Jonah

Not believing in the traditional Christ

Recommended Posts

Hinduism is more like modalism, where there is one God, but in many infinite forms, with infinite names.   That is not the same oneness of the Trinity/Godhead. or the LDS nature of God the state of being.  The definition give in the Doctrine and Covenants, talks about being God as a state of ever progression.  And as long as we move forward, we are gods. God is not a single person, but a being with the ability to continue.  Damnation is when we cease to be gods.  Exaltation is our progression made eternal.   But even that  does not make us in the unique relationship with God the Father and God the Son, nor God the Holy Ghost.   That unique relationship (combined) is our God, which is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1
On 12/10/2019 at 4:19 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There are reports of Muslims seeing Jesus in visions/dreams, telling them He is the Son of God. Since Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet they listen. Once they understand, some convert. Had they not been taught that Jesus is a prophet they may not have. So, yes, some wrong ways of worship can still help prepare...but of themselves, they are still wrong. I am thankful for God's mercy, and try hard to be slow to speak and quick to listen. Also, I suspect we all do our best missionary work when we lift up Jesus and our faith rather than try to tear others' beliefs down. Still...I cannot say there is no wrong way to worship.   

Again, the question isn't just about the wrong way to worship, it's about what God is going to do about it on judgment day. I fully agree with you about wrong ways to worship. I believe worshiping a 3 in 1 God is just as wrong as thinking that Jesus is only a prophet. There is enough support for that idea from the Bible, that many who also claim to believe the Bible also believe that Jesus wasn't God. 

So, there is only one truth about who and what God is. Everything else is wrong. But given what we know, i don't think it is realistic to condemn one person who things God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or 1 but that one isn't Jesus because there is no absolute proof which of these He is. I'm not aware that Jesus condemned anyone for their ignorance. What it all boils down to is men condemning other men because they don't happen to believe the same way. It's not something that God would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

The same could be said of the victims of Christian worship or the victims who chose not to worship as Christians worship.

So, then, are you conceding that you were mistaken when you said the following?

10 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:
On 12/8/2019 at 3:55 PM, brotherofJared said:

There is no wrong way to worship.

I believe what you were trying to say was something along the lines of, "When a Catholic or a Muslim or a Hindu worship, they are performing a sacred act. The act of worshiping is itself sacred, even if misdirected." Assuming this is correct, I see what you're driving at, and I'm sympathetic. But I don't completely agree. There are in fact many specific acts or "ways" of worshipping that are indeed objectively wrong, even evil. As PC brought up, Cain's fraudulent attempts to "worship" God were "the wrong way to worship".

God must be worshipped "in Spirit and in truth". Any sincere attempt to worship in Spirit and truth is, probably, acceptable to God. But that does not mean all such attempts are of equal value or efficacy. And any attempt to worship other than "in Spirit and in truth" is not acceptable to God, as Jesus' words to the Pharisees make exceedingly clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
On 12/10/2019 at 7:58 PM, person0 said:

Either we can become gods or we can't.  Just because we don't understand in full measure what it means, doesn't mean we should ignore, or cast aside, the feI w things we do understand.  It is completely accurate to suggest that very little has been revealed about the 'history' so to speak of God our Father and that we ought not to speculate.  It is 100% true that it is unnecessary, inappropriate, and a waste of focus for people to be speculating about Heavenly Mother, or really even making suggestions beyond the simple recognition that she exists.  We should call those people out, and point to and encourage them to focus on things of greater spiritual value.  For all we know, the process of becoming like God to the extent that we are taught is possible will take millennia or more; in fact Joseph Smith taught as much:

I think it's healthy to speculate. I think it's unhealthy to deny one of our basic driving motivators that enables us to reach higher than ourselves. There is the ridiculous that should be avoided, but I've found that people who get ridiculous about their speculations are usually ridiculous about everything else (they just seem to come up with odd ideas about anything they choose to do).

In the Gospel principles manual, we have general authorities being quoted that we will create worlds and people them with our own spirit children. That's speculation. I personally think that's absurd speculation, but it stems from what we believe that God did for us though we have no clue how He did it. We just believe that we will be able to do whatever He did and that's reasonable because Gods do what Gods do, right? But who knows what a God does but God? 

