40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation


Suzie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Marvin Perkins was a speaker at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. For those who don't know Marvin, he is a music and DVD producer. Many years ago, I watched the DVD Marvin produced called "Blacks in the Scriptures" (Thanks Margaret Young for sending me a copy ).

He said the following a couple of days ago:

"The Policy of the Priesthood ban set in 1852, also created the wall of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions. Though the 1978 declaration tore down that policy wall, the walls of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions still remain."

What are your thoughts?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood,

We know the ban was put into practice in 1852. What we are not given is the "why" it was put into place.

As long as there is a vacuum/void explaining the "why", our need to understand and justify things will inevitably lead to us promote, create or perpetuate "false teachings, attitudes and perceptions" on occasion as we try to fill that void of knowledge. The church knows this has been and will continue to be an issue, hence:

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

My 2 cents

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Marvin Perkins was a speaker at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. For those who don't know Marvin, he is a music and DVD producer. Many years ago, I watched the DVD Marvin produced called "Blacks in the Scriptures" (Thanks Margaret Young for sending me a copy ).

He said the following a couple of days ago:

"The Policy of the Priesthood ban set in 1852, also created the wall of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions. Though the 1978 declaration tore down that policy wall, the walls of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions still remain."

What are your thoughts?

I think it's time for disbelieving Saints to get in line and follow the prophets. And the prophets have said that they disclaim previous theories as any sort of Church doctrine, and to quit speculating about reasons why the Priesthood ban was enacted. Those who preach that the policy was put in place due to racism (either Brigham Young's or the Church memberships') are just as much in violation of these prophetic injunctions as those who preach that premortal actions resulted in the Priesthood ban, and are equally accountable to God for their disobedience and false teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Marvin Perkins was a speaker at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. For those who don't know Marvin, he is a music and DVD producer. Many years ago, I watched the DVD Marvin produced called "Blacks in the Scriptures" (Thanks Margaret Young for sending me a copy ).

He said the following a couple of days ago:

"The Policy of the Priesthood ban set in 1852, also created the wall of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions. Though the 1978 declaration tore down that policy wall, the walls of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions still remain."

What are your thoughts?

I am not sure what he means by "policy wall" that was torn down. How I am understanding this statement, I think it is part of the false teaching, attitudes, and perceptions that still remain.

This was a revelation as @NeedleinA mentioned we do not know the "why" but we know it was a revelation that required revelation to now once again allow brothers to receive the priesthood.

I agree though, as the human mind is not always easily turned toward change false teachings will be continued, and hopefully in not so many years we will be past such things.

I think this is the same as President Nelson echoing past prophets with the name of the Church. Sadly we still have people who are, for reasons known to them, disgruntled by the notion of calling the Church by its true name. Hopefully, in not so many years this will be also a thing of the past and we will no longer be known as "Mormons" except by those who have enmity toward the Church (which we know will continue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

The blunt truth is that this is a very controversial topic, in particular from a converts perspective. When I first heard about it as a non member I was confused/offended then disturbed by it. Members and the church can say anything about it now, but it's always going to be controversial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure what he means by "policy wall" that was torn down. How I am understanding this statement, I think it is part of the false teaching, attitudes, and perceptions that still remain.

This was a revelation as @NeedleinA mentioned we do not know the "why" but we know it was a revelation that required revelation to now once again allow brothers to receive the priesthood.

 

The Church seems to make two clear distinctions. No "two revelations" but rather a revelation (1978) and a policy (1852).

Church leaders believed that a

revelation from God was needed to alter the policy,

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Suzie said:

The Church seems to make two clear distinctions. No "two revelations" but rather a revelation (1978) and a policy (1852).

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

A useless distinction. The revelation of 1978 was required to alter the policy enacted in 1852. This does not imply that said 1852 policy was not enacted as a result of revelation. That is an improper inference to draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

The Church seems to make two clear distinctions. No "two revelations" but rather a revelation (1978) and a policy (1852).

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

The distinction of "no 'two revelations'", I would specify is more a personal inference rather than what is implied; however, I think the Church is wise to specify as you have mentioned due to the fact we, the Church, have not been able to locate the exact revelation given to Brigham Young as stated here, "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice." This does not mean they are saying "two revelations" did not occur, they are being wise in stating what is known and what is clear.

