Emmanuel Goldstein

April 2019 Conference Predictions

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

IF I understand what you are saying (big emphasis on IF)

Trying to call everything willy nilly a revelation and incorporating it into the scriptures as doctrine seems like a very BAD move from my current perspective.  We'd have all sorts of revelations going against each other (and in part we already have some non-revelations that are seemingly starting to go against what is taught in the New Testament...which could bring up some interesting dialogue in regards to the idea that if something goes against Scripture...it is false) and countering each other.  As they all would be doctrine, we'd be left saying that only the most current items are doctrine...and leading eventually to a crisis that goes counter to the words of the Lord.

Keeping it ONLY pertinent to actual revelations that have been first prayed over by the Twelve and the First presidency and accepted by them and then presented to the Church and accepted by them when revelation is felt to be given on that matter seems to be a better way (as it has been thus far) than proclaiming any command, idea, policy, or other item as part of doctrine or scripture.

The Pharisees tried to make what they thought was supposed to be done (policies rather than commandments and revelation) as doctrine and though they held power, were rebuffed in doing so and as such by the Messiah when he quoted the actual Prophets of the Old Testament, the older teachings typically taking precedence in his statements over the newer canon established by the so called Church leaders of their past hundred years. 

It is very much in the Church's interest to avoid that same scenario should it ever come to be present in the Church.

I agree (I think!), and I’m not saying every Church action should be attributed to revelation and/or canonized in scripture.  It behooves us to keep our canon as canon, rather than letting it morph into a full-fledged legal code.

What I am suggesting is that 1) the general membership are more willing to defer to the leadership now then they were in Joseph’s day; and 2) there are both overlaps and distinctions between “whispering of the Spirit” versus “inspiration” versus “revelation” versus “voice of God” versus “vision” versus “vague feeling, articulated in imperfect language and maybe later re-worded to convey the feeling more accurately” versus “verbatim and unchangeable dictation from God Himself”; and these exist even within the canonized D&C in ways that the current text doesn’t always make clear.  

The demand for new canon is really a demand for less ambiguity in the revelatory process that our current leadership undergoes, and it is rooted in the (in my view, fallacious) assumption that there was a point in Church history when there was no such ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion anything that is considered doctrine and is binding on the members of the church as a commandment should be in the scriptures.  If a prophet speaks of a commandment that cannot be found in the scriptures then it should be added to the scriptures. As I quoted Harold B. Lee earlier, if it’s not in the scriptures it is either personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Is this specified in the canon? ;)

Perhaps not but as I have demonstrated a prophet has told us that everything we teach should be found in the scriptures. Of course almost all recent revelation is not new commandments but rather changes in church policy and procedure. 

I have always wondered why the “oficial interpretation” of the word of wisdom has not been added to the actual word of wisdom in the Doctrine and Covenants. As it is we are commanded to like by an interpretation of the law which itself is not in the scriptures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BJ64 said:

In my opinion anything that is considered doctrine and is binding on the members of the church as a commandment should be in the scriptures.  If a prophet speaks of a commandment that cannot be found in the scriptures then it should be added to the scriptures. As I quoted Harold B. Lee earlier, if it’s not in the scriptures it is either personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine.  

That makes sense in a legal code, where we want defendants to have clear “safe harbor” against a potentially overzealous/unjust prosecutor and be able to convince a non-omniscient third party that there was no reasonable way the defendant could have known that what he was doing was wrong.  

It seems to me to be of lesser moment when we are judged by a loving, merciful, omniscient God who has our best interests at heart but simultaneously gave us conscience and the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide our actions—and who knows full well when we have been deliberately ignoring those gifts and feigning ignorance in order to continue indulging our baser desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That makes sense in a legal code, where we want defendants to have clear “safe harbor” against a potentially overzealous/unjust prosecutor and be able to convince a non-omniscient third party that there was no reasonable way the defendant could have known that what he was doing was wrong.  