We have some idea of what a God does by the life of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't help much with what we're going to be doing after we die. We understand that we will have some interaction, however little that is, in the lives of those who will live on worlds like this one. There are two things we can glean from the scriptures. 1. We, as resurrected beings, will have almost no interaction with those beings. and 2. The one who will interact with them the most will be one who will actually live on their planet with them (He will be one of them as opposed to being one of us - I hope that statement is understandable. non-LDS Christians will have a hard time with that concept, but the being we had the most contact with is the Messiah, the Savior, not God the Father, who is a resurrected being.

We also know from some specific statements what we'll be doing and that gives us a clue too. According to Joseph Smith, a god is defined as one who continues the seeds and that isn't really that hard to do since we kind of already do that. Meeting that condition is not hard to do and it is something we can do without a lot of training or learning. We don't have to be perfect to do it.

Now, as far as what our Heavenly Mother is doing, I think a lot of women would like to know especially when one considers the possibility of eternal polygamy, so Yeah, speculate away. The way things stand right now, we need a better understanding of the woman's role in the resurrection and why it is that they never talk to their supposed "spirit offspring".

Frankly, I think we have it all wrong. First off, becoming a God doesn't mean we'll go off and do our own thing. God certainly wasn't doing his own thing. From what I can gather, the work of God is a community effort and will always be a community effort.

Anyway, like I said, I think it's healthy to speculate and to share it and try to defend it. In the exchange of ideas, we can draw closer to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
17 minutes ago, Vort said:

So, then, are you conceding that you were mistaken when you said the following?

Yes. I concede that there are wrong ways to worship. When that worship includes breaking the commandments of God, then it is wrong. But I understood the discussion was about our understanding of who and what God is. In that sense, it does not matter if a person thinks God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or a great spirit, nor does it matter what His name is, whether one person calls Him Allah and another person calls him Father or another person calls him by any other name. In this, there is no wrong way to worship. It doesn't even matter if our prayers to such a being are scripted or free form, but taking the life of another person as a form of worship is wrong or if that worship broke any of the other commandments of God as part of that worship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vort said:

As PC brought up, Cain's fraudulent attempts to "worship" God were "the wrong way to worship".

I said elsewhere that I have no idea what "fraudulent attempts" were made at worship by Cain. But my point has been, all along, did God condemn Cain for the way he worshiped... that's the vein I'm driving at. Quite frankly, even LDS worship much like Cain did. We bring fruits, even the first fruits of our labor, but seem to have expectations that when they are not met, we act in predictable ways, often out of offense or jealousy or lethargy. 

Cain was condemned for what he did, not for the sacrifices he offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I think it's healthy to speculate.

A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite. I think most speculation is dead wrong, and thus unprofitable. In some narrow instances, I think that making reasoned assumptions can be useful, but in general, I think gospel speculation is exceedingly unhealthy and usually leads to a bad end. At best, it's mostly useless. That's my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
35 minutes ago, Vort said:

God must be worshipped "in Spirit and in truth". Any sincere attempt to worship in Spirit and truth is, probably, acceptable to God. But that does not mean all such attempts are of equal value or efficacy. And any attempt to worship other than "in Spirit and in truth" is not acceptable to God, as Jesus' words to the Pharisees make exceedingly clear.

What is truth? I agree that if we have the truth our worship would be more effective, but worshiping according to our understanding may not be truth, but I do not see where it would be a serious error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brotherofJared said:

I said elsewhere that I have no idea what "fraudulent attempts" were made at worship by Cain.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/5.18-21?lang=eng&clang=eng#p17

And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord. And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

I expect PC had the KJV Genesis version in mind, but it amounts to the same thing.

5 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

But my point has been, all along, did God condemn Cain for the way he worshiped... that's the vein I'm driving at.

Condemned? Perhaps not. But he had no respect to Cain's unjustified and illicit offering, an offering made at the behest of Satan.

6 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Cain was condemned for what he did, not for the sacrifices he offered.

Cain's sacrifices were wrong, contrary to the word of God, and offered in bad faith. I would say that Cain's offer of sacrifices were among the things that he did. I'm not convinced that Cain was not condemned, to some extent at least, for his mockery of a sacrifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vort said:

A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite. I think most speculation is dead wrong, and thus unprofitable. In some narrow instances, I think that making reasoned assumptions can be useful, but in general, I think gospel speculation is exceedingly unhealthy and usually leads to a bad end. At best, it's mostly useless. That's my view.

Hmmm. A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite as well. 

Your statement, "I think most speculation is dead wrong" is, in itself, speculation. We can't get away from it and I believe your statement is dead wrong, IMO. I don't really see the difference between speculation and reasoned assumptions. But, that's my view. I would just say, don't fall in love with your reasoned assumptions because you might be wrong and as long as we understand that, then speculations or reasoned assumptions are not unhealthy in any way,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vort said:

I expect PC had the KJV Genesis version in mind, but it amounts to the same thing.