I would say, this inference is also in part leading people to believe false teachings, attitudes, and perceptions that Brigham Young was power hungry and was a racist, thus he abused the prophetic mantle and enacted a policy -- without God's approval (the weakness of prophets) -- that would affect the sons and daughters of God in a difficult way, which sadly has enticed some members to leave the Church. This is, my personal opinion, a more dangerous notion than the given interpretations as to why the ban was first practiced which have been disavowed.

Here is a quote from the Church's student manual regarding Official Declaration 2 (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (2017):

Quote

 

"Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote:

“In a 1988 interview on the tenth anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood, I explained my attitude toward attempts to supply mortal reasons for divine revelation:

“‘If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We [mortals] can put reasons to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here [the priesthood and temple restrictions], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. …

“‘… Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord, and that’s where safety lies’” (Life’s Lessons Learned [2011], 68–69). (emphasis mine)

If we notice Elder Oaks is constantly referring to how the Lord doesn't give reasons for his "revelations" and his "commands," and when he does it is not very often. This notion of the Lord not giving reasons for revelations and commands is in relation to the priesthood ban.

I would say the Church didn't clearly make a distinction that one was a revelation and the other is -- just a policy.

 

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attitudes of racism and discrimination are VERY much alive in the church today.  Unfortunately, I find it as a barrier to reach out to minorities in the US, including in my own ward and stake, as many see the obvious where those who are white think it is non-existent. 

Using my stake as a prime example, we have a huge amount of inactives that are Hispanic in my area.  They completely believe in the gospel but are completely disenfranchised and disenchanted by the church itself.   If you are lucky to find out the reason (as they are very reticent to discuss it, especially with those who are not part of their family and friends as they see it) invariably it seems they point out that if you are a minority there is almost no chance you will ever be in leadership or even become a High Priest in the LDS church.  They feel as if they are not represented.  They are there simply for numbers.  There is no one to hear their concerns or speak up for them or even help them.  There is a bias against them.  For a church that talks about the Book of Mormon being brought to the Lamanites, those who feel they are the descendants of such sometimes feel like the church puts them as second class members at times.

I remember recently someone brought up the fact that we now have a Hispanic Apostle to one set of inactives that I visited with them.  The inactive members laughed at us saying he is no minority, but a white man.  Anyone who would refer to him as a minority are just showing the inherent racism in the LDS church.   They are excited to have a Hispanic Apostle, but also see how the LDS church claiming he is a minority is a racist attack upon those who truly cannot pass for white or any semblance of it in Latin America or elsewhere.

And then, they chase me out of their home (well, not exactly chase, more like the conversation has gone into a very uncomfortable spot and we try to end it on a more positive note that didn't exactly work out perfectly).

So, yes, I see that there is still racism deeply imbedded in the Church.  There is little to no effort to dismantle it or equalize everyone in the church.  I see it has become a great stumbling block for many of the younger generation (though they see it as discrimination of all kinds, not just racial, but also other sorts), and there are many who are so oblivious to it that they will make any excuse to try to claim it does not exist. 

When analyzing it, I may even say I myself am racist.  I try my hardest not to, but there is probably that subliminal white privilege which I possess which has worked in my favor over the years in regards to how I'm treated with the church and in the outside world.  Thus, when even when I try to understand their concerns, I cannot completely do so.  As someone pointed out to me some time ago, they saw me as part of the problem as well...even if I try to sympathize with how they feel about the entire thing.

We state that we have given the priesthood authority to all races today.  We can show that in theory there are no obstacles.  In reality, I think when there is a white majority, that the whites will receive the greater priesthood (leadership callings, high Priests, etc.) while minorities are STILL relegated to the back row.  I also think until the church makes a conscious effort to actually battle against this (and for multiple reasons  I have suggested making HP's a standard age appointment as long as one has been faithful for a certain amount of time...NO discrimination allowed, all equal on that footing.  That could be PART of a solution, but wouldn't solve all of it by far) I think this attitude towards minorities will probably continue.  AS such, we will continue to get a few African Americans, but a majority of them will avoid the church as they see it as a racist organization.

