To serve or not to serve


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is very easy to reconcile in terms of what we should be helping the young men to accomplish. 

 

As quoted from Handbook 2 section 8.1.3:

Purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood

Young men are in a time of preparation and personal spiritual growth. Accordingly, parents and the bishopric and other Aaronic Priesthood leaders help each young man to:

1. Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live by its teachings.

2. Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices.

3. Give meaningful service.

4. Prepare and live worthily to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances.

5. Prepare to serve an honorable full-time mission.

6. Obtain as much education as possible.

7. Prepare to become a worthy husband and father.

8. Give proper respect to women, girls, and children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

Okay... let's analyze this one.  How many is "enough to leave a young impressionable kid with that belief" in your ward?  30?  10?  5?  How many of these early returned missionaries in your ward are impressionable?  All of them, only some of them?  What's the cross-sectional average of impressionable early returned missionaries and number of awful people in wards that makes it reasonable to stop teaching young men that it is their Godly duty to go on a mission?  75%?  50%? 10%? 1?

And it's not at all a consideration that maybe these early returned missionaries are actually not hurting from awful people (because there are awful people everywhere, I'm sure this is not their first exposure to them) but from their own feelings of failure from not having completed their mission?  This is actually a very common feeling, even in athletes that, for no reason within their control, end up getting injured and can't finish the race.

I know you think you are funny and you really are. Esp in the light majority of early returns are for mental illness. I'm sure you are kidding about the stats you ask for because you think they don't exist. I have two links to papers for you to read. You likely won't read them, but if you do you will see how the church's organized response and methods of dealing with early rm  is severely lacking. There is also good commentary about the issue in regards to the church and members too. Interestingly, the three most unsupportive people to the eraly return are the stake pres, bishop and ward members. Overall the handling of the issue is a hot mess for a lack of a better descriptor.

Happy reading if you are willing to:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/irp/

Go to the article re experience  of early return missionary parents

 

 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=irp

This one goes directly to the paper

Enjoy!

 

I nearly forgot...you ask how many people does it take to leave a lasting impression? If it is the bishop...only one.

 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2018 at 4:56 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Do they really? All of them? Are all commandments ever given phrased with "shall"? Is that you're peculiar personal take on doctrine? If it doesn't use some version of the word "shall" in the phrasing, please disregard?

But even if we took it as truth that what you say is right? Do you really fail to understand that we "should" do those things we have been commanded to do, regardless of the phrasing, but that is not ALL we "should" do. There are a great many things we "should" do and a great many things we "shouldn't" do, and when we do not do things that we "should' do it's problematic and when we do things we "shouldn't" do it's problematic.

I suspect you fully well understand this. But as I said before, you can't argue with someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant on some matter or another in order to justify themselves.

You're right. You're entitled to your opinion.

I think he needs to read the following verse of scripture a little closer, "Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban," (emphasis added) -- Literally we could also say here, "The Lord hath [counseled] me..."

But then again, maybe Laman and Lemuel had it correct and since Lehi didn't use the word "shall" (at least what we have in scripture) they really 'should' have just stayed in the tent and let Nephi go and just follow "counsel" since commandments only begin with "shall" not "should." 

Scriptures are pretty clear "should" and "shall" are both used with commandments, and when a prophet of the Lord says, "The Lord expects it." I am not sure how anyone could interpret any other way.

"Wherefore, [the Lord expects me] that though and thy brothers should go..." A commandment is an expectation to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I think he needs to read the following verse of scripture a little closer, "Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban," (emphasis added) -- Literally we could also say here, "The Lord hath [counseled] me..."

But then again, maybe Laman and Lemuel had it correct and since Lehi didn't use the word "shall" (at least what we have in scripture) they really 'should' have just stayed in the tent and let Nephi go and just follow "counsel" since commandments only begin with "shall" not "should." 

Scriptures are pretty clear "should" and "shall" are both used with commandments, and when a prophet of the Lord says, "The Lord expects it." I am not sure how anyone could interpret any other way.

"Wherefore, [the Lord expects me] that though and thy brothers should go..." A commandment is an expectation to do something.

He told him to go kill laban....in person. Maybe it is just me, but I'm thinking that is a bit different.  I'm sure for you guys it is exact the same because when you were 19 you had a better testimony. Mine sucked (no kidding) and a lot of it had to do with my experiences that I won't bore you with because you wouldn't even believe it if I told you..i will, but only if you want me to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

He told him to go kill laban....in person. Maybe it is just me, but I'm thinking that is a bit different.  I'm sure for you guys it is exact the same because when you were 19 you had a better testimony. Mine sucked (no kidding) and a lot of it had to do with my experiences that I won't bore you with because you wouldn't even believe it if I told you..i will, but only if you want me to.