That quote isn't from the KJV, but the reason why we worship is not the same as worship. I see no correlation between being ignorant of what and who we worship, but we do the best we can with what we understand and the story of Cain. I also do not see where the Lord condemned Cain for the way he worshiped. When @prisonchaplain offered his statement not worshiping the way he worshiped was a serious error, I assumed that meant that we'd be condemned for it. @person0 asked why it would be a serious error and I'm still waiting for the answer to that. 

My question is actually very specific to what and who we worship, not the reason we worship nor acts of evil that we perform in the name of worship. Evil is evil and it cannot be justified by religion (which creates a serious problem because God commanded genocide in the old testament which is an act of evil and I'm afraid I would rebel). The reason we worship is an issue that is a common malady in our worship today. I do not think that Satan actually told Cain to offer sacrifice in a literal or verbal way, but rather influenced his decision to worship with the expectation of reward and when Abel obtained that reward but Cain didn't, that caused the rift which Satan expected. Abel wasn't really looking for rewards, his offering was a thanksgiving offering, not an expectation offering.

I can see that Cain's worship was less that perfect or sincere, but still God did not condemn Cain for the way he worshiped, at least, not that I can see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Vort said:

Cain's sacrifices were wrong, contrary to the word of God, and offered in bad faith. I would say that Cain's offer of sacrifices were among the things that he did. I'm not convinced that Cain was not condemned, to some extent at least, for his mockery of a sacrifice.

I don't see that is sacrifices were made as a mockery. Please show me where Cain understood that only blood sacrifices were acceptable and all others were a mockery. If you can't show it, then there was nothing "wrong" with Cain's sacrifice. The problem wasn't the sacrifice, the problem was with Cain, in his heart. 

I believe you are speculating about whether or not Cain was condemned because of his mocking sacrifice. He may have been, but we know for sure he was when he killed his brother. When he did that, he wasn't worshiping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Cain was condemned for what he did, not for the sacrifices he offered.

Quote

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen 4:3-5

God rejected his offering PRIOR to his killing Abel.  Apparently, it was at the very least, incorrect, if not wrong.  But in Moses we understand that Cain didn't just do an "incorrect procedure".  He directly did it to please Satan and not the Lord.  That was just plain wrong.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I think it's healthy to speculate.

6 hours ago, Vort said:

A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite. I think most speculation is dead wrong, and thus unprofitable.

6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Hmmm. A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite as well. 

Based on the qualitative statements accompanying this back-and-forth, I get the impression that the two of you are closer on this matter than is apparent.  It may just be a semantic issue.

There is the "I wonder" of things that we're supposed to do before we "go inquire of the Lord."  There is nothing wrong with that.  We are supposed to Search, Ponder, & Pray.  There is nothing wrong with pondering a topic and reaching for further light and knowledge.

The dangerous part of pondering which leads to the speculative area (if I can use those terms to separate what is healthy and what is spiritually dangerous) is when we rely on our own wisdom to attain "knowledge" that is hidden.  This is where we rely on the arm of flesh rather than the arm of the Lord.

The third step is PRAY.  So, if we stop in the middle, we're stunted in our learning.  That is not desirable.  And the longer I've searched, pondered, and prayed, the more I wonder how many people really know how to PRAY for knowledge.  I thought I did.  But only lately have I come to realize, I didn't really know until some things changed in my life.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


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

I suspect that those who do wrong mostly know it is wrong. Even the barely religious who commit heinous acts as a shortcut to whatever rewards their religion promises have got to suspect that they are being used--that their one-off terrorists acts cannot possibly match the lifelong devotion of faithful adherents. They choose to delude themselves. Likewise, so many that claim to be irreligious usually experience the conviction of the Spirit at some point, but dismiss it figuring it's too late (or, perhaps that they have more time before the must 'get religion'). Most that I encounter would argue that others do worse than they, and perhaps get less punishment. Nevertheless, very few if any would claim true innocence.