It seems to me to be of lesser moment when we are judged by a loving, merciful, omniscient God who has our best interests at heart but simultaneously gave us conscience and the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide our actions—and who knows full well when we have been deliberately ignoring those gifts and feigning ignorance in order to continue indulging our baser desires.

To demonstrate for example, if someone were to teach in Sunday School that Hagoth sailed his ship to the pacific islands, it would be personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine since the Book of Mormon only says that he sailed to the land northward. Of course this is not an example of a commandment. However if someone were to teach that we only need to pay five percent tithing then of course this would be false doctrine because that’s not in the scriptures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BJ64 said:

To demonstrate for example, if someone were to teach in Sunday School that Hagoth sailed his ship to the pacific islands, it would be personal opinion, speculation or false doctrine since the Book of Mormon only says that he sailed to the land northward. Of course this is not an example of a commandment. However if someone were to teach that we only need to pay five percent tithing then of course this would be false doctrine because that’s not in the scriptures. 

Or another example would be that if someone were to teach in Sunday School that

15 hours ago, BJ64 said:

everything we teach should be found in the scriptures

it would be personal opinion, speculation, or false doctrine since the scripture attest to no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2019 at 5:19 AM, BJ64 said:

My ward has multiple people with the same calling in order to give more people callings. For example so many’s priesthood and relief society instructor that they only teach one lesson a month. Sunday School teachers who trade off weeks a multitude of librarians and nursery workers and two couples trading weeks teaching a single primary class. Even with that there are many people, especially older members who have no callings outside of ministering. 

And yet in many wards here in the UK we have many members with multiple callings. My current ward we have have had to amalgamate primary classes due to lack of teachers and needing two to a class.  The size of the ward makes SO much difference, if we have 80 adults on a Sunday we are having a good week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 11:50 AM, zil said:

The first session will start with prayer and the last session will end with prayer. 

I'm guessing that this first prayer will be the opening prayer and there's a high probability that the prayer at the end of the last session will be the closing prayer. That's how it usually works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 6:39 AM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

-Church announces it will no longer run BYU directly but it will become a private entity run by a board of directors that are not General Authorities.

I'm guessing that this is the kind of announcement that would be made via lds.org and the newsroom rather than at a General Conference. The ownership and management of BYU might not be something that has a major impact on the lives of most member and it wouldn't' require anybody to do anything differently than what they are currently doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it would happen, but I WOULD HOPE for some more equality within the church...

Something that I would hope would be that ALL worthy men who had been holder of the Priesthood worthily would finally be allowed to become High Priest.  Thus, instead what can be seen as a high degree of favoritism in the church locally, or otherwise, would be done away with and equality for ALL WORTHY priesthood holders could finally be granted.

There is still a divide between those who have become High Priests and those who have not.

I was finally blessed in my old age (after seeing MANY get it prior to me, some of whom I knew were adulterers, some who are now in prison, and one that was a particularly close friend of mine who is now in jail for murder, another that I know of that became a transgender and was younger than I, and many others who for some reason were accounted more worthy than me...hard pill at times even now to swallow, but at least I am still enduring to the end).

It also is a hard thing for almost no High Priests among our local minority members and no representatives for them in church leadership locally.  Interestingly enough, none of my sons have become high Priests either while many of those who picked on them and bullied them in their youth have been.  Seems almost unjust and literally a MIRACLE that my sons still endure as well.  Seeing an old bully get positions as this while you do not cannot be easy.  I am glad they are still faithful in the church, even while several of their peers I know are not (and I've seen at least a couple remove themselves from the church...one was particularly hard because it was recent and was someone I dealt with and begged to come back).

So, if there are any that can hear prayers from those who are simply the low and trodden under foot of the church, if there is anyone out there that actually would do this, make becoming a High Priest based upon justice and fairness(such as being righteous and worthy) rather than something that at times seems horribly unjust (even if it is inspired, at times it can be a hard pill to swallow when the kid that beat up your kid several times in school and sent another to the hospital becomes a Bishop and then a Stake President while your own kids aren't even made High Priests).

