It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:01 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:18 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
Because achieving clarity about 'Mormon doctrine' is such an elusive task, the Church a while back tried to explain what the doctrine was and what it wasn't.

Quote:
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

This attempt, whilst no doubt well intended, simply adds to the confusion by being completely ambiguous.
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine." This is a caveat, a disclaimer, a loop hole. It's not clarifying what Mormon doctrine is or is not.
"Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines." This is ambiguous as it neglects to inform members exactly what the "core" doctrine are.

In discussions on this board, because of this ambiguity, some members have put forward the view that the starting point might be the Articles Of Faith, or the Temple recommend questions. But that's their personal opinion rather than clear guidance from leadership. In this millieu of speculating attempts to fill an important void created by leaders attempts to remain unimpeachable about doctrine, we now have yet another well intentioned attempt to explain what Mormon doctrine is or isn't.

Quote:
“Some people say doctrine are only those things that are eternal and they never change,” said Sweat. “I have used that definition. I think it’s useful in some contexts.”

But there’s a problem, he continued.

“If I’m only using the word doctrine to define things that are eternal and unchanging, is the Word of Wisdom a doctrine of the church?” he asked the audience.

Quote:
Breaking it down further, Sweat explained that doctrines can be categorized into four main areas:

Core Doctrine — those essential for salvation, including faith, repentance and baptism

Supportive Doctrine — those that elaborate on core doctrine, but are not essential for salvation

Policy Doctrine — authoritative, binding teachings of the LDS Church involving application of core and supportive doctrines

Esoteric Doctrine — known perhaps by prophets or may have once been authoritatively taught in the church, but no longer are, and are not essential for salvation

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... lines.html

Well that seems only to stir the already muddy waters.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
I have a question wrote:
Because achieving clarity about 'Mormon doctrine' is such an elusive task, the Church a while back tried to explain what the doctrine was and what it wasn't.

<snip>
Doctrine is determined and established by the scriptural canon of the Church, or what we call the "standard works". It is basically that simple. Everything that conforms to that standard is doctrine, and everything that doesn't isn't. It can't get any simpler than that.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:39 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
zerinus wrote:
I have a question wrote:
Because achieving clarity about 'Mormon doctrine' is such an elusive task, the Church a while back tried to explain what the doctrine was and what it wasn't.

<snip>
Doctrine is determined and established by the scriptural canon of the Church, or what we call the "standard works". It is basically that simple. Everything that conforms to that standard is doctrine, and everything that doesn't isn't. It can't get any simpler than that.


Which of these is the doctrinal position of the Church:
A. Black skin is a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Or
B. Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse

https://www.LDS.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:52 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:04 pm
Posts: 3128
No way around that one...I look forward to Zerinus' response :smile:

_________________
Faith is the only way we're going to make it. None of us are smart enough to do it on our own.
Merle Haggard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
I have a question wrote:
Which of these is the doctrinal position of the Church:
A. Black skin is a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Or
B. Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse
https://www.LDS.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Black skin is NOT a sign of divine disfavor, and there is NO scripture that says that it is. 2 Nephi 5:21 does NOT teach that black skin is (always, and as a general rule) is a sign of divine disfavor. It teaches that at that time, and for the people involved, it was a sign of disfavor. It does not logically follow that at all times and in all circumstances black skin is a sign of divine disfavor. To draw that conclusion from that scripture is just bad logic, and it goes contrary to the Book of Mormon itself. For example there were times in Book of Mormon history when the dark-skinned Lamanites were more favored of God because of their righteousness, and the white-skinned Nephites were less favored because of their wickedness. You have got your logic badly wrong I am afraid.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:15 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
I have a question wrote:
Which of these is the doctrinal position of the Church:
A. Black skin is a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Or
B. Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavour/a curse.
Quote:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse
https://www.LDS.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng


zerinus wrote:
Black skin is NOT a sign of divine disfavor, and there is NO scripture that says that it is. 2 Nephi 5:21 does NOT teach that black skin is (always, and as a general rule) is a sign of divine disfavor. It teaches that at that time, and for the people involved, it was a sign of disfavor. It does not logically follow that at all times and in all circumstances black skin is a sign of divine disfavor. To draw that conclusion from that scripture is just bad logic, and it goes contrary to the Book of Mormon itself. For example there were times in Book of Mormon history when the dark-skinned Lamanites were more favored of God because of their righteousness, and the white-skinned Nephites were less favored because of their wickedness. You have got your logic badly wrong I am afraid.


