JohnsonJones

We didn’t leave Boy Scouts, they left us, says Latter-day Saint apostle

Recommended Posts

Interesting comments on the Church's decision to leave the Boy Scouts...

We Didn't leave the Boy Scouts, they left us

Quote

New York • A high-ranking leader with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Friday the faith severed its centurylong ties with the Boy Scouts of America because the organization made changes that pushed it away from the church.

“The reality there is we didn’t really leave them; they kind of left us,” said M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “The direction they were going was not consistent to what we feel our youth need to have ... to survive in the world that lies ahead for them.”

So, what is going on here?

In my experience, the Church allowed Gay Boy Scouts and Gay Boy Scout leaders LOOOOONG before they were actually legalized in Boy Scouts.  I've had Boy Scout leaders over my boys many years ago who were Homosexual and had a CC that actually was bringing her girlfriend to church (note, I did NOT select these leaders as I was not in the Bishopric at the time or anywhere close to being in it or influential in it). 

The church allowed ANY boy, gay or not, to be in Boy Scouts.

Is it really that the Boy Scouts simply allowed girls to be Boy Scouts as well...or is it something deeper.

I find it IRONIC that so many complain about Boy Scouts allowing Boys who are homosexual or leaders that are homosexual into them when the Church has allowed or done this (at least in my area) blatantly at times over the past few decades before these were even items long before the Boy Scouts even had them as issues to consider.

Luckily, there is a clarification specifically on what Elder Ballard is referring to...

Quote

Although the Utah-based faith has allowed — and does allow — openly gay Latter-day Saints to serve in church assignments, including the Boy Scouts, these members are deemed to be living the faith’s standards. This means they are not acting on their same-sex attractions.

Scouting’s new inclusive policy, however, made no such distinction between “openly gay” and “sexually active gay leaders.” So a gay Scout leader could have a partner or a same-sex spouse — and that troubled the church brass.

Which is interesting.  I'm not sure what I think about it.  They presented the reason they were leaving originally to be to make a program that catered to all the youth in the world...which I can see the benefits of.  Scouting is not able to really be a program for a world wide church...however, this article (and admittedly it is from the SL Tribune which I have not heard great things about) indicates it was over something different.

As scouting allowed the charter organization, and specifically the Church to make decisions on who to allow as members of troops as well as leaders, this should not have affected the Church in how they ran their program.  They  just come out with something saying that their troops will not participate in official programs such as the Boy Scout Camps offered by Councils and will instead run their own camps and programs and they could have kept going with Scouts just fine if this was truly the reason.

I'm hoping the decision was still as they originally stated, in that it was the need for a world-wide program for all the members of the church.  The program they have I feel IS inspired, or at least I felt it was inspired when learning about the basics of it (more this Sunday I believe for everyone out there), so I could readily accept that reason as the WHY they did it.

This article leave me more wondering about it though.  Not sure what I think about the article after reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the wise words of Rhett and Link "It's not you, it's me... ya actually the more I think about it it's definitely you. But it might be me, cause me decided to date you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSA leadership told the Church (and numerous other stakeholders) that they wouldn’t change heir policy . . . And then they did, by ramming through a vote when they knew the Church delegation to the national board would be gone.  

BSA leadership told GSUSA that they wouldn’t admit girls . . . And then they did.

BSA leadership heavily leveraged itself financially to build its Summit Bechtel location—which, frankly, they didn’t need; but which was a tremendous ego boost for the leadership.  They have squandered vast resources of cash, property, and goodwill; leaving themselves now as socially and financially vulnerable and non-viable as they’ve ever been in their hundred-year history.

And of course, the council burro-clowns are consistently about as helpful as another hole in the head; and the whole organization has been gouging its membership with useless program, manual, and uniform updates for decades.

I have no idea exactly in what ways Ballard feels the BSA left the Church; but to my mind, it has little to do with gender issues specifically. It has to do with the fact that BSA leadership doesn’t believe in their own product.  They are not trustworthy; they are not loyal; they are only occasionally helpful or friendly or courteous or kind; they despise obedience to any person, institution or principle worth obeying; they are unreliably cheerful; the opposite of thrifty; cowardly; filthy; and blasphemous.  