At the same time, as there is not much of a white presence in most of Africa (except South Africa) I think we will continue to see great gains there among those born or raised in those nations.  Thus far, it has not been as high of an issue (that I know of) in those nations...at least not yet.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I think it's also important to remember that a group of largely white people talking about race is like a group of non-LDS talking about Mormonism. They might make good points here or there, but they don't fundamentally know what it's like to be Mormon. Just like we don't know what it's like to be a minority. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say, this inference is also in part leading people to believe false teachings, attitudes, and perceptions that Brigham Young was power hungry and was a racist, thus he abused the prophetic mantle and enacted a policy -- without God's approval (the weakness of prophets) -- that would affect the sons and daughters of God in a difficult way, which sadly has enticed some members to leave the Church. This is, my personal opinion, a more dangerous notion than the given interpretations as to why the ban was first practiced which have been disavowed.

Maybe we're reading it differently or maybe as you stated the Church is being very careful with their wording because we have no official record stating that it was indeed a revelation from God. Therefore, I think calling it a policy is correct.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's also important to remember that a group of largely white people talking about race is like a group of non-LDS talking about Mormonism. They might make good points here or there, but they don't fundamentally know what it's like to be Mormon. Just like we don't know what it's like to be a minority. 

I could ask my Son-in-law (one of them is a minority) to talk about this or write on the forum.  Unfortunately, on this specific topic, he is EXTREMELY bitter.  What he would say would probably be highly accurate of his own opinion on the matter, but because he is so bitter about racism he feels he has personally experienced in the church and how he would express it probably would prevent it from being posted or result in an insta-ban on his new account.

He IS still active in the Church and is a strong believer (if not, if what he's told me is true, he probably would not be a member anymore) and has a strong testimony of the gospel, but normally seems to remain to himself and stay quiet as to not rile up the other members.  Luckily this is normally NOT an issue I have to deal with in relation to him as they live in another state and only come to visit every so often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I could ask my Son-in-law (one of them is a minority) to talk about this or write on the forum.  Unfortunately, on this specific topic, he is EXTREMELY bitter. 

I can't blame him, in fairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Maybe we're reading it differently or maybe as you stated the Church is being very careful with their wording because we have no official record stating that it was indeed a revelation from God. Therefore, I think calling it a policy is correct.

We find agreement, calling it a policy is correct. Since the essay I have read multiple interpretations (here on this forum and recently in my ward gospel doctrine) where some have interpreted the essay to mean:

Brigham Young was a racist, and he abused the prophetic mantle, and it took 136 years for the Church to correct a racist. As to my experience, this is in part why I say this notion, my personal opinion, more dangerous now than any previous explanation for the policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's also important to remember that a group of largely white people talking about race is like a group of non-LDS talking about Mormonism. They might make good points here or there, but they don't fundamentally know what it's like to be Mormon. Just like we don't know what it's like to be a minority. 

Well, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending a Christian school, yes I indeed know what it is like to be a "minority." Minority isn't just race. So yes, we can very much know what it is like to be a "minority" even if we are white people talking about race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending a Christian school, yes I indeed know what it is like to be a "minority." Minority isn't just race. So yes, we can very much know what it is like to be a "minority" even if we are white people talking about race.

With all due respect @Anddenex-no, you don't know what it's like to be African American. Or Asian. Or Hispanic. You might know what it's like to be an LDS in a Christian setting, but no, you have no idea what it's like to be anything other than white. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

With all due respect @Anddenex-no, you don't know what it's like to be African American. You might know what it's like to be an LDS in a Christian setting, but no, you have no idea what it's like to be anything other than white. 

Thank you. With all due respect @MormonGator the subject I addressed is the term "minority." Minority is not determined by our race. Minority is simply a smaller fraction of the whole. White people who are in areas where they are the "minority" can understand what it means to be a minority. I do not need to be a specific "color" to understand what it means to be in a minority.

The notion of me not knowing anything other than "white" is moot and irrelevant to understanding what it means to be in a minority. Your statement can easily be changed to, "An African American doesn't know what it is like to be Caucasian. Nor does an African American know what it is like to be anything other than black." This is irrelevant to the notion of understanding what it means to be in a minority.

However, this notion is the canker my son has to deal with as he attended a seminar at Utah Valley University on the subject of racism, and was told he is racist because he is white (a fact by which he was born into, nothing of his choosing). My son is being told and taught he is racist because he was "born" white on college campuses?! FREAKING IDIOTS!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

. White people who are in areas where they are the "minority" can understand what it means to be a minority.