Well, i'd be interested in hearing about the ones you are willing to share.  

And for the record, i doubt your testimony 'sucked'.  Most cars going up hills have to either slow down or throw out the excess weight.  

You are an exceptional person from all your posts i've seen,.  Really painful experiences seem to create incredible people, who have intensely unique and deep relationships with God.  Seems to me you've just come out better on the other side for it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I think he needs to read the following verse of scripture a little closer, "Wherefore, the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban," (emphasis added) -- Literally we could also say here, "The Lord hath [counseled] me..."

But then again, maybe Laman and Lemuel had it correct and since Lehi didn't use the word "shall" (at least what we have in scripture) they really 'should' have just stayed in the tent and let Nephi go and just follow "counsel" since commandments only begin with "shall" not "should." 

Scriptures are pretty clear "should" and "shall" are both used with commandments, and when a prophet of the Lord says, "The Lord expects it." I am not sure how anyone could interpret any other way.

"Wherefore, [the Lord expects me] that though and thy brothers should go..." A commandment is an expectation to do something.

Interesting. Vs. 2 says "the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall..." and vs 4 says "the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should..."

Interchangeable indeed. In this case at least.

Of course that wasn't even my point. I perfectly understand the difference in the way that @paracaidista508 means it. Technically, "thou shalt" and "thou shouldst" have different meanings...but...if the Lord God tells me either one... Well...in whom do I put my faith? Where is my loyalty? In whom do I put my trust?

Hey...that gave me an idea.... Searching....

Well, look at this:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.17?lang=eng&clang=eng#p16

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.57?lang=eng&clang=eng#p56

Commandments that use "should" instead of "shall". I forgot to look for the archaic form.

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

38 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

He told him to go kill laban....in person. Maybe it is just me, but I'm thinking that is a bit different.  I'm sure for you guys it is exact the same because when you were 19 you had a better testimony. Mine sucked (no kidding) and a lot of it had to do with my experiences that I won't bore you with because you wouldn't even believe it if I told you..i will, but only if you want me to.

As a clarification, this reference is pertaining to Lehi providing the commandment, the expectation, for Lehi's sons to go and get the plates, not to kill Laban. The command to kill Laban came after Laban robbed and also tried to kill them, and that command was specific and direct to Nephi. Lehi was still waiting for his son's return, while comforting his wife and her grief when she thought she had lost all four of her sons due to the imaginations/visions of her husband.

Personally, I wouldn't use the word "sucks" for any testimony that the fire is still lit inside. I have experienced some of the most powerful witnesses of the truthfulness of this Church from people who would declare their testimony is weak, sucks, in comparison to others.

To be clear, I am not judging you for a decision you made when you were younger. That is between you and the Lord, and you and the Lord only. He knows you. He loves you. We all need to move forward in light and truth, as in the words of Paul (paraphrased), "Forgetting those things which are behind, moving forward to those things which are before." We have a disagreement pertaining to what we would call a commandment and doctrine. Let us both not give up even during hard times as others have. This is still the true gospel that provides all the necessary ordinances and knowledge to receive eternal life. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah. One of us believes in the teachings of the church, and one of us does not. That's bound to create a gulf in understanding.

Hum...must be you who fall outside of Christs teachings then. Is that what you are saying?

I mean, we can be immature and play tit for tat here but Im not really interested. What I am interested in is changing our mindset with teaching youth. Ive been involved for twenty years in youth teaching in church callings. Ive seen everything under the sun and the most effective thing that works is not to push and shove the gospel and expectations down their throats. That has the opposite effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...must be you who fall outside of Christs teachings then. Is that what you are saying?

I mean, we can be immature and play tit for tat here but Im not really interested. What I am interested in is changing our mindset with teaching youth. Ive been involved for twenty years in youth teaching in church callings. Ive seen everything under the sun and the most effective thing that works is not to push and shove the gospel and expectations down their throats. That has the opposite effect.

@Rob Osborn, I joke around with you a lot and just so that the rest of forum knows-it's not personal. I don't agree with Rob on much, but I do think he's an intelligent and well meaning guy. We agree totally on this though-I also agree that pushing and shoving the gospel on teenagers has the opposite effect. 