An incredible answer.

"Black skin is NOT a sign of divine disfavor, and there is NO scripture that says that it is.
2 Nephi 5:21...teaches that at that time, and for the people involved, it {black skin} was a sign of disfavor."


You're disagreeing with yourself. Brilliant!

However, my question wasn't about what you think about black skin (although good to know you think there's times when God shows his displeasure by cursing people with black skin), I was asking what the Church doctrine is on the subject.
*Nowhere does the Church teach the "sometimes" you believe in.

Race And The Priesthood disavows that black skin was ever a sign of divine disfavour.
2nd Nephi says it was.

The Church is having a doctrinal disagreement with itself.
Think about that, the Church is disavowing its own scripture.

Think about these pronouncements alongside 2nd Nephi...
It is with great sadness and deep concern that we view the violence, conflict and tragedy of recent days in Charlottesville, Virginia. People of any faith, or of no faith at all, should be troubled by the increase of intolerance in both words and actions that we see everywhere.
More than a decade ago, the late Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) addressed the topic of racism when speaking to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He powerfully and clearly taught this principle: "No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ." For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior's admonition to love our neighbor.
Our prayers are with those who are suffering because of this intolerance and hatred. We pray for peace and for understanding. Above all, we pray that we may treat one another with greater kindness, compassion and goodness.


It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the New Testament, Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39). The Book of Mormon teaches “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).
White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a “white culture” or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/c ... e-virginia

They are condemning white supremacists in Charlottesville, but they are also condemning Nephi and his followers.

But here's the wider point - What are members to consider as doctrinally definitive; Gospel Topics on LDS.org, PR statements, or scriptures? In the event of conflict, which one trumps the other?

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Last edited by I have a question on Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13349
UTLM has a great breakout on LDS doctrinal racism:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part1.htm

There's just no way to crawl under, in, around, above, inside and out LDS doctrinal racism. Did I do that right? Did I get the Hollandese right?

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 17929
Location: Koloburbia
One of our former posters Bcspace defined Mormon Doctrine as something that was spoken of in General Conference and then later printed in the Ensign magazine. Mormon Doctrine is always subject to revision due to the nature of continuous prophecy.

Mormon Doctrine is not to be confused with the McConkie Doctrine which is no longer in print but is embedded in the hearts of the bluest of the True Blue Mormons, however, its most embarrassing parts are disavowed in mixed company.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5164
zerinus wrote:
Doctrine is determined and established by the scriptural canon of the Church, or what we call the "standard works". It is basically that simple. Everything that conforms to that standard is doctrine, and everything that doesn't isn't. It can't get any simpler than that.


The above is a ridiculous blanket statement made by a convert who doesn't understand the deep implications of Mormon doctrine from generation to generation. Zerinus is a novice Mormon with a loud mouth having shallow roots.

Let me tell you another church doctrine:

TEMPLE PENALTIES

Those death penalties were doctrine and binding oaths for those who made them. They are not found in the scriptures but they were church doctrine. The church grew increasingly embarrassed by this doctrine and so the leaders discontinued it without any explanation or instruction. The doctrine of temple death penalties will forever haunt the cult. They can't hide from it. They performed them and required that all members receive them. It's proof just how low Joseph Smith went to hide his polygamy and secret acts from the eyes of the world. But today, everyone knows that Joseph Smith was a predator and a molester. The penalties can't hide that anymore.

Go figure.