And in my (admittedly) limited experience with non-LDS scouting:  the boys know it.  They are dismissive of the vestigial character-building aspects of the program and largely see the BSA as a chance to get away from their parents and go play with knives and tell each other dirty jokes.

We can, and will, do better. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have no idea exactly in what ways Ballard feels the BSA left the Church; but to my mind, it has little to do with gender issues specifically.

I agree. Leave it to the SLT to take a quote by Elder Ballard, that doesn't specify his exact reason, but then grab "gender" and hope their readers mindlessly associate the two as being one in the same.

Quote

“The reality there is we didn’t really leave them; they kind of left us,” said M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “The direction they were going was not consistent to what we feel our youth need to have ... to survive in the world that lies ahead for them.”

It doesn't say "gender" direction, is simply says "the direction".
The SLT, once again a hefty yawn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think most LDS Eagle Scouts care about the church divorcing the Boy Scouts? Is it bittersweet for them? 

Apparently someone on my FB was an Eagle Scout (I didn't know until very recently). He's not a member of the church, but he "welcomes the changes and says a lot of Eagle Scouts do too."  

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

Do you think most LDS Eagle Scouts care about the church divorcing the Boy Scouts? Is it bittersweet for them? 

Apparently someone on my FB was an Eagle Scout (I didn't know until very recently). He's not a member of the church, but he "welcomes the changes and says a lot of Eagle Scouts do too."  

Reaction #1: It's exactly this kind of elitist bullcrap attitude that makes me say "Good riddance" to BSA and the snobbish idiots who infest it.

Reaction #2: On the other hand...they have a point. LDS troops are historically bad (both in the sense of being not good through the years and in the sense of being really crummy). Scouting was never allowed to operate in LDS troops the way it was supposed to, and the result was hobbled LDS troops populated almost exclusively by 12-14-year-old boys, lacking older boys as leaders, pretending to run a "boy-led" program when in fact the boys were just along for the ride.

Reaction #3: They can rejoice all they want. In twenty years, BSA will exist as a pale shadow of its former self, if it exists at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Do you think most LDS Eagle Scouts care about the church divorcing the Boy Scouts? Is it bittersweet for them? 

Apparently someone on my FB was an Eagle Scout (I didn't know until very recently). He's not a member of the church, but he "welcomes the changes and says a lot of Eagle Scouts do too."  

My totally non-scientific assessment: 

Most LDS Christian Eagle Scouts: really don't care or are relieved for the same reason all other LDS Christian persons are.  

Majority of non-LDS scouts: really don't care or are relieved.  Many of them want to go in a different direction than LDS Christians and see the split as a good thing.

Boy Scout leadership is fretting out, as they have major $ problems.  But that existed with and without LDS Christian troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Reaction #1: It's exactly this kind of elitist bullcrap attitude that makes me say "Good riddance" to BSA and the snobbish idiots who infest

We agree on that. Dude is a total jerk. Amazingly, both Eagle Scouts I know aren't really the greatest people. One has multiple marriages, several kids out of wedlock, and is basically a train wreck. The other served one term in the NH State House and still demands everyone call him "Honorable" as a title. Yes, he's a radical leftist. What is it with you Eagle Scouts? (Playing everyone)

 

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Boy Scout leadership is fretting out, as they have major $ problems.  But that existed with and without LDS Christian troops.

They are in a long, slow decline, that's for sure. 

For many reasons, but mostly because I think camping is an abomination and pathway to Satan, I was never Boy Scout. So I don't have a dog in the fight. Like all other groups you aren't a part of, you might have a passing interest in this or that aspect, but you spend 99% of your time thinking of other things. Seriously, how often do you (generic)  think about the local Masonic lodge if you aren't a Mason? 

Share this post


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

Hopefully often, then you go join.

That doesn't happen. If it did, then the average age of your local lodge wouldn't be 65 years old*. 