This is a very interesting question.  Jesus uttered on the cross that those that do not know how wrong their actions are - ought to be forgiven.  Of course this utterance is not without controversy.  Who really understands how wrong it is to oppose G-d?  Or how simple even the smallest sin opposes G-d?  I often wonder if the easiest thing to accomplish in this universe is to receive forgiveness from G-d and therefore nothing to think of as an accomplishment.  But I am also inclined to think that obtaining G-d's forgiveness and mercy does not remove us from sin or temptation.  I am of the mind that we must first learn good from evil and then it is up to us to choose.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 11:34 AM, anatess2 said:

In the same manner that the thief on the cross with Christ is in paradise so is all of God's creation in the Plan of Salvation await the turning of this eternal round in paradise to inherit their kingdoms including those promised exaltation.

What is an eternal round?

Jonah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jonah said:

What is an eternal round?

What a great topic for scripture study! I suggest you spend a few weeks studying what the Lord means in scripture when he talks about "one eternal round", then return to this forum and let us know what you've found.

Share this post


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

What a great topic for scripture study! I suggest you spend a few weeks studying what the Lord means in scripture when he talks about "one eternal round", then return to this forum and let us know what you've found.

Have you ever been nominated for a Welcoming Committee?   🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
On 12/10/2019 at 10:27 AM, Scott said:

For anyone who says that we are monotheistic, here are my simple questions.

3.    Do you believe that mankind is a God in embryo, as taught by many of our Church leaders?

This one piqued my interest. Was Jesus a God in embryo during his mortal probation? I don't think so. What did Jesus mean when he said: "I said ye are gods" (ps 82 and John 10)? Did he mean ye are gods in embryo or did he mean ye are gods?

The idea that there is any such thing as a god in embryo, seems to be contradictive to the nature of a God which is not something we "graduate" into. It is something that we are. I believe we can stop being what we are, but I don't believe that we can start being something that we aren't especially if that something is supposedly eternal. That requires addressing the question, what is a god?

D&C 132 at around verse 20: 

which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

I believe the key to the definition of a god is that "they continue [the seeds]" or that they have power to continue the seeds. Nevertheless, the above description makes no requirement for perfection to being gods nor does it even require one to be sinless. If we consider Ps 82, it is easy to see that the beings that God called gods were not perfect and had a propensity for doing evil or bad things. Despite their wrongdoings, he still called them gods.

I believe our definition of what a god is, is far different than what God defines a god is. God creates. We create. God continues the seeds. We are promised to be able to continue the seeds (and we are certainly doing that now). God has knowledge of good and evil. We also have knowledge of good and evil. Couple what we have with eternity and providing we don't lose what we have, then I don't see how we can stop being gods unless we choose to ... if the above definition is accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2019 at 12:43 PM, Traveler said:

Also if an Omnipotent being is to give any power (regardless of how small or insignificant) to another existing being - once that power is given they are no longer omnipotent.
. . .
G-d can be "The Most Powerful" or the Supreme Power but I see no logical possibility for "All" powerful.

I suppose we simply will have to disagree on this one.  I don't think the powers of one being have any bearing on the powers of another being; they are not mutually exclusive.  Based on what you are saying it would mean that powers can be created that did not previously exist.  If I were the first creation and God granted me the power to choose, according to your logic, my ability to choose is a power that did not previously exist and, now that it is given, God is no longer 'all powerful'.  The problem with this is that all powers, principles, elements, etc, have existed for all eternity without beginning and end.  Hence it is not 'my ability to choose' but 'the ability to choose'.  Looking at 'powers' in this way it could be said that God did not create for me the ability to choose, but instead enabled me to have and use this ability.  As I mentioned before, I think a lot of this is paradigm related.  When considering things from my paradigm, God is capable of acting in use of every power that exists; that is not to say that He would do so in all cases, but instead, simply that he is capable.  My ability to choose and your ability to choose are not separate powers, instead, they are two people with access to the same power.  What is a separate power would be your and/or my ability to influence what one another will choose.  Even then, choice and influence is a total of two powers that two separate individuals possess, not four total powers.  Anyway, that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, person0 said:

I suppose we simply will have to disagree on this one.  I don't think the powers of one being have any bearing on the powers of another being; they are not mutually exclusive.  Based on what you are saying it would mean that powers can be created that did not previously exist.  If I were the first creation and God granted me the power to choose, according to your logic, my ability to choose is a power that did not previously exist and, now that it is given, God is no longer 'all powerful'.  The problem with this is that all powers, principles, elements, etc, have existed for all eternity without beginning and end.  Hence it is not 'my ability to choose' but 'the ability to choose'.  Looking at 'powers' in this way it could be said that God did not create for me the ability to choose, but instead enabled me to have and use this ability.  As I mentioned before, I think a lot of this is paradigm related.  When considering things from my paradigm, God is capable of acting in use of every power that exists; that is not to say that He would do so in all cases, but instead, simply that he is capable.  My ability to choose and your ability to choose are not separate powers, instead, they are two people with access to the same power.  What is a separate power would be your and/or my ability to influence what one another will choose.  Even then, choice and influence is a total of two powers that two separate individuals possess, not four total powers.  Anyway, that's how I see it.

