Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

You have inadvertently and mistakenly imposed a binary mindset on what is happening on this thread. Here, certainly with me, the secular (oft the product of religious scientists) isn't replacing the prophetic. Rather, it is adding to it, along the lines of the 13th Article of Faith and Joseph Smith's comments about the best books and truth as one eternal round. . 

What I intend here isn't for everyone, least of all the dogmatic, binary minded, and the symbolically and imaginative challenged.;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Im not so sure how LDS taught secular teachings in evolutionary science is adding to prophetic scripture. I see it as tearing it apart. Its a dangerous situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its sad that good men have dedicated their entire adult lives to studying an alternate path than the creation and flood stories. Imagine that- decades of study into a false paradigm! Entire branches of science that is science fiction! We may be better off to believe Star Trek to be a documentary.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not so sure how LDS taught secular teachings in evolutionary science is adding to prophetic scripture. I see it as tearing it apart. Its a dangerous situation.

Evidently, there are things beyond your capacity to see, or which cause you to see things not as they are. ;)

But, to each their own. Your well-intended concerns have been duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Evidently, there are things beyond your capacity to see, or which cause you to see things not as they are. ;)

But, to each their own. Your well-intended concerns have been duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I mean- what happens with those fields of geology when we come to find that the geologic column is just the catastrophic flood sediments from Noahs day? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its sad that good men have dedicated their entire adult lives to studying an alternate path than the creation and flood stories. Imagine that- decades of study into a false paradigm! Entire branches of science that is science fiction! We may be better off to believe Star Trek to be a documentary.

Perhaps you see it that way because you mistakenly suppose that the intent behind the creation and flood accounts is to document history rather than tell a story to make a point--as with Star Trek.

I believe the intent is the latter (i.e. to bring us to Christ), and so the comparison with Star Trek is not problematic for me. After all, Christ frequently told stories to make points. We call them parables.

Now, this is not to say that the creation and flood accounts are fiction. I believe they are, to some extent, historical, though the intent behind their telling wasn't to document history. I believe the same holds true for most all of scriptures.

But, credit where credit is due. I came to this understanding by listening to a podcast by Ben Spackman.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I mean- what happens with those fields of geology when we come to find that the geologic column is just the catastrophic flood sediments from Noahs day? 

I am not a geologist, so I wouldn't know. Nor, for that matter, do I care because it pushes the flood account well beyond what I view as its intended purpose--i.e. to seek Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Perhaps you see it that way because you mistakenly suppose that the intent behind the creation and flood accounts is to document history rather than tell a story to make a point--as with Star Trek.

I believe the intent is the latter (i.e. to bring us to Christ), and so the comparison with Star Trek is not problematic for me. After all, Christ frequently told stories to make points. We call them parables.

Now, this is not to say that the creation and flood accounts are fiction. I believe they are, to some extent, historical, though the intent behind their telling wasn't to document history. I believe the same holds true for most all of scriptures.

But, credit where credit is due. I came to this understanding by listening to a podcast by Ben Spackman.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is the problem I believe- the approach of as long as there is no conflict with what science has to say then yes, we can believe those parts of the bible. Like the flood story for instance- as long as the flood was a localized event then yes, it could have happened. Or- as long as there were pre-adamites then yes, we can believe Adam and Eve were the first, of what we can call "our race".

The flood wasnt a localized event. Thats the problem. The creation of Adam is that there werent pre-adamites. Thats the point. So, when you have LDS scholars teaching this garbadge based entirely off of secular knowledge, it undermines the gospel. We are effectually adding credibility to secular humanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am not a geologist, so I wouldn't know. Nor, for that matter, do I care because it pushes the flood account well beyond what I view as its intended purpose--i.e. to seek Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not a geologist either but I do know tomfoolery when it comes a knockin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is the problem I believe- the approach of as long as there is no conflict with what science has to say then yes, we can believe those parts of the bible. Like the flood story for instance- as long as the flood was a localized event then yes, it could have happened. Or- as long as there were pre-adamites then yes, we can believe Adam and Eve were the first, of what we can call "our race".

The flood wasnt a localized event. Thats the problem. The creation of Adam is that there werent pre-adamites. Thats the point. So, when you have LDS scholars teaching this garbadge based entirely off of secular knowledge, it undermines the gospel. We are effectually adding credibility to secular humanism.

This may be a problem for you, but not for me, because whether the creation and flood stories are historical or not is, to me,  irrelevant to the intents for which they were told--i.e. to bring us to Christ and seek after him. As I see it, focusing on the historicity of the stories, particularly as to whether or not they comport perfectly or otherwise with science, misses the point, or at the very least detracts from the point of the stories

Now, you are free to wage war against science and some of your fellow saints who value science--tilt windmills as it were, if that suits your own purpose. However, I prefer to focus on the purpose of the stories, and make peace with science and fellow saints to the extent that I gain further insights into the purpose.

