a period of time when they weren't immortal? Perhaps, but we seem to be limiting the scope to the Garden eastward in Eden, so any speculation on their state beforehand doesn't seem to have a lot of bearing to the topic at hand.

Quote

2. Death (in various forms) was occurring in the garden. Examples he gave: Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Did Adam & Eve ever pick a fruit off of a tree and discard it on the ground? Being separated from the tree, did it rot or live forever on the ground?

This seems to be more of a question of what it means to be immortal. Does the resurrected Jesus have hair, nails, and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells. Perhaps He is not so immortal after all? Or immortality might refer to the system rather than the parts. Or not, maybe immortal hair really is living. Regardless, I don't see this as destroying the stable state that existed in the Garden before the Fall, unless we allow for it to destroy the stable state that the faithful are promised hereafter.

Regarding the discarded fruit hypothetical - it would have turned into a female tree, as the Lord discovered when He tried to discard Adam's rib. :P

Quote

3. He addresses our common understanding/translation regarding: 2 Nephi 2:22

"All things which were created" does not refer to Adam and Eve (from my reading). If so, that's a really awkward construct. I agree that the traditional reading interprets "all things which were created" to mean "all animals and plants" and sometimes "all rivers, oceans, and landmasses". And I'll even agree that there can be an alternate reading if we turn all the "they"s into references to Adam and Eve (which I agree 23 does). 

19 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after [Adam and Eve | all things (either way)] were created; and [Adam and Eve] must have remained forever, and had no end.

 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

I think the variant reading that could be supported is that "all things which were created" is the state of creation, that is, "all things which were created" is the immortal, sterile, innocent, joyless, miseryless, goodless, sinless state. Making this interpretation seems to move forward with what he's proposing. I'm not fully convinced, but I'll humor that and move on.

23 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

4. His theory: two mortal beings Adam & Eve had been plucked out of the mainstream (ongoing population on Earth), isolated in the Garden of Eden and while there had access to the Tree of Life. The tree made them immortal while they were partaking of it. Once kicked out, a cherubim had to then be placed in front of tree to stop them from "continuing" to eat from it. 

Wait, if they were immortal, then what about the dead skin, hair, and fingernails? I feel like we've created a problem but we still haven't really solved it. Unless the solution here is to say - see there is death all over the Garden (trees, grass, fruit, etc) it's just the whole entity of Adam and of Eve that are deathless - in which case, why not just go with the immortal/stable system I mentioned above. Then you can have rotting fruit and branches so long as trees don't die.

Are they only immortal so long as they eat the fruit once a day (since we're saying it's not 'inherent')? Or once a week? Is that the gist?

Does the fruit also make them sterile (Tree of Life indeed!)? joyless? innocent? or are some of these carried over from pre-Edenic life? If that's the case, why not have an immortal Adam and Eve placed in the Garden?

And if there's a population on Earth, why aren't they going into the Garden when there's an immortality tree? Are there cherubim surrounding the Garden?

I feel like this solution creates more problems than it solves (and I don't think it satisfactorily solves the one it was aiming for).

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for all your thoughts!

I sure hope that I gave the poor speaker a fair swing at what he was saying. I only listened through it once and then made this thread. I hope he didn't say "black" and I heard "white" and vice versa. I've never attended a FAIR conference before. Not sure how speakers are selected, screened or debated after their presentation??

If nothing else, it allows my brain to run wild for a moment and then regroup and focus back again on the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Wait, if they were immortal, then what about the dead skin, hair, and fingernails?

Absolutely!  I didn't notice that.  But it really is a self-contradictory argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2016 at 0:43 PM, NeedleinA said:

Did Adam & Eve have hair, nails and human skin? If so, they are the result of dead cells.

Unless hair, skin and nails (along with fallen apples) have an independent spirit, the answer doesn't matter. Death, being the separation of spirit from body, did not exist until there were spirits (irrespective of the life form: human, plant earth) in the physical bodies.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy. I opened a can of hooplah on this thread didn't I ;)

The speaker, Trent Stephens, seems like a smart/dedicated/faithful enough brother to have thought some of this through before sharing his thoughts at FAIR and writing a book on it. I think "I" may be the weak link in this equation by not conveying him well enough OR  perhaps, as many have suggested, it is simply a theory full of gospel doctrine holes. 