*That's not me being anti Mason. My FIL is a Mason, my BIL was in Demolay, my biological grandfather is a Mason, and my wife is the Mother Advisor for the nearest chapter of IORG. I've spent more time in Masonic lodges than the local Worshipful Master has. 

Share this post


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

That doesn't happen. If it did, then the average age of your local lodge wouldn't be 65 years old*. 

*That's not me being anti Mason. My FIL is a Mason, my BIL was in Demolay, my biological grandfather is a Mason, and my wife is the Mother Advisor for the nearest chapter of IORG. I've spent more time in Masonic lodges than the local Worshipful Master has. 

That's why I said "hopefully".  I probably should have said "wishfully".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 I probably should have said "wishfully".

I wish so too, ironically. I have enormous respect  for the organization-99% of Masons are wonderful people. Have you been to the large retirement home in Oxford, Massachusetts? I was there last year for the funeral of a dear friends father. Amazing building. 

Share this post


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

I wish so too, ironically. I have enormous respect  for the organization-99% of Masons are wonderful people. Have you been to the large retirement home in Oxford, Massachusetts? I was there last year for the funeral of a dear friends father. Amazing building. 

Yeah.  The Overlook is great.

Share this post


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

BSA leadership told the Church (and numerous other stakeholders) that they wouldn’t change heir policy . . . And then they did, by ramming through a vote when they knew the Church delegation to the national board would be gone.  

BSA leadership told GSUSA that they wouldn’t admit girls . . . And then they did.

BSA leadership heavily leveraged itself financially to build its Summit Bechtel location—which, frankly, they didn’t need; but which was a tremendous ego boost for the leadership.  They have squandered vast resources of cash, property, and goodwill; leaving themselves now as socially and financially vulnerable and non-viable as they’ve ever been in their hundred-year history.

And of course, the council burro-clowns are consistently about as helpful as another hole in the head; and the whole organization has been gouging its membership with useless program, manual, and uniform updates for decades.

I have no idea exactly in what ways Ballard feels the BSA left the Church; but to my mind, it has little to do with gender issues specifically. It has to do with the fact that BSA leadership doesn’t believe in their own product.  They are not trustworthy; they are not loyal; they are only occasionally helpful or friendly or courteous or kind; they despise obedience to any person, institution or principle worth obeying; they are unreliably cheerful; the opposite of thrifty; cowardly; filthy; and blasphemous.  

And in my (admittedly) limited experience with non-LDS scouting:  the boys know it.  They are dismissive of the vestigial character-building aspects of the program and largely see the BSA as a chance to get away from their parents and go play with knives and tell each other dirty jokes.

We can, and will, do better. 

I'm not sure I agree with all of that, but I WILL agree that many of the rest of Scouting have a LOW opinion of scouts who went through the Program run by the Church.

The problem is that, as you say it, while a normal Boy Scout typically joins because that is the type of character and person they wish to grow into, every boy in the Church became a scout.  They had no real commitment to the morals or ideals of scouting and so you got many who did not change.  They would go play with knives (you don't play with knives as a scout but follow rules to use them safely) and tell dirty jokes.  The entire goal was pushing to be an Eagle Scout as quickly as possible.  Because they had no commitment to the actual scouts and rules, as soon as many heard the church was leaving scouts, they left scouts themselves and many have tried to malign it.

Counter this with those boys that I've seen in scouts that are from the normal community and stick with it in their units that are not with the Church.  They tend to be in Scouts for the journey, not necessarily the destination.  They tend to be more accepting and open to others.  They are not necessarily the popular kids (scouts was not as popular in areas outside of the areas where the Church membership is the majority and has not been for years as those who actually were Boy Scouts in practice were seen as goody goody two shoes and other such things which were not 'cool' to be as young men and young adults), but are kids that genuinely seemed to want to do and be good.

You can find these in the Church, but they are not as prevalent as I see in Scouting units that were not with the Church.

This created a thought process some have said over the years about Scouts with the Church's program vs. Scouts that are not with the Church's program. 