I don't think it will happen though.  Ever.  As long as we are going with false predictions or predictions with no merit...that's mine.

I would hope to be able to maybe ordain one of my sons as a High Priest before I die, though at this point I'm starting to think that will not happen either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not that it would happen, but I WOULD HOPE for some more equality within the church...

Something that I would hope would be that ALL worthy men who had been holder of the Priesthood worthily would finally be allowed to become High Priest.  Thus, instead what can be seen as a high degree of favoritism in the church locally, or otherwise, would be done away with and equality for ALL WORTHY priesthood holders could finally be granted.

There is still a divide between those who have become High Priests and those who have not.

I was finally blessed in my old age (after seeing MANY get it prior to me, some of whom I knew were adulterers, some who are now in prison, and one that was a particularly close friend of mine who is now in jail for murder, another that I know of that became a transgender and was younger than I, and many others who for some reason were accounted more worthy than me...hard pill at times even now to swallow, but at least I am still enduring to the end).

It also is a hard thing for almost no High Priests among our local minority members and no representatives for them in church leadership locally.  Interestingly enough, none of my sons have become high Priests either while many of those who picked on them and bullied them in their youth have been.  Seems almost unjust and literally a MIRACLE that my sons still endure as well.  Seeing an old bully get positions as this while you do not cannot be easy.  I am glad they are still faithful in the church, even while several of their peers I know are not (and I've seen at least a couple remove themselves from the church...one was particularly hard because it was recent and was someone I dealt with and begged to come back).

So, if there are any that can hear prayers from those who are simply the low and trodden under foot of the church, if there is anyone out there that actually would do this, make becoming a High Priest based upon justice and fairness(such as being righteous and worthy) rather than something that at times seems horribly unjust (even if it is inspired, at times it can be a hard pill to swallow when the kid that beat up your kid several times in school and sent another to the hospital becomes a Bishop and then a Stake President while your own kids aren't even made High Priests).

I don't think it will happen though.  Ever.  As long as we are going with false predictions or predictions with no merit...that's mine.

I would hope to be able to maybe ordain one of my sons as a High Priest before I die, though at this point I'm starting to think that will not happen either.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "worthy". I am an Elder, and currently hold all of the necessary Priesthood I need. Perhaps those men you referenced were given leadership positions not for the benefit of others, or because of good things they had done, but rather, to help them along the path of life and hopefully prevent future tragedies that have since befallen them.

I'm not a fan of getting rid of entire office in the priesthood. If we do that, let's just make all Aaronic priesthood holders Priests right off the bat as well.My 11 year old is worthy, so shouldn't he get to bless the Sacrament? The Priesthood is not about holding titles or positions, it is about service. I see no reason for me to become a High Priest, or any other man for that matter, unless a certain calling requires the ordination to preside. If one never comes, that is just fine with me. If one does, that is just fine with me as well. I actually wouldn't want the ordination to just take place if a calling didn't come with it...to me it seemed unnecessary when that happened in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not that it would happen, but I WOULD HOPE for some more equality within the church...

Something that I would hope would be that ALL worthy men who had been holder of the Priesthood worthily would finally be allowed to become High Priest.  Thus, instead what can be seen as a high degree of favoritism in the church locally, or otherwise, would be done away with and equality for ALL WORTHY priesthood holders could finally be granted.

There is still a divide between those who have become High Priests and those who have not.

I was finally blessed in my old age (after seeing MANY get it prior to me, some of whom I knew were adulterers, some who are now in prison, and one that was a particularly close friend of mine who is now in jail for murder, another that I know of that became a transgender and was younger than I, and many others who for some reason were accounted more worthy than me...hard pill at times even now to swallow, but at least I am still enduring to the end).