I will attempt to respond directly to your statement.  But first perhaps we should recognize what power is - in a general sense.  Can we say power it the ability to determine an outcome?  The reason I am using such a definition is because it appears to me or seems to me that this is the religious concern by which G-d is defined as All Powerful.  We want to think that G-d oversees and controls the universe so that nothing or a possibility of anything in the universe spinning out of control ending G-d's ability to maintain order.

What I am suggesting that G-d does not need All Power - just Superior Power in order to do all things necessary.  Let me see if I can provide a definitive example.  Perhaps we can agree that there is both good and evil means to both determine outcome but even the outcome itself.  If we say G-d has all power to determine outcome - then all outcomes are the result of his power.  This of necessity would include evil outcomes.  This leads directly into an argument and discussion as to why, on occasions, evil things happen to good people.

If G-d has all power - he could and for the sake of justice, should prevent evil from unjustly having influences that under any condition causes evil outcomes or actions towards undeserving good people.  Scripture tells us that "To them that know to do good and do it not - to them it is sin."  In short this is a definite paradox.  If G-d has all power he also has all responsibility - and yet G-d takes takes no responsibility for any evil or injustice.  I see only two possibilities - either G-d is not all powerful or he is all powerful and uses his power to blame someone else for evil and sends them off to Hell just because he uses his power to shift the blame.

Some may argue that G-d has evil power and chooses not to exercise it.  But when he gives or allows other to have evil power who then choose to bring about evil.  But once again - G-d has All power and therefore is the one responsible for any injustices that happen because he allows evil and in so doing it is he who has sinned - he is the one that granted and allowed for injustice and evil.  Even if others have such powers (as you suggested) - they only have it because G-d gave it and then allowed it.  Because G-d has all power he and he alone determines outcomes - be such outcomes are temporary or eternal.  

Do you agree that one is responsible for whatever power they have?   (Obviously this is a redundant question).  I suggest that the only way that G-d is not all responsible is if he is not all powerful.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 12:18 AM, brotherofJared said:

 When @prisonchaplain offered his statement not worshiping the way he worshiped was a serious error, I assumed that meant that we'd be condemned for it. @person0 asked why it would be a serious error and I'm still waiting for the answer to that.

To be clear, I've never said that HOW one worships would lead to condemnation. I can imagine that many Saints would be appalled at some of our Pentecostal worship--perceiving our music to be irreverent and our mannerism to detract from the Spirit (or the sacred). My concern is about WHO is worshiped. This is an intense conversation within Christianity. For example, Native Americans worship the Creator, and refer to Him as Grandfather. Many Christian Native Americans find great fulfilling in attending sweat lodges, smudging, and other Native spiritual activities while directing their worship to the Father, through Jesus Christ. It may well be that worship of Grandfather was enough for the salvation of souls. So, why should it matter whether we worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a Trinity, as God who appears in 3 roles, or as the LDS Godhead? It matters because those who worship God as one of these 3 all claim revelation from scripture and the Holy Spirit. Whether being wrong leads to ultimate condemnation or not is a matter for God to decide. However, as others have mentioned, the differences mean we do not recognize each other's sacraments, fill each others pulpits, nor consider ourselves to share "like precious faith." So, no condemnation here -- especially not for the HOW of worship. Disagreement? Yeah...that's why we post, right? 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
On 12/16/2019 at 6:00 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I suspect that those who do wrong mostly know it is wrong

That might be the case here or there, but often times the worst evil committed has good intentions. Very, very few people play with their mustache and twirl a cape saying 'Grr....I'm a villain, I hate love." Many people either rationalize their actions and make themselves the good guy or honestly feel they are doing good. 

in fact, I got into a deep argument with someone in college over this. I said that some dictator-I don't even remember which one-thought he was doing good. The other person said "Oh, you mean communism is good?" "No, I said that Mao* probably thought he was doing good." "So, communism is good?" NO, that's not what I said. 

He didn't get it. 

*It might have been Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler...I seriously forget which one. But, I stand by what i said. Even those dictators probably thought they were doing good, at least at some point. 

Edited by MormonGator

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