I admit I did not really feel this was true in any real sense until just recently.  I have 7 grandsons that are still young enough to be in Scouting.  Interestingly enough, they seem to be affected directly by this as they wanted to continue scouts.  Three of them already are going to a community unit and so aren't that concerned.  The others, the parents are trying to figure what to do with their boys.  It seems that the units in Utah have diminished greatly from dozens around to almost zero.  The dedication to the ideals of scouting seem to not exist there and people have dropped scouts even MORE greatly than elsewhere...at least from what I am hearing. 

It seems that they WERE NOT dedicated to Scouting to begin with, nor the morals and ideals it espouses.  As such, it has jokingly been called or asked of me to join as a scouting leader at my age from a long distance because one difficulty the parents of my grandkids have is that there is no one who wants to be a scouting leader to even start up a unit if they WANT their boys to be in Scouts in Utah next year currently, at least in their area from what I am being told (aka...not enough leaders to run the program, it takes more than just two concerned parents).

As I said, MOST of the things people are complaining about with immoral items in scouts today were done in regards to scouting within the CHURCH FOR DECADES prior to the Scouts even having it as an issue.  Gay Boy Scouts...check.  Gay Boy Scout Leaders...check.  Buying lots of camps (which I have abundantly appreciated to be honest, and we have had specific Church run Summer camps through the Church itself rather than the Council on occasion)...Check.  Disrespect for National Parks, Nature and the cause of a higher percentage of Lawsuits (including abuse) than any other organizations with scouts...check.

So, it sounds in many ways hypocritical for members to say these are the problems with Scouts when the Church itself has been doing almost ALL of these itself for MANY DECADES (not just the past few years) and in fact in most of these instances were NOT actually following the Scouting program itself when implementing some of these items (prior to the allowance of Gay Scouts and/or leaders within Scouts).

The biggest thing that changed that the Church was NOT doing...allowing girls to be in Scouts.  I do NOT have a problem with this.  I have seen community units already have parents bringing their children with them as outside the Church Scouts was focused on the family in many instances already.  The problem was that while the boys were earning badges for participating, the girls got nothing, even when they were there as a family.  It was more lawsuits and the entire LGBT issue pushing forward against scouts to cause a change, but I see the change to allow girls as beneficial from a FAMILY stand point. 

This is the biggest difference I see between things the Church has done scouts and will not allow with scouts, and what changed with the organization if being honest.  Literally, the only thing then that the Church would have objected to would be...Girls in Scouting???

As I said, I see by it's ACTIONS of what was allowed in the Church with it's scouts in the past what really was done in the Church, and actions generally can speak louder than words currently in this for me.  Girls in scouting is really the ONLY thing I see as the differences between what Scouts have been forced to allow (and the Church did have a part of the executive council and actually WAS the deciding vote on some of these issues...though as you say were absent for one of the major ones due to political maneuvering and what I would say was a dishonest approach by the then overall Scout executive...who ironically is a Republican).

That said, I ALSO would accept Ballard's reasonings of those who are Gay who are ACTIVELY promoting that lifestyle as another reason that the Scouts now deviate from the Church's policies as an organization.  Though there was allowance to let the Church run it's own programs as it desired (and this is also why the Church probably got away with having openly Gay Boys that were scouts in the past, for example during the 70s, 80s, and 90s when I saw my boys going through [and my sons are not Gay as far as I know, but some of the boys in their units were] this could be seen as somewhat a valid reason...the implication is the general changes within the Scouting program itself.

Thus, for me it is actually EASIER to accept the original reason given officially that due to changes in the Church they needed a better youth organization for the Church worldwide than the one they currently had (and it was a change from Duty to Go and also the Young Women's program of personal Progress as well as from Scouting) than the excuse that Scouts changed things that the Church had already implemented itself for years (unless we are talking specifically about Girls overall, with the allowance of the very SMALL percentage of those who are now actively homosexual and promoting that lifestyle being as scout leaders also as a reason).