It also is a hard thing for almost no High Priests among our local minority members and no representatives for them in church leadership locally.  Interestingly enough, none of my sons have become high Priests either while many of those who picked on them and bullied them in their youth have been.  Seems almost unjust and literally a MIRACLE that my sons still endure as well.  Seeing an old bully get positions as this while you do not cannot be easy.  I am glad they are still faithful in the church, even while several of their peers I know are not (and I've seen at least a couple remove themselves from the church...one was particularly hard because it was recent and was someone I dealt with and begged to come back).

So, if there are any that can hear prayers from those who are simply the low and trodden under foot of the church, if there is anyone out there that actually would do this, make becoming a High Priest based upon justice and fairness(such as being righteous and worthy) rather than something that at times seems horribly unjust (even if it is inspired, at times it can be a hard pill to swallow when the kid that beat up your kid several times in school and sent another to the hospital becomes a Bishop and then a Stake President while your own kids aren't even made High Priests).

I don't think it will happen though.  Ever.  As long as we are going with false predictions or predictions with no merit...that's mine.

I would hope to be able to maybe ordain one of my sons as a High Priest before I die, though at this point I'm starting to think that will not happen either.

What is the difference between high priest and non-high priest? Serious question, I don't know the the answer.  

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What is the difference between high priest and non-high priest? Serious question, I don't know the the answer.  

In the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, a man who has the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred on him is usually ordained to the Priesthood office of elder. A "high priest" is a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and has been ordained to the Priesthood office of high priest. Priesthood offices appear to be related to the specific duties we have within the kingdom of God at this time. For example, stake presidents ordain a man to the Priesthood office of patriarch so that he can act as the stake's Patriarch in giving Patriarchal blessings, and men who are called as Seventies or other General Authorities are ordained to the Priesthood office of seventy or apostle, as required by their calling. Similarly, men who are called to certain leadership positions (into a bishopric or as a member of a stake presidency or the stake high council) must be ordained to the Priesthood office of high priest.

Within the family and in the eternities, I know of no difference between elders and high priests (or patriarchs, or seventies, or apostles). When you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, you hold the authority of Jesus Christ. The office under which you use your Priesthood authority appears to have meaning only within the context of Church service.

So to answer your question briefly: In the eternal sense, I don't think there is any difference between being a high priest and being in any other Priesthood office; if you hold the Priesthood and are worthy to exercise it, that's all that matters. Within the structure of the Church, your Priesthood office determines what sort of Priesthood leadership calling you can fulfill, so that if you are called to a certain leadership position, you may need to be ordained to a specific Priesthood office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

In the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, a man who has the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred on him is usually ordained to the Priesthood office of elder. A "high priest" is a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood and has been ordained to the Priesthood office of high priest. Priesthood offices appear to be related to the specific duties we have within the kingdom of God at this time. For example, stake presidents ordain a man to the Priesthood office of patriarch so that he can act as the stake's Patriarch in giving Patriarchal blessings, and men who are called as Seventies or other General Authorities are ordained to the Priesthood office of seventy or apostle, as required by their calling. Similarly, men who are called to certain leadership positions (into a bishopric or as a member of a stake presidency or the stake high council) must be ordained to the Priesthood office of high priest.

Within the family and in the eternities, I know of no difference between elders and high priests (or patriarchs, or seventies, or apostles). When you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, you hold the authority of Jesus Christ. The office under which you use your Priesthood authority appears to have meaning only within the context of Church service.

So to answer your question briefly: In the eternal sense, I don't think there is any difference between being a high priest and being in any other Priesthood office; if you hold the Priesthood and are worthy to exercise it, that's all that matters. Within the structure of the Church, your Priesthood office determines what sort of Priesthood leadership calling you can fulfill, so that if you are called to a certain leadership position, you may need to be ordained to a specific Priesthood office.

Thanks bud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What is the difference between high priest and non-high priest? Serious question, I don't know the the answer.  