_________________
A fool said, "Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:21 am 
The Outcast
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 17058
Location: on the verge
zerinus wrote:
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.

You made points? Really?

_________________
It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ... that Negroes...are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
LDS First Presidency, 8/17/1949

"without evidence what you say is worthless"-Philo Sofee, 7/16/2017


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:23 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
zerinus wrote:
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.


You refuted your own arguments.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
sock puppet wrote:
zerinus wrote:
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.
You made points? Really?
That brings it to five.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
I have a question wrote:
You refuted your own arguments.
Says you.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5164
zerinus wrote:
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.


Your arguments are childish and silly -- illogical and utter nonsense.

I know absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt that your church is a complete lie. I know you are brainwashed and deceived.

100% sure. No doubts, whatsoever. No faith involved or feelings from the Spooky Ghost. I have all the proof I need that your church is a lying cult.

_________________
A fool said, "Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm
Posts: 1856
Shulem wrote:
Your arguments are childish and silly -- illogical and utter nonsense.

I know absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt that your church is a complete lie. I know you are brainwashed and deceived.

100% sure. No doubts, whatsoever. No faith involved or feelings from the Spooky Ghost. I have all the proof I need that your church is a lying cult.
Mormonism is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Book of Mormon is the word of God. And he established God’s only true Church on earth. And your denials mean absolutely nothing, and do not alter that fact.

_________________
zerinus
I am a Mormon!

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk
http://amazon.com/author/bijhan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:52 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
zerinus wrote:
Four people have replied so far since I posted my last message, yet none of them have addressed the points I made, nor refuted my arguments.

Says you.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5164
zerinus wrote:
Mormonism is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet. The Book of Mormon is the word of God. And he established God’s only true Church on earth. And your denials mean absolutely nothing, and do not alter that fact.


All of this of course is based on faith and faith alone coupled with supposed feelings from the Spooky Ghost that makes you think and feel it's true. That of course, means nothing to me. Your religion is a cult. It's based on lies and deception. [personal attack deleted].

I am 100% sure that Mormonism is false. I stake my soul on it, my mind, my spirit, my very existence.

I disavow the penalties I swore in the temple! I will not allow my life to be taken in defense of Mormon cult practice and belief. I rebuke your religion and profess before all the world that Mormonism is a lie and that the so-called Holy Ghost used to prove Mormonism true in the minds of its members is nothing but a mind trick. I have felt those feelings of the so-called Holy Ghost much more powerful and with more meaning and regularity since leaving the church. I have felt those all powerful feelings of love and awe wash over me as I live an know the truth.

You, zerinus, are a [personal attack deleted]. Your religion is pollution on the earth. You stand rebuked as do the Mormon temple penalties which your church has embarrassingly discarded.

I've thrown your church and the temple penalties in the trash where they belong.

_________________
A fool said, "Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:08 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6640
I have a question wrote:
But here's the wider point - What are members to consider as doctrinally definitive; Gospel Topics on LDS.org, PR statements, or scriptures? In the event of conflict, which one trumps the other?


To try and rescue this thread, here's^ the topic it's set up to discuss.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5164
zerinus wrote:
and do not alter that fact


A FACT is something that can be universally known and proven by everyone. Your usage of the word "fact" is improper and wrong minded. It is only a fact in your own mind and in the mind of those who belong to the cult.

The rest of the world (outside Mormonism) does not recognize your claims as a fact. It is not scientific nor proven. The scientific journals of the world laugh at Mormonism.

You, zerinus, are a clown and joke.

_________________
A fool said, "Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: "How To Define Mormon Doctrine"
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 10:19 am 
Holy Ghost
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 8:48 pm
Posts: 896
I don't think church doctrine can be strictly defined because that is obviously how church leaders want it. It makes it a lot easier to avoid future falsification if the doctrine is kept ambiguous. "Prophets," and other futurists and psychics, at least the good ones, like to keep their predictions as vague as possible so the target can then fill in the blanks and become a believer or remain a believer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Res Ipsa and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group