What I don't know (and I don't claim to know) is what does work. In your experience, what is the best way to reach young people with church teachings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...must be you who fall outside of Christs teachings then. 

Must be. After all Christ didn't teach ...what did I say again... that they should put off the natural man, selfishness, pride, and do as God and His prophet's have asked us to. Stand up and do their duty as they have been asked to do by God's anointed prophets. Selflessness, humility, willingness to serve, obedience, and love of God and fellow-man. Power in the gospel comes from humility, putting off our selfish selves, sacrifice, long-suffering, and a willingness to submit to whatsoever thing the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon us. Yep. Totally outside Christ's teachings. We all know that Christ taught that we should be selfish and prideful, ignore His prophets and our duty, and be disobedient, and full of apathy. <_<

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Rob Osborn, I joke around with you a lot and just so that the rest of forum knows-it's not personal. I don't agree with Rob on much, but I do think he's an intelligent and well meaning guy. We agree totally on this though-I also agree that pushing and shoving the gospel on teenagers has the opposite effect. 

Pushing and shoving is a meaningless term though. What does that even mean? Teaching duty and it's importance? Is that "pushing and shoving". Lessons on humility? What's the implication here? That if we teach the gospel it's pushing and shoving it on people?

I agree that pushing and shoving things on people is a problem. I just don't know what, exactly, is the idea behind thinking that FAILURE to teach the principles of the gospel is the right method to helping people draw nearer to the Lord, or that teaching them principles amounts to "pushing and shoving" it on them.

What's the solution then? Just activities and camping and basketball. Never mention faith, humility, hard work, sacrifice or duty?

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I mean, we can be immature and play tit for tat here but Im not really interested. 

Then why do you keep at it?

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Ive seen everything under the sun and the most effective thing that works is not to push and shove the gospel and expectations down their throats. That has the opposite effect.

So please clarify then? What method, specifically, would you use to teach gospel principles of duty, long-suffering, sacrifice, hard work, endurance, humility, and obedience? You seem to be under the impression that I want to "push and shove' it down people's throats because -- what? I believe they are core principles of the gospel and if we fail to teach them we aren't teaching the gospel at all?

Let me get this straight then. You are and have been a youth leader for many years and have been consistently, all that time, teaching our young men that they have no need to prepare for or go on missions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So please clarify then? What method, specifically, would you use to teach gospel principles of duty, long-suffering, sacrifice, hard work, endurance, humility, and obedience? You seem to be under the impression that I want to "push and shove' it down people's throats because -- what? I believe they are core principles of the gospel and if we fail to teach them we aren't teaching the gospel at all?

Let me get this straight then. You are and have been a youth leader for many years and have been consistently, all that time, teaching our young men that they have no need to prepare for or go on missions?

The truth is, very few of our youth are truly prepared to serve a mission. Most of them (and Im speaking of all baptized members not just the active ones) just arent prepared and dont have the true desire to want to serve. I think a lot of this is due to the state of the broken family situation. For instance- I have 14 priest age young men showing up on my role (Im a YM president). 8 of them are active, and only 6 of them are showing strong interest in serving a mission. My stewardship is over all of those plus the other teachers and priests. That makes 47 total on my roles right now. Of those 47 less than half will probably serve. The reality is that my stewardship over them is to help them along, in whatever their desire and capacity. If my drive is solely to push going on a mission Im not only going to fail I am going to drive a further wedge between the church and the less active. But, if my attitude and drive is a one on one case with each to help them in their own capacities then I will be most successful. Its following the three principles of the YM program- 1. Be with them. 2. Connect them with heaven. 3. Let them lead.

From there, its quite easy to discern those young men who are prepared and willing to faithfully serve. With those we work closely to further prepare them for missions. But, its not the backbone of the program, a small yet important part. The backbone of our program is teaching unity, friendship, serving others, leadership and spirituality. One could say thats preparing them for missions but the reality is its more than that. Men are failing in the home. Divorce rates are too high. Pornography is a major problem. Abuse and neglect are high in the home. If we are going to fix those problems we must address the principles. Setting the bar of preparing every young man to serve a mission just misses the mark of reality. The majority of my young men I have ever had stewardship over didnt serve missions. Did we fail? No. Its about shifting the focus on helping each one individually in their growth realizing most wont go on missions. This approach increases opportunities to be with them, connect them with heaven in whatever capacity they are at, and letting tgem lead showing them, teaching them, how to serve and kead and guide as a true disciple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:


What I don't know (and I don't claim to know) is what does work. In your experience, what is the best way to reach young people with church teachings? 