To each their own.

Quote

I am not a geologist either but I do know tomfoolery when it comes a knockin.

Clearly, tomfoolery is in the eye of the beholder. Again, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

This may be a problem for you, but not for me, because whether the creation and flood stories are historical or not is, to me,  irrelevant to the intents for which they were told--i.e. to bring us to Christ and seek after him. As I see it, focusing on the historicity of the stories, particularly as to whether or not they comport perfectly or otherwise with science, misses the point, or at the very least detracts from the point of the stories

Now, you are free to wage war against science and some of your fellow saints who value science--tilt windmills as it were, if that suits your own purpose. However, I prefer to focus on the purpose of the stories, and make peace with science and fellow saints to the extent that I gain further insights into the purpose.

To each their own.

Clearly, tomfoolery is in the eye of the beholder. Again, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And, for some like you it isnt necessarily a problem. But in general, especially those still in school, it is a problem. More and more of the younger generation disbelieve the historicity of the bible and as such they dont have a solid foundation to build their faith upon. If ones foundation is built upon the sandy foundations of secular rule then when the storms come their little faith is dashed to pieces.

Its one reason why I am firmly against the left wing rule of politics in removing God and biblical teachings from schools. Foundations like the NCSE were formed specifically to counter biblical teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And, for some like you it isnt necessarily a problem. But in general, especially those still in school, it is a problem. More and more of the younger generation disbelieve the historicity of the bible and as such they dont have a solid foundation to build their faith upon. If ones foundation is built upon the sandy foundations of secular rule then when the storms come their little faith is dashed to pieces.

Its one reason why I am firmly against the left wing rule of politics in removing God and biblical teachings from schools. Foundations like the NCSE were formed specifically to counter biblical teachings.

I understand your concern, and even share it to some degree. However, I believe what I am doing here, along with those I have referenced,  will provide more of a bridge for people to return to spiritual faith than head the other direction--in part because, unlike perhaps  we are not unnecessarily and more radically compounding the tension between science and religion that may have caused them to move away to begin with.

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

I understand your concern, and even share it to some degree. However, I believe what I am doing here, along with those I have referenced,  will provide more of a bridge for people to return to spiritual faith than head the other direction--in part because, unlike perhaps  we are not unnecessarily and more radically compounding the tension between science and religion that may have caused them to move away to begin with. Yay! Writing for social change!

But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you accomplish your aim without seeking to allegorize scripture?

The process of allegorization is simply beating around the bush. A process that is fraught with danger, the danger of your intent being hijacked by people who disagree with seeing allegory in historical events or being hijacked by people who dispute the veracity of the same historical event due some application of science. Here's an ad hoc formula that I bet will work:

  1. Avoid controversial historical events,
  2. avoid the baked-in controversies surrounding controversial historical events, and
  3. obviously, avoid allegory altogether (it's confusing and allegory nearly always fall apart under pressure), then
  4. state your idea clearly without manipulation (I recommend a clear three stage thesis),
  5. provide a limited series of supports that get to the point quickly (really long series of supports bore your readers) , and
  6. close with a clear conclusion that reaffirms the original thesis.

If you are writing for a forum, realize writing more than five hundred words is simply writing too much--more than five hundred words is too much for a blog even. If you need more space than five hundred words, write a series of forum posts and/or blog entries. The important thing is: be simple, avoid controversial historical events, don't allegorize, and be concise.

Whatever you were trying to accomplish got lost in the controversies surrounding the creation narrative. I'm interested in your content, not a creation allegory: stop beating around the bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2018 at 4:49 AM, the Ogre said:

Can you accomplish your aim without seeking to allegorize scripture?

The process of allegorization is simply beating around the bush. A process that is fraught with danger, the danger of your intent being hijacked by people who disagree with seeing allegory in historical events or being hijacked by people who dispute the veracity of the same historical event due some application of science. Here's an ad hoc formula that I bet will work:

  1. Avoid controversial historical events,
  2. avoid the baked-in controversies surrounding controversial historical events, and
  3. obviously, avoid allegory altogether (it's confusing and allegory nearly always fall apart under pressure), then
  4. state your idea clearly without manipulation (I recommend a clear three stage thesis),
  5. provide a limited series of supports that get to the point quickly (really long series of supports bore your readers) , and
  6. close with a clear conclusion that reaffirms the original thesis.