Adding to the less-eternal side of Vort's answer, anyone called to serve in a bishopric, stake presidency, or high council is ordained a high priest prior to serving in those roles.  With only a very few exceptions, leaders must be high priests to conduct temple recommend interviews. On disciplinary councils, in the absence of a member of the bishopric (or stake presidency) any high priest from the ward or stake may be asked to take the place of the absent person. These are both related to functions of high priests as "common judges" (somewhere in the D&C, I'm too lazy to look up where). 

Other than that, there's effectively no difference any more.

In the days when elders and high priests met separately, older males who had not been ordained high priests would sometimes express discomfort at meeting with the elders, who were often younger and a different phase of life.  Others would feel self conscious that perhaps they were considered less worthy or incapable of more responsibility since they had never been ordained.  In the past I've seen cases where elders were not ordained high priests, but instructed to meet with them when they felt it was a better peer group for them.  I've also seen some men ordained high priests without being called to any position that required it out of deference to their wisdom, maturity, and commitment.  

Now that the two offices meet together, I'm not sure if advancement or lack of advancement will be noticed or felt by anyone. This is a change that could ripple in ways we haven't anticipated, or just kind of silently do its business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Adding to the less-eternal side of Vort's answer, anyone called to serve in a bishopric, stake presidency, or high council is ordained a high priest prior to serving in those roles.  With only a very few exceptions, leaders must be high priests to conduct temple recommend interviews. On disciplinary councils, in the absence of a member of the bishopric (or stake presidency) any high priest from the ward or stake may be asked to take the place of the absent person. These are both related to functions of high priests as "common judges" (somewhere in the D&C, I'm too lazy to look up where). 

Other than that, there's effectively no difference any more.

In the days when elders and high priests met separately, older males who had not been ordained high priests would sometimes express discomfort at meeting with the elders, who were often younger and a different phase of life.  Others would feel self conscious that perhaps they were considered less worthy or incapable of more responsibility since they had never been ordained.  In the past I've seen cases where elders were not ordained high priests, but instructed to meet with them when they felt it was a better peer group for them.  I've also seen some men ordained high priests without being called to any position that required it out of deference to their wisdom, maturity, and commitment.  

Now that the two offices meet together, I'm not sure if advancement or lack of advancement will be noticed or felt by anyone. This is a change that could ripple in ways we haven't anticipated, or just kind of silently do its business.

Very cool. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

What is the difference between high priest and non-high priest? Serious question, I don't know the the answer.  

It's a muddled area, but apparently it is such a drastic difference that when you are ordained a High Priest, your priesthood line of authority CHANGES to be that of the line of High Priests rather than that of an Elder.

In theory, one would be a High Priest in order to get the Second Annointing.  In addition, to receive ALL the keys necessary,  one in theory would also need to be a High Priest, thus if one was to have all the Keys necessary to be over Prophets, Seers, Revelators, and all others who are below a Deity in the Eternities in Exaltation, one would also need to be a High Priest in the eternities and have received that in exaltation.

Today, in wards there is still a stigma in many minds connected to those who are Older High Priests.  Even as Elders are all meeting with the High priests, there are those who define the differences.  In action, the office of a High Priest is for those who hold Leadership positions within the church. 

Other than that, on the surface of how the church is supposed to be run, there is no difference between an Elder and a High Priest.  It is taught that an Elder has all the authority in order to attain Exaltation (barring of course the Second Annointing and other blessings which are supposedly supposed to be sealed on their head are necessary). 

Unfortunately in our area it is used in a slightly different manner if one was on the outside looking in. 

In our area, it's become the defacto line between older minority members and those who are white.  Now that the Priesthood can be held by ALL for several decades, they seem to have it that the divinding line in our area is those who are High Priests vs. those who are not. 

In the entire 8 stake area we have around 3 minoritiess (50% are minorities in our area for membership) who are High Priests.  On the otherhand just about 95% of those who are over 50 and are non-minority whites are High priests, and about 75% of those who are non-minority whites and over the age of 45 are High priests.  Those who were like me, and became one of the only older elders are seen typically as having something in our background (there wasn't any in mine, I just didn't happen to be in the "in-crowd" though I had sent some of that in-crowd to jail) which made you more sinful or wicked than those who were. 