The very best thing I have found is to be with them. That means becoming a part of their lives. I go to piano recitals, baseball games, family bbq's, football games, etc. We do lots of service projects together also. Then, once you develop a true friendship and trust, teaching becomes meaningful and most of it is done silently by example. Isnt that what Christ did in his ministry?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I know you think you are funny and you really are. Esp in the light majority of early returns are for mental illness. I'm sure you are kidding about the stats you ask for because you think they don't exist. I have two links to papers for you to read. You likely won't read them, but if you do you will see how the church's organized response and methods of dealing with early rm  is severely lacking. There is also good commentary about the issue in regards to the church and members too. Interestingly, the three most unsupportive people to the eraly return are the stake pres, bishop and ward members. Overall the handling of the issue is a hot mess for a lack of a better descriptor.

Happy reading if you are willing to:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/irp/

Go to the article re experience  of early return missionary parents

 

 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=irp

This one goes directly to the paper

Enjoy!

 

I nearly forgot...you ask how many people does it take to leave a lasting impression? If it is the bishop...only one.

 

That's interesting that you KNOW I think I'm funny.  If that's what you got from my intent to "analyze this" then yeah, we're not talking on the same planet so the discussion is pointless.

So, if one bishop in the Church is enough to leave a lasting impression (and I'm going to assume you also mean only 1 impressionable early RM), then you believe that's enough for Apostles and GA's to stop saying it is a Young Man's duty to serve a mission?  Eh... pointless question really in light of our respective planets.  No need to answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's interesting that you KNOW I think I'm funny.  If that's what you got from my intent to "analyze this" then yeah, we're not talking on the same planet so the discussion is pointless.

So, if one bishop in the Church is enough to leave a lasting impression (and I'm going to assume you also mean only 1 impressionable early RM), then you believe that's enough for Apostles and GA's to stop saying it is a Young Man's duty to serve a mission? 

Im answering your question of how many people does it take to leave a lasting impression on the early rm and I said, "1 if its the Bishop."  I dont believe i said anything in regards to justifying not going at all. Where did i say that in the response? 

Eh... pointless question really in light of our respective planets.  No need to answer.

 

So what did you think of the two papers?

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The very best thing I have found is to be with them. That means becoming a part of their lives. I go to piano recitals, baseball games, family bbq's, football games, etc. We do lots of service projects together also. Then, once you develop a true friendship and trust, teaching becomes meaningful and most of it is done silently by example. Isnt that what Christ did in his ministry?

 

Well said my friend. That's a great way to do it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The truth is, very few of our youth are truly prepared to serve a mission. Most of them (and Im speaking of all baptized members not just the active ones) just arent prepared and dont have the true desire to want to serve. I think a lot of this is due to the state of the broken family situation. For instance- I have 14 priest age young men showing up on my role (Im a YM president). 8 of them are active, and only 6 of them are showing strong interest in serving a mission. My stewardship is over all of those plus the other teachers and priests. That makes 47 total on my roles right now. Of those 47 less than half will probably serve. The reality is that my stewardship over them is to help them along, in whatever their desire and capacity. If my drive is solely to push going on a mission Im not only going to fail I am going to drive a further wedge between the church and the less active. But, if my attitude and drive is a one on one case with each to help them in their own capacities then I will be most successful. Its following the three principles of the YM program- 1. Be with them. 2. Connect them with heaven. 3. Let them lead.

From there, its quite easy to discern those young men who are prepared and willing to faithfully serve. With those we work closely to further prepare them for missions. But, its not the backbone of the program, a small yet important part. The backbone of our program is teaching unity, friendship, serving others, leadership and spirituality. One could say thats preparing them for missions but the reality is its more than that. Men are failing in the home. Divorce rates are too high. Pornography is a major problem. Abuse and neglect are high in the home. If we are going to fix those problems we must address the principles. Setting the bar of preparing every young man to serve a mission just misses the mark of reality. The majority of my young men I have ever had stewardship over didnt serve missions. Did we fail? No. Its about shifting the focus on helping each one individually in their growth realizing most wont go on missions. This approach increases opportunities to be with them, connect them with heaven in whatever capacity they are at, and letting tgem lead showing them, teaching them, how to serve and kead and guide as a true disciple.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Etc. What did I say that made you think I was promoting that our drive should be to "solely" push missions?