If you are writing for a forum, realize writing more than five hundred words is simply writing too much--more than five hundred words is too much for a blog even. If you need more space than five hundred words, write a series of forum posts and/or blog entries. The important thing is: be simple, avoid controversial historical events, don't allegorize, and be concise.

Whatever you were trying to accomplish got lost in the controversies surrounding the creation narrative. I'm interested in your content, not a creation allegory: stop beating around the bush.

Members who have a problem with me "allegorizing" need to understand that I am simply following the example of Christ as well as a host of his prophets. 

It also helps were they not to post a lengthy post about why not to post lengthy posts. ;)

As for accomplishing my aim, I actually have several, at least two of which have been satisfied quite nicely, already. So, not to worry.

[Edit: with as much blow-back as I am getting from members on this thread I am debating whether this is the right venue for such a discussion and whether or not I may be inadvertently casting pearls where they ought not be cast.  I am leaning otherwise at the moment, but I will see as things either progress or digress as the discussion continues.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Noting point of consideration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:49 AM, the Ogre said:

Can you accomplish your aim without seeking to allegorize scripture?

The process of allegorization is simply beating around the bush. A process that is fraught with danger, the danger of your intent being hijacked by people who disagree with seeing allegory in historical events or being hijacked by people who dispute the veracity of the same historical event due some application of science. Here's an ad hoc formula that I bet will work:

  1. Avoid controversial historical events,
  2. avoid the baked-in controversies surrounding controversial historical events, and
  3. obviously, avoid allegory altogether (it's confusing and allegory nearly always fall apart under pressure), then
  4. state your idea clearly without manipulation (I recommend a clear three stage thesis),
  5. provide a limited series of supports that get to the point quickly (really long series of supports bore your readers) , and
  6. close with a clear conclusion that reaffirms the original thesis.

If you are writing for a forum, realize writing more than five hundred words is simply writing too much--more than five hundred words is too much for a blog even. If you need more space than five hundred words, write a series of forum posts and/or blog entries. The important thing is: be simple, avoid controversial historical events, don't allegorize, and be concise.

Whatever you were trying to accomplish got lost in the controversies surrounding the creation narrative. I'm interested in your content, not a creation allegory: stop beating around the bush.

 

Just wondering how you personally know what in scripture is not allegorical (meaning a type and shadow ) or prophesy of things to come.  I am of the opinion that everything from G-d is allegorical.  That even what is claimed to be historical is written to be a type and shadow of things to come - See Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, then, with Rob's encouragement, we will consider Day Two.

However to do so effectively, it would be good to briefly and superficially recall what was accomplished in the  "first day," so as to act as a foundation upon which to build conceptually with the following days.

In Day One, the earth was formed, but it was empty and desolate, though there was a "deep" and "waters"(it is uncertain to me whether they are one and the same or two different things), and also darkness. Then, there was light, and the light was separated from the darkness, and the light was called "Day" and the darkness "Night."

The separation of light and darkness was evidently not so much discrete but arrayed in a circular spectrum, with the light/day ranging from "morning" to "evening," and the darkness/night ranging from "evening" to "morning." (see Abr. 4:1-5)

At this point in the story,  all of the scriptural accounts are silent about what was going on with the creation of the heavens (note the plural) mentioned in Abraham, or "this heaven"  spoken of in Moses, or "the heaven" spoken of in Genesis.

So, regardless what interpretation or symbolism one may ascribe to Day One, the accounting of time is either nonexistent or different from how it would be accounted for on Day Four.

That having been said, Day Two consisted of God or the Gods commanding, and God making a great expanse or firmament which divided the waters above the expanse and firmament from the waters below the same. The expanse or firmament was then called Heaven.

Now, from a literal or material description of the creation of "the heavens and earth," or "this heaven and earth," one needs to decide whether the description was given in rudimentary terms and with the material understanding (perhaps not entirely accurate) of those living way back in Moses' day or before, or whether it described things precisely as they occurred and in ways that may escape, or not, the understanding of even the modern scientific mind, or otherwise? 

I would be interested to hear the opinions of the literalists among us before venturing into the symbolic.

Evidently, this separating of the waters by the expanse or firmament was accounted for by the seemingly circular spectrum of  light and darkness, from evening to morning, and from morning to evening, thus making it the second day..

I just noticed that each day begins with the onset of darkness (evening) and then on to the onset of light (morning), and closes again with the onset of darkness. This makes sense since, according to Day One, darkness preceded light. I am not sure what implications this has for the literalists, but it poses some interesting possibilities for those of us also symbolically inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Okay, then, with Rob's encouragement, we will consider Day Two.