It was something I bore for many years, and though there should have been NO shame in it, I was shamed a LOT and OFTEN.  I wonder at times if I was called to my calling now to dispel that idea and show that I had been righteous.

It hurts to think that the same experiences I may have had to go through are being borne by my kids.  Discrimination in that arena...HURTS.  People say that it should not mean anything or that it should not matter, BUT IT DOES.  That type of discrimination is VERY hard to work through and endure through.

On the otherhand, it DOES work wonders for making you humble.  You are grouped with the other undesirables by default once you get over 50.  It was also hard on my wife to a degree as well.  It makes you realize that perhaps some of the most righteous are NOT those that always have recognition and authority in church, but perhaps those that are looked down upon and still, somehow, manage to retain their testimony.  Unfortunately, just like they were in many times in the scriptures, there is no justice for these people in the church in this life for the most part today.  Those who look down on them will receive all the accolades and recognition of the church members in our area, while those who are looked down upon are still...looked down upon no matter how good they try to be or how faithful they actually are.

I, actually had it easy as I was not a minority.  Quite a few start off pretty solid in coming out to the church but by the time they are 45 to 50, they normally have felt enough discrimination to have stopped coming.  In trying to reactivate them I've found that they still have a testimony, they just don't want to have to deal with the stuff thrown at them at the churches and wards in the area.  I actually cannot blame them in this.  I understand where they are coming from, but I'm not about to throw a wrench into the way the Church works.  I  may submit those who are active for the calling, but they need to be active first.  Unfortunately, as I said, most seem to disappear by the time they are in their 40s.  They still seem to want their children baptized and coming to church (we have probably 1/4 of our youth that are from these families but do not have parents that currently attend...ironically) but they don't want to deal with the manner in which they are treated.

I wish the church would not base such things such as ordination to a High Priest (and perhaps even the Second Annointing, but that's another issue completely that most members are not aware of) on matters of opinion, but rather on matters of merit.  It would be nice if the church did something that prevented this type of stuff from happening, but I don't see it ever being successfully figured out. 

Luckily, this does NOT affect all the areas of the church and may be that my own area is unique.  I DO note that MOST who are NOT minorities and have NOT suffered in this manner don't even REALIZE (or if they do, they blatantly choose to either ignore, or contribute to being part of the problem) that such a situation exists.  However, I would hope that this isn't something that plagues the church world wide, as far as I know I'm just knowledgeable about my area and my life, not specifically the church in general. 

As I said already, that's just a dream that will NEVER happen though.  I just listed it as we were listing crazy and unlikely predictions for conference.  Things that would never happen in most events.  Thus, I cast my wish into there.  It will never happen as far as I know, that is not how the church operates today and not how it works. 

But as long as we were tossing in absolutely nonsense into the ring, I figured I'd toss my nonsense in as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More details on the new youth program that will include a high school program through pathways that will incorporate seminary and remove early morning seminary. New callings/assignments will be created to support the new high school program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/10/2019 at 3:05 PM, raven2 said:

More details on the new youth program that will include a high school program through pathways that will incorporate seminary and remove early morning seminary. New callings/assignments will be created to support the new high school program. 

Not sure how this would work outside of the US and even outside of areas in US with very high population of members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KScience said:

 

Not sure how this would work outside of the US and even outside of areas in US with very high population of members

I agree that would be challenging. I do think that the church is really looking at education heavily though. With the way schools are becoming politicized it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the brethren come out with a home centered education program in the future. I am all for public school and the experiences it provides, but I also don't want my young children having teachers with a political agenda...especially one that falls outside of basic gospel principles. It is one thing to have a biased professor at a university, or even one in high school, but some of the things that are being taught to kindergarten kids nowadays is frightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now