This is but a news story and as such I'm not sure how much it actually reflects the official reasons the Church is no longer going to be with Scouts or not.  If this is to be the official reason at some time in the future, with my thoughts as you see above...as I said...I'm not sure what to think.  With any other organization that said that with the Church's history of doing what it does or did in Scouts I'd have no hesitation to call that organization hypocritical and needing to look inward at it's OWN operations and what it did to push this all on it's own in regards to policy changes before pointing the finger at Scouts.  As it is the CHURCH...I'm not so willing to do that...thus my feelings on the issue.  I don't feel that I can or want to do that in regards to the Church.

Currently though, I can point out that this is merely a news story (from a newspaper that regularly distributes a somewhat anti-Church view at times according to what I've heard) and is not the official stance of the Church.  it could be the paper painted the words stated differently than how it was intended to be stated or to come out.  It could be a misrepresentation of intent or the ideas that Elder Ballard wanted to state.  What I've heard at official Church discussions seem to center on the Church worldwide and the need to develop a program that works for all the youth around the world in whatever situation and circumstance they  may be in.  It sits much better with me to be honest...and the article sows discord within me in a confliction of feelings when thinking on it.

Share this post


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

Do you think most LDS Eagle Scouts care about the church divorcing the Boy Scouts? Is it bittersweet for them? 

Apparently someone on my FB was an Eagle Scout (I didn't know until very recently). He's not a member of the church, but he "welcomes the changes and says a lot of Eagle Scouts do too."  

See what I said above in regards to what LDS Scouts did.

IRONICALLY, there are some out there that actually BLAME the LDS Church regarding the allowance of Homosexuals into Scouting JUST as much as the lawsuits...as the Church was already allowing EVERY boy regardless of homosexuality (and that does not necessarily mean acting upon those feelings but that this was the way they were attracted) or not as a Scout.  The Church opened that Pandora's box along with one of their own as a member of the executive board PUSHING this direction.

Not that this is a correct assumption, but it can show the MASSIVE hypocrisy that some would point out in regards to some members of the LDS Church.  However, this is ONLY the tip of the iceberg.  This policy of not allowing Boys who were homosexual into scouts had existed in Boy Scouts previously for many decades.  The Church flagrantly ignored this policy.  It also flagrantly ignored many other policies of the Boy Scouts regularly along with it's leaders (probably because half the leaders weren't even trained correctly as they would have needed to be if they were NOT with a Church unit) which led to a culture that was not necessarily seen among Scouting units that were NOT run the by the Church (though there were ALSO PLENTY of Church units that DID foster the Scouting spirit and DID follow the regulations).

The thing that really ticked me off a bit previously (at least occasionally, but not always) was the way they would call Eagle Scouts lesser Eagles who came from Church units than those who came from other units.  However, seeing exactly the dedication members have to the Scouts recently has opened my eyes up.  I'd say that there probably is merit and this past year has made me realize that in many instances (but definitely not all) this is merited by the reasons I stated in my above post regarding the spirit of Scouting in and out of Church Scout troops.

Finally, the Church scout units had a massively disproportionate amount of lawsuits in relation to it's units.  Some see that the Scouts will actually have more money than all the money they were losing from the lawsuits caused by LDS units.  Of course, the flaw with this idea is that this only works if the Scouts can redirect these lawsuits against the Church rather than Scouting BSA.  Most of the lawsuits right now are in regards to events that happened years ago while the church was still with Scouting.  It may help in the future, but I do not feel it helps at all with the current situation.  However, there is a feeling I've gathered from Non-LDS units that the lawsuits caused by the Church scouting program costs FAR more than what the LDS church was actually bringing in or contributing to the Scouting organization.

Edited by JohnsonJones
grammar and spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

See what I said above in regards to what LDS Scouts did.

IRONICALLY, there are some out there that actually BLAME the LDS Church regarding the allowance of Homosexuals into Scouting JUST as much as the lawsuits...as the Church was already allowing EVERY boy regardless of homosexuality (and that does not necessarily mean acting upon those feelings but that this was the way they were attracted) or not as a Scout.  The Church opened that Pandora's box along with one of their own as a member of the executive board PUSHING this direction.