However to do so effectively, it would be good to briefly and superficially recall what was accomplished in the  "first day," so as to act as a foundation upon which to build conceptually with the following days.

In Day One, the earth was formed, but it was empty and desolate, though there was a "deep" and "waters"(it is uncertain to me whether they are one and the same or two different things), and also darkness. Then, there was light, and the light was separated from the darkness, and the light was called "Day" and the darkness "Night."

The separation of light and darkness was evidently not so much discrete but arrayed in a circular spectrum, with the light/day ranging from "morning" to "evening," and the darkness/night ranging from "evening" to "morning." (see Abr. 4:1-5)

At this point in the story,  all of the scriptural accounts are silent about what was going on with the creation of the heavens (note the plural) mentioned in Abraham, or "this heaven"  spoken of in Moses, or "the heaven" spoken of in Genesis.

So, regardless what interpretation or symbolism one may ascribe to Day One, the accounting of time is either nonexistent or different from how it would be accounted for on Day Four.

That having been said, Day Two consisted of God or the Gods commanding, and God making a great expanse or firmament which divided the waters above the expanse and firmament from the waters below the same. The expanse or firmament was then called Heaven.

Now, from a literal or material description of the creation of "the heavens and earth," or "this heaven and earth," one needs to decide whether the description was given in rudimentary terms and with the material understanding (perhaps not entirely accurate) of those living way back in Moses' day or before, or whether it described things precisely as they occurred and in ways that may escape, or not, the understanding of even the modern scientific mind, or otherwise? 

I would be interested to hear the opinions of the literalists among us before venturing into the symbolic.

Evidently, this separating of the waters by the expanse or firmament was accounted for by the seemingly circular spectrum of  light and darkness, from evening to morning, and from morning to evening, thus making it the second day..

I just noticed that each day begins with the onset of darkness (evening) and then on to the onset of light (morning), and closes again with the onset of darkness. This makes sense since, according to Day One, darkness preceded light. I am not sure what implications this has for the literalists, but it poses some interesting possibilities for those of us also symbolically inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

This is interesting in that according to Abraham this first day and night was the very first of that which the Gods called day and night, not according to earths reckoning but for themselves in their reckoning. This is in light of the fact that God had not yet organized the Stars, sun or moon yet to divide the day and night. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Just wondering how you personally know what in scripture is not allegorical (meaning a type and shadow ) or prophesy of things to come.  I am of the opinion that everything from G-d is allegorical.  That even what is claimed to be historical is written to be a type and shadow of things to come - See Ecclesiastes 1:9

 

The Traveler

Ah, you get the point!

New Point: it doesn't matter if you or I think something is allegorical or not, others WILL disagree and WILL disagree to the point where any scriptural instruction is possible. Fighting is always the problem.

For example, the flood: I think the flood is both historical and allegorical, but there are individuals, entire faith-groups, historians, scientists, philosophers, and skeptics who disagree. Then there are disagreements about how historical the flood is or which allegorical interpretations are allowed if they can be allowed. Eventually, the whole point of any discussion is bogged down over the veracity or interpretation of the flood event itself and not the spiritual or scriptural point that might've been made and everyone gets mad, retreats to their personal orthodoxies, and no one learns anything and any hope of constructive discussion is lost. This very thread is an illustration of that point: whatever the OP's point might've been is lost in useless minutia, that's why points 1-3 of the bullet list I provided is so important.

You've been active on this forum for decades, Traveler, and the discussions you get involved with or start always get bogged down. It's boring and you never accomplish anything, however, I like reading what you have to say, but almost never choose to rebut you or discuss anything with you because it would be useless to: you like bogs, pitfalls, stumbling blocks, minutia, and the nitpickery of language especially when it shows you just might the smartest person on the forum (keep in mind, I do not think you should stop posting, because you are very knowledgeable and have loads to contribute).

I think such king-of-the-hill discussions are pointless and a contravention of the intent of the gospel and the four-fold mission of the church, however writing that is accessible, clear, and bereft of opaque subtlety and ego would be beneficial to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the Ogre said:

Ah, you get the point!

New Point: it doesn't matter if you or I think something is allegorical or not, others WILL disagree and WILL disagree to the point where any scriptural instruction is possible. Fighting is always the problem.

For example, the flood: I think the flood is both historical and allegorical, but there are individuals, entire faith-groups, historians, scientists, philosophers, and skeptics who disagree. Then there are disagreements about how historical the flood is or which allegorical interpretations are allowed if they can be allowed. Eventually, the whole point of any discussion is bogged down over the veracity or interpretation of the flood event itself and not the spiritual or scriptural point that might've been made and everyone gets mad, retreats to their personal orthodoxies, and no one learns anything and any hope of constructive discussion is lost. This very thread is an illustration of that point: whatever the OP's point might've been is lost in useless minutia, that's why points 1-3 of the bullet list I provided is so important.