I'm pretty sure I said we should teach humility, obedience, faith, selflessness, etc. (As in "connect them with heaven").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Etc. What did I say that made you think I was promoting that our drive should be to "solely" push missions?

I'm pretty sure I said we should teach humility, obedience, faith, selflessness, etc. (As in "connect them with heaven").

Aye, so we in agreement then. Awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Etc. What did I say that made you think I was promoting that our drive should be to "solely" push missions?

I'm pretty sure I said we should teach humility, obedience, faith, selflessness, etc. (As in "connect them with heaven").

Aye, so we in agreement then. Awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Vort said:

For the record, and this is nothing new, Satan's "plan" was and is to destroy man's agency. He has no other "alternate plan of salvation". His motivation is not and never was to help others out. He did not and does not believe that surrendering agency to him leads one to bliss and exaltation. He is a liar.

Somehow, we (LDS) tend to put Satan almost on an equal-but-opposite footing with the Father. The Primary-level narrative goes something like this: Father had a plan of salvation; Satan had an alternate plan of salvation. God presented his plan; Satan presented his own. Then we all voted, and those who voted wrong were thrown out.

While I admit that, in a certain sense, and by stretching the definitions of terms, we might characterize our knowledge of premortal occurrences as above, it's a poor characterization. Satan was a deceiver. He did not present an "alternate plan of salvation"; he rebelled against the Father. He rose up in pretended majesty to usurp honor from the Father, which was his only goal. His boast that he would "redeem all" was a lie. I am convinced that those who followed Satan were not merely those stupid enough to be deceived by his fair-sounding (to some) words; rather, they were those who, like Satan, sought for power, control, and unearned honor. They wanted the Father's glory without actually doing the things that the Father did. This was the basis of the "war in heaven", which I imagine must have been vastly more savage even than the wars we have here in mortality.

In any case, I would urge all of us not to give the evil one the smallest amount of credit or benefit of any doubt in this regard. There is no doubt. He is filthy and despicable, and his words are all lies, designed uniformly to enslave and destroy us. Do not waste the smallest amount of pity on a being who so eagerly has embraced his lust for power and control, willingly and happily destroying all he can to try to achieve that end. Satan's "plan" was and is our enslavement and destruction. Period. He never had any other plan.

 

A while back I posted about something concerning truth.  I came to this understanding about truth while at the temple.  What I came to understand is that virtue and truth are inseparably connected – so also are lies and description with the absents of virtue.  As we try to use words to express “things” in our universe as we understand them – those words become either truth or lies that are spoken according to the virtue of the speaker.  In addition, those same words become either truth or lies (deceptions or enlightenment) that are heard according to the virtue of the listener.   This is part of the understanding necessary to comprehend why G-d cannot lie or why it is impossible to lie to G-d and why it is impossible for Satan to speak the truth.

I have heard it said that Satan will speak 10 truths to incorporate a single lie.  The value of this previous statement has two elements of importance – the first element is the virtue of its origin and the second is the virtue of those that hear the principle.    I now propose that whenever there is an argument – we can be sure that one or both in the exchange are missing, discarding or in some other way eliminating virtue from the discussion.  I would also proport that the one (or both) that is unwilling to first ask, “L-rd is it I” – is most like the greater enemy of virtue.   At least this has been my personal experience with those that I love the most.

I would add one other element to this discussion – that is that “Charity” is a virtue.  Thus, when Paul says that without the virtue of charity, regardless of what we speak or what truth we think we pronounce – we are nothing but sounding brass and tinkling symbols. 

I believe that the problem with Satan is not that he is stupid or that his ideas are worthless – it is that he has abandoned virtue.   So, when I hear that Satan had no plan but that his plan was the same as the Fathers - I realize that void of virtue it is impossible to understand the truth of it – which is why arguments can and will arise concerning it.   

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmmm - why then are some of his ideas recorded in scripture?

Right. Well...I guess it depends on how you look at it. Satan does parrot truths sometimes. And some of those truths are true -- even though Satan said them. But! Are they Satan's ideas just because he parroted them?

I would guess that his ideas, for the most part, are worthless. That is not to say that everything he has said is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Right. Well...I guess it depends on how you look at it. Satan does parrot truths sometimes. And some of those truths are true -- even though Satan said them. But! Are they Satan's ideas just because he parroted them?

I would guess that his ideas, for the most part, are worthless. That is not to say that everything he has said is false.

 

Sorry – I was playing words.  My father once pulled me aside  (the back story is not important) and told me that no one is worthless – if nothing else they can be used as a bad example.

 

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