True, there are all sorts of "minorities" but just understanding how being in a minority might feel for a brief time is nothing compared to being Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc. They will only be able to understand what it's like to be a minority when they have the ability to change their skin color. After they achieve that ability, than I'll believe your argument. Until then no, no situation a white person puts themselves in gives them ANY clue how someone who of a different race 24/7 would feel. 

We are on completely different sides with this one, that's for sure. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I can say about "racism" in so many settings.  

1.  It can take many forms.  Benign, annoying, mean, sinister.  But it is still accurate to call them all "racism".
2. Dealing with benign, annoying, and mean is involved in many different interpersonal relationships for a variety of reasons beyond just race.  And in each case, we're expected to simply deal with it.  Each type and situation calls for different responses.  Finding the appropriate response is the key to getting along with others the best way possible.
3. The sinister is what we have a right and sometimes a duty to call foul.
4. What annoys me to no end is that so many see the benign and annoying and call it sinister.  I've seen the sinister.  And it ain't all that pretty.  So when I hear of millennial snowflakes calling out "cultural appropriation"... that just makes me want to yell,"Get off my lawn!"

How does that apply to this discussion?

When I've been on both sides of the glass, I've noticed a very interesting phenomenon.  90% of people (yes, just a number out of the air) don't really care much about race.  At their core, it is merely a curiosity.  But it is also a visual cue.  What they do care about is culture.  And race is a cue to culture.  Let's be honest.  Blacks and Hispanics have a culture that is outside of mainstream.  Other cultures find it easy to blend into American culture -- not just because of race, but because the culture is so similar.  It is offsetting to many people who have lived a mainstream culture.  What is not readily admitted is that those who adhere to Black or Hispanic cultures also feel weird around people living mainstream American culture.  Don't believe me?  Why do we hear of Blacks saying of other Blacks that they are "acting like a white guy"?  "Get off the plantation" they say.  What do you think that is?

When these cultures collide, it can be enriching or it can be devastating.  Sometimes, people just try to be tolerant as they have an exchange. And then they go about their merry ways.  This isn't racism.  It's a clash of cultures.

When I've been on the outside, I merely had to show that I accepted mainstream American culture and lived it.  Then I was accepted (until I break out the kim chee).  So many on the outside aren't willing to accept the culture.  And then they cry foul and even "racism" when they are not accepted.  I've been on the inside looking out and find that as soon as I find that a black person I'm speaking with is "Culturally American", I feel no need to think of them as any different than anyone else.  The same goes for anyone of any race.  But when a black person or family does everything in their dress, grooming, adornment, walk, talk, attitudes, etc. that shows "Hey! I'm from a different culture" then I don't see why it would be such a surprise when they are not accepted. 

The same is true with Asians.  Many Asians assimilate into American culture just fine.  And they are accepted.  But those who don't are also treated as second class citizens.  It is not as widely noticed, but believe me, it's there.  I find it another sad testament to the fallibility of mankind that so many don't see this simple pattern.

See the patterns.  Hispanics and Blacks more than any other racial culture in America make it a point to stand out and hold to different language, dress, and grooming.

Asians will only hold to their old culture for a generation or two.  There are very few Asians that cling to their old culture for more than two generations.  And it is that third and fourth generation that is highly successful.  A first generation successful Asian was usually an H-1b visa hire.  Those who cling to their old culture don't go very far.

All that said, yes, there is still a small percentage of those who cling to racism on the "mean" or "sinister" level.  And that's unfortunate.  We should do everything to stop it.  But it isn't as rampant as the media likes to hype it to be.  I think that racism is actually fueled by people who continue to cry racism -- more than any other fuel present in America.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Here's what I can say about "racism" in so many settings.  

1.  It can take many forms.  Benign, annoying, mean, sinister.  But it is still accurate to call them all "racism".
2. We deal with benign, annoying, and mean is involved in many different interpersonal relationships for a variety of reasons beyond just race.  And in each case, we're expected to simply deal with it.  Each type and situation calls for different responses.  Finding the appropriate response is the key to getting along with others the best way possible.
3. The sinister is what we have a right and sometimes a duty to call foul.
4. What annoys me to no end is that so many see the benign and annoying and call it sinister.  I've seen the sinister.  And it ain't all that pretty.  So when I hear of millennial snowflakes calling out "cultural appropriation"... that just makes me want to yell,"Get off my lawn!"

How does that apply to this discussion?