You've been active on this forum for decades, Traveler, and the discussions you get involved with or start always get bogged down. It's boring and you never accomplish anything, however, I like reading what you have to say, but almost never choose to rebut you or discuss anything with you because it would be useless to: you like bogs, pitfalls, stumbling blocks, minutia, and the nitpickery of language especially when it shows you just might the smartest person on the forum (keep in mind, I do not think you should stop posting, because you are very knowledgeable and have loads to contribute).

I think such king-of-the-hill discussions are pointless and a contravention of the intent of the gospel and the four-fold mission of the church, however writing that is accessible, clear, and bereft of opaque subtlety and ego would be beneficial to everyone.

 

I do not necessarily post for resolution – my main purpose is to try to get people to think and consider possibilities – especially to explorer possibilities they have never considered before.   I have found that the fewer viewpoints one is willing to consider (ponder) the less likely they are to stumble across truth.  Once in a while I will speak directly to something I believe (like now).  I believe that if someone cannot discuss something without becoming angry or upset – They are not influenced by a holy spirit.  To disagree is not a problem – to have disputations is.

Thanks for reading my posts – and responding – this time.  I will look forward to reading more of your posts.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the Ogre said:

New Point: it doesn't matter if you or I think something is allegorical or not, others WILL disagree and WILL disagree to the point where any scriptural instruction is possible. Fighting is always the problem.

Fighting may occur, but not always,. And, from my experience, the same is true for pretty much any discussion (including non-allegorical) where there are differing views.

For example, Rob and I have disagreed on this thread, but at least for my part, we aren't fighting, but have respectfully considered and tested opposing views,  while granting to each their own.

The problem (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is one), then, it isn't with "allegorizing," but with fighting.

I say "assuming there is one" because I see fighting as sometimes beneficial in a number of ways, not the least of which it hones skills needed in the war of ideas. I can't see any way to test the tensile strength of one's belief absent tension--oops, there I go allegorizing again. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is interesting in that according to Abraham this first day and night was the very first of that which the Gods called day and night, not according to earths reckoning but for themselves in their reckoning. This is in light of the fact that God had not yet organized the Stars, sun or moon yet to divide the day and night. 

Also of interest is that the accounts give no indication as to whether the reckoning is in terms of the dimension of time,  or some other dimension, such as phases from darkness to light and back to darkness.

Furthermore, given the absence of sun, moon, and stars for days 1 through 3, one may wonder what is the source, if any, for the light. Indeed, one may wonder if the light is electromagnetic radiation (which assumes a source from whence it is radiated) or some other thing?

And, is there some reason the light was commanded into existence prior to the waters being separated? Was the light needed in order to see to separate the waters?

Even more baffling is that the earth was formed on Day One, while heaven was formed on Day Two.

Very interesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Fighting may occur, but not always,. And, from my experience, the same is true for pretty much any discussion (including non-allegorical) where there are differing views.

For example, Rob and I have disagreed on this thread, but at least for my part, we aren't fighting, but have respectfully considered and tested opposing views,  while granting to each their own.

The problem (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is one), then, it isn't with "allegorizing," but with fighting.

I say "assuming there is one" because I see fighting as sometimes beneficial in a number of ways, not the least of which it hones skills needed in the war of ideas. I can't see any way to test the tensile strength of one's belief absent tension--oops, there I go allegorizing again. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Think so . . . m'kay . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Also of interest is that the accounts give no indication as to whether the reckoning is in terms of the dimension of time,  or some other dimension, such as phases from darkness to light and back to darkness.

Furthermore, given the absence of sun, moon, and stars for days 1 through 3, one may wonder what is the source, if any, for the light. Indeed, one may wonder if the light is electromagnetic radiation (which assumes a source from whence it is radiated) or some other thing?

And, is there some reason the light was commanded into existence prior to the waters being separated? Was the light needed in order to see to separate the waters?

Even more baffling is that the earth was formed on Day One, while heaven was formed on Day Two.

Very interesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hum...Im pretty sure the heavens were created either first or at the same time as the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have several accounts of the “creation” in scripture.   Those that pay close attention to each account realize that days 3 and 4 are out of order.  But this will only be known by someone loyal and attentive to all covenants required for salvation in the Celestial Kingdom (a quick note here because we are commended to remain “awake” and “attentive” to revelations received with certain covenants).  I would suggest that those that rely solely on scripture for their understanding of things do not understand as much as they should or could.

 

The Traveler

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