Off of his "Mormon Scholars Testify" profiles, (just found this):
Trent Dee Stephens, Ph.D., is Professor of Anatomy and Embryology in the Department of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University and Clinical Professor in the Department of Oral Biology at the Creighton University School of Dentistry. He received a B.S. in microbiology and a B.S. in zoology from Brigham Young University in 1973, an M.S. in zoology from BYU in 1974, and a Ph.D. in anatomy from the University of Pennsylvania in 1977. 

Trust me, I'm the first to say, credentials don't over rule doctrine/prophets/scripture... so I only share the above bio to offer up that he isn't a spring chicken in the world of Biology.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2016 at 6:29 PM, Vort said:

One widely accepted Mormon theory (and it most certainly is a theory, not to be confused with revealed doctrine) is that Adam and Eve were in a "natural" state of immortality that ended with their eating of the forbidden (note the word) fruit. This fruit somehow or other caused a biochemical and/or spiritual change in them, rendering them mortal.

I'm not sure where this idea originated from, but if I had to guess why it is further perpetuated, I would guess perhaps the Bible Dictionary??
Fall of Adam:
"...With the eating of the "forbidden fruit," Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies,..."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Thanks everyone for all your thoughts!

I sure hope that I gave the poor speaker a fair swing at what he was saying. I only listened through it once and then made this thread. I hope he didn't say "black" and I heard "white" and vice versa. I've never attended a FAIR conference before. Not sure how speakers are selected, screened or debated after their presentation??

If nothing else, it allows my brain to run wild for a moment and then regroup and focus back again on the basics.

I have attended a FAIR conference and I'd say about 50% was the philosophies of men at work trying to satisfy other philosophies of men. The rest was faithful solid defense of the revealed gospel.

FAIR is not doctrine. I like FAIR. I support FAIR. I have also seen members, speakers, and writers there sliding in the past half a decade more and more towards the liberal progressivism that plagues us nowadays. Not to say they're liberal or progressive, for the most part...just moreso than they may have been in the past, and moreso than I feel they ought to be.

Yes...it annoys me.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have attended a FAIR conference and I'd say about 50% was the philosophies of men at work trying to satisfy other philosophies of men. The rest was faithful solid defense of the revealed gospel.

FAIR is not doctrine. I like FAIR. I support FAIR. I have also seen members, speakers, and writers there sliding in the past half a decade more and more towards the liberal progressivism that plagues us nowadays. Not to say they're liberal or progressive, for the most part...just moreso than they may have been in the past, and moreso than I feel they ought to be.

Yes...it annoys me.

Thanks for the personal insight FP. Correct, the FAIR articles & lectures, by themselves, do no constitute doctrine. I too like FAIR, a lot, and greatly appreciate their efforts to organize and defend the Church. I also appreciate this site greatly for the same reason, Gracias all!

"Yes...it annoys me." - noted;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the FairMormon.org website. I've learned a lot from their topics page http://en.fairmormon.org/Table_of_Contents

The specific lecture you referred to sounds like the speculations of someone going beyond the mark, so I don't think it's worth my time to investigate it. We just don't have enough information to talk about this, I think.

The question that does interest me is that of pre-Adamites. We don't know the answer but I'm looking forward to learning it one day. Nibley has some interesting speculations about it, http://publications.mi.byu.edu/transcript/before-adam/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/04/2016 at 8:07 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

*shrug*

To me, one of the beauties of the Atonement is that it rescues mankind from a spiritual and physical predicament that we, not He, created.

This is a bit of a side track, but I thought that under the rules of the game, the spiritual and physical predicament that we are currently in are necessary and unavoidable parts of the whole plan of salvation. Adam and Eve certainly committed the acts that led to our current situation, but according to the rules under which they were operating there was no way that they could have avoided doing so without jeopardising the broader plan. Adam and Eve, by their actions created the situation but He, not they, created the rules that led to the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God said an earthly probation was necessary, but He never said sinning had to be a part of that learning process.  We did that ourselves.

We know that when Adam and Eve were left alone in the Garden, they were promised that God would return eventually with further instructions.  What if those instructions would have created a situation where Eve's partaking the fruit was done with full understanding of the ramifications and represented a covenant, rather than a product of a satanic deceit?  What if, given a different chain of events in the Garden, the earth and its inhabitants could have been had paradisiacal glory for its entire temporal existence rather than just the last thousand years?  How do we know that mortality had to end through death, rather than through translation as it will in the Millennium?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
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