Not that this is a correct assumption, but it can show the MASSIVE hypocrisy in regards to the LDS Church.  However, this is ONLY the tip of the iceberg.  This policy of not allowing Boys who were homosexual into scouts had existed in Boy Scouts previously for many decades.  The Church flagrantly ignored this policy.  It also flagrantly ignored many other policies of the Boy Scouts regularly along with it's leaders (probably because half the leaders weren't even trained correctly as they would have needed to be if they were NOT with a Church unit) which led to a culture that was not necessarily seen among Scouting units that were NOT run the by the Church (though there were ALSO PLENTY of Church units that DID foster the Scouting spirit and DID follow the regulations).

The thing that really ticked me off a bit previously (at least occasionally, but not always) was the way they would call Eagle Scouts lesser Eagles who came from Church units than those who came from other units.  However, seeing exactly the dedication members have to the Scouts recently has opened my eyes up.  I'd say that there probably is merit and this past year has made me realize that in many instances (but definitely not all) this is merited by the reasons I stated in my above post regarding the spirit of Scouting in and out of Church Scout troops.

Finally, the Church scout units had a very massive disproportionate amount of lawsuits in relation to it's units.  Some see that the Scouts will actually have more money than all the money they were losing from the lawsuits caused by LDS units.  Of course, the flaw with this idea is that this only works if the Scouts can redirect these lawsuits against the Church rather than Scouting BSA.  Most of the lawsuits right now are in regards to events that happened years ago while the church was still with Scouting.  It may help in the future, but I do not feel it helps at all with the current situation.  However, there is a feeling I've gathered from Non-LDS units that the lawsuits caused by the Church scouting program costs FAR more than what the LDS church was actually bringing in or contributing to the Scouting organization.

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing JJ! 

I have to admit, I had no idea the amount of passion people had about the Boy Scouts. When they allowed girls, I was a little surprised about the reaction-people were outraged, acting like they had heard the trumpets of doomsday. It was massive overkill to me, but then again, I was never a Scout. But even if I was, I'd still think it was massive overkill. People need Valium.  

Share this post


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

When they allowed girls, I was a little surprised about the reaction-people were outraged, acting like they had heard the trumpets of doomsday.

 I didn't see this huge negative reaction. Some people were upset, but they were more upset by the political correctness than by the fact that girls were in Scouting. When it became clear that girls would have their own troops, I think most of the objection pretty much dropped away.

Share this post


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

 I didn't see this huge negative reaction

Yeah we obviously saw vastly different things. When the post comes up in my FB memories, I'll show it to you-the reaction I saw was huge, and negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, in a lot of ways the Church was already ruining the BSA anyway and treating it as their own organization.  It was time to split and many of those inside and outside the Chuch have seen this coming.

The sever almost occurred back in the 70's as well, but back then it was the BSA who were going to end ties (because our Church wouldn't let blacks be scout leaders, including patrol leaders among the scouts themselves).   

This time it is the Church severing ties, but this could be good for both organizations even if membership in the BSA decreases greatly.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Grunt-Guess what? Turns out I'll be spending most of the day today at the Masonic lodge a few towns over! Funny, how we were just talking about it. Apparently a few new girls are being initiated into IORG today. Her assembly (she's the mother advisor, like I mentioned) is actually growing a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between us and BSA is that to us, people are people, and "gay" isn't an identity. It therefore doesn't matter what position they serve in our church so long as the walk uprightly the path of discipleship.

 

As soon as you incorporate LGBT terms as part of a person's identity, you are coming dangerously close to justifying sin because of some false notion of respect and tolerance. We know that before anyone was gay, they were individual sons and daughters of God.

Share this post


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

@Grunt-Guess what? Turns out I'll be spending most of the day today at the Masonic lodge a few towns over! Funny, how we were just talking about it. Apparently a few new girls are being initiated into IORG today. Her assembly (she's the mother advisor, like I mentioned) is actually growing a bit. 

Pick up a petition! J/K

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