When I've been on both sides of the glass, I've noticed a very interesting phenomenon.  90% of people (yes, just a number out of the air) don't really care much about race.  At their core, it is merely a curiosity.  But it is also a visual cue.  What they do care about is culture.  And race is a cue to culture.  Let's be honest.  Blacks and Hispanics have a culture that is outside of mainstream.  Other cultures find it easy to blend into American culture -- not just because of race, but because the culture is so similar.  It is offsetting to many people who have lived a mainstream culture.  What is not readily admitted is that those who adhere to Black or Hispanic cultures also feel weird around people living mainstream American culture.  Don't believe me?  Why do we hear of Blacks saying of other Blacks that they are "acting like a white guy"?  "Get off the plantation" they say.  What do you think that is?

When these cultures collide, it can be enriching or it can be devastating.  Sometimes, people just try to be tolerant as they have an exchange. And then they go about their merry ways.  This isn't racism.  It's a clash of cultures.

When I've been on the outside, I merely had to show that I accepted mainstream American culture and lived it.  Then I was accepted (until I break out the kim chee).  So many on the outside aren't willing to accept the culture.  And then they cry foul and even "racism" when they are not accepted.  I've been on the inside looking out and find that as soon as I find that a black person I'm speaking with is "Culturally American", I feel no need to think of them as any different than anyone else.  The same goes for anyone of any race.  But when a black person or family does everything in their dress, grooming, adornment, walk, talk, attitudes, etc. that shows "Hey! I'm from a different culture" then I don't see why it would be such a surprise when they are not accepted. 

The same is true with Asians.  Many Asians assimilate into American culture just fine.  And they are accepted.  But those who don't are also treated as second class citizens.  It is not as widely noticed, but believe me, it's there.  I find it another sad testament to the fallibility of mankind that so many don't see this simple pattern.

See the patterns.  Hispanics and Blacks more than any other racial culture in America make it a point to stand out and hold to different language, dress, and grooming.

Asians will only hold to their old culture for a generation or two.  There are very few Asians that cling to their old culture for more than two generations.  And it is that third and fourth generation that is highly successful.  A first generation successful Asian was usually an H-1b visa hire.  Those who cling to their old culture don't go very far.

All that said, yes, there is still a small percentage of those who cling to racism on the "mean" or "sinister" level.  And that's unfortunate.  We should do everything to stop it.  But it isn't as rampant as the media likes to hype it to be.  I think that racism is actually fueled by people who continue to cry racism -- more than any other fuel present in America.

For the record, I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a racist. No way. I would never say that about @Anddenex or anyone else here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

We know the ban was put into practice in 1852. What we are not given is the "why" it was put into place.

As long as there is a vacuum/void explaining the "why", our need to understand and justify things will inevitably lead to us promote, create or perpetuate "false teachings, attitudes and perceptions" on occasion as we try to fill that void of knowledge. The church knows this has been and will continue to be an issue, hence:

My 2 cents

I tend to believe that this is part of the test of mortality.  Just as parents cannot fully explain many things to children, our Heavenly Father cannot fully explain things to us (except through the Spirit).  So, when we try to "figure out the why" we will only meet failure.  This can sometimes lead to apostasy or murmuring or crisis of faith.

But if we look to the Lord to help us in our understanding, something else happens.  I've spoken in the past about something that I just couldn't find in scriptures.  And I'd asked many others for what they thought about it.  And they likewise didn't know the answer.  But as I had been praying and reaching out to the Lord, he simply spoke peace to my mind and assured me that it was true.  I still didn't understand it.  But I accepted the truth of it.

The ban is just another example of such.  From the history I've read, I tend to believe it was a revelation from the Lord to institute it. And it was a revelation from the Lord to remove it.  I still don't understand why.  But I've prayed and sought wisdom from the Lord.  I believe it happened as the Lord decreed.  I don't know why.  But there is peace in my heart and mind about it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

For the record, I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a racist. No way. I would never say that about @Anddenex or anyone else here.

I don't think you would.  I only posted that because I saw the discussion inevitably leaning in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't think you would.  I only posted that because I saw the discussion inevitably leaning in that direction.

Just making sure. Like all of us, I know how internet discussions can go. I think @Anddenex is a great guy, even though I disagree with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Just making sure. Like all of us, I know how internet discussions can go. I think @Anddenex is a great guy, even though I disagree with him. 

Well, that is only because you haven't met me in person. The great guy might change if you do. :P

Yep, we are of similar thoughts toward each other brother. :)

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