It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:25 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:14 pm 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
I propose a new thread for discussing the long essay by Peter Bleakley that Meadowchik has just posted here. It’s a lot to scroll through to get to the next posts.


Last edited by Physics Guy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:16 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1692
Seconded!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:17 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Thank you so much for posting this, Meadowchik. There is a lot here to chew on, and I like a lot of what he has to say. One thing that really grabbed my attention was this bit:

Quote:
As Saint Deiter Uchtdorf the Holy Silver Fox of Ostrava so wisely put it:


We had a growth mindset in President Hinkley’s mostly open hearted engagement with the world but there has been a radical mid-course correction to the nihilistic ‘time of sifting’ and retrenchment mindset of the current First Presidency and too many members who blame external worldly and satanic forces for all our problems instead of the leaders or themselves.


Surely he is glossing Uchtdorf pretty radically here. Am I to understand that Uchtdorf essentially accused post-Hinckley leadership of taking the Church in a dark direction? Have I missed something jaw-droppingly awesome here?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:33 pm 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
I can sympathize with Bleakley seeing his blue chip religion currently trading at far below what he feels it is worth. His plan to refocus Mormonism on its Big Ideas has a big problem, however. Those Big Ideas aren’t actually tied to Mormonism. People who want them can just take them without any Mormon strings attached at all.

Want the Big Idea of No Hell? Take it. Don’t believe in Hell. You’re done.

Want the Big Idea of afterlife progress? Take it. Older religions have some afterlife imagery that looks dull now, but that’s because they have imagery for a lot of things. Specific notions of what Heaven is like aren’t in any Creeds. They’re not important doctrines in mainstream Christianity. Progressing to become like Mormon “Gods”, ruling planets or whatever, is perfectly plausible in older religions that don’t make that progress depend on wearing special underwear and learning secret handshakes. Mainstream theisms don’t allow us to become equal to the ultimate author of all reality, but neither does Mormonism, because the Mormon God is a far lesser being than that.

Want the Big Idea of a religion compatible with science? Just take it. But don’t look to Mormonism for it. Mormonism may be compatible with the science of an 1830 farmhand but today that means it’s compatible with outdated pseudoscience.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:35 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Sure. He assumes his target audience is in the LDS Church but feels something is going wrong. So, yeah, if you are outside Mormonism or just don’t care, he’s not really talking to you anyway.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:45 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1692
Physics Guy wrote:
I can sympathize with Bleakley seeing his blue chip religion currently trading at far below what he feels it is worth. His plan to refocus Mormonism on its Big Ideas has a big problem, however. Those Big Ideas aren’t actually tied to Mormonism. People who want them can just take them without any Mormon strings attached at all.

Want the Big Idea of No Hell? Take it. Don’t believe in Hell. You’re done.

Want the Big Idea of afterlife progress? Take it. Older religions have some afterlife imagery that looks dull now, but that’s because they have imagery for a lot of things. Specific notions of what Heaven is like aren’t in any Creeds. They’re not important doctrines in mainstream Christianity. Progressing to become like Mormon “Gods”, ruling planets or whatever, is perfectly plausible in older religions that don’t make that progress depend on wearing special underwear and learning secret handshakes. Mainstream theisms don’t allow us to become equal to the ultimate author of all reality, but neither does Mormonism, because the Mormon God is a far lesser being than that.

Want the Big Idea of a religion compatible with science? Just take it. But don’t look to Mormonism for it. Mormonism may be compatible with the science of an 1830 farmhand but today that means it’s compatible with outdated pseudoscience.


In this context, one could take the outdated goods the church and refurbish with them with updates via continuing revelation. Because the church has the resources and there might be enough interest for it now. This is about rescussitating the church. That's what he sees at stake and what he wants to preserve. I think it is a valid idea, to want to preserve as much as possible and which is worth preserving.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4209
I read most of this but it is long and focused upon being Mormon. What I read pointed out things I was all enthusiastic about when I was a believer. I thought the church answered all those rotten aspects in traditional Christianity. But all this thinking lead me out of the church so there is a danger.

He observes that autonomy to think for yourself is foundational purpose this life. Obediance is not the first rule of heaven but of Lucifers hell.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:10 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
huckelberry wrote:
I read most of this but it is long and focused upon being Mormon. What I read pointed out things I was all enthusiastic about when I was a believer. I thought the church answered all those rotten aspects in traditional Christianity. But all this thinking lead me out of the church so there is a danger.

He observes that autonomy to think for yourself is foundational purpose this life. Obediance is not the first rule of heaven but of Lucifers hell.


I like the idea of distinguishing Mormonism from modern Christianity. I never understood the drive to make it conform to Protestant Christianity, which I frankly do not prefer. No offense to those who love it. I am just not one who does.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 4209
Kishkumen, I can see how a person finds value in Mormon active faith that they see lacking else where. It might be worth discussion.

What I still see of value is the degree of participation dispersed through out the congregation. (though that can end up asking to much of people in terms of time)

I was impressed by the story posted today about the rlds service where woman did the blessing of sacrament. I think it is good that with Mormons many people share that sacred action. I think it would be a serious improvement if women did that everywhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:08 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
huckelberry wrote:
Kishkumen, I can see how a person finds value in Mormon active faith that they see lacking else where. It might be worth discussion.

What I still see of value is the degree of participation dispersed through out the congregation. (though that can end up asking to much of people in terms of time)

I was impressed by the story posted today about the rlds service where woman did the blessing of sacrament. I think it is good that with Mormons many people share that sacred action. I think it would be a serious improvement if women did that everywhere.


Acknowledging women’s priesthood is just one of many right moves the CoC made. Of course, there is a lot to envy in many faith traditions. I have my preferences, but I do appreciate the positives in other traditions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:00 am 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1692
huckelberry wrote:
Kishkumen, I can see how a person finds value in Mormon active faith that they see lacking else where. It might be worth discussion.

What I still see of value is the degree of participation dispersed through out the congregation. (though that can end up asking to much of people in terms of time)

I was impressed by the story posted today about the rlds service where woman did the blessing of sacrament. I think it is good that with Mormons many people share that sacred action. I think it would be a serious improvement if women did that everywhere.


That's my story and the experience amazes me still. I came home from London with some major challenges this week, atleast one type is the most serious and frightening in my entire life, but I felt strength from the experience and that it helped me in critical ways.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=52275


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:18 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
Kishkumen wrote:
[Bleakley] assumes his target audience is in the LDS Church ... if you are outside Mormonism or just don’t care, he’s not really talking to you anyway.

That a good point that I didn't take into account. But if Bleakley is primarily trying to cheer up Mormons, the main way he's doing it is to tell Mormons that non-Mormons will love their Mormon Big Ideas. He begins by harking back to the days when the LDS church was growing in the UK. Growth, even apart from being growth, is the best means of retention. Seeing new people come in makes people not think of leaving.

I think the problem is that Bleakley is like a Roman Catholic crowing about how so many Protestant sects are teetotal but Catholics drink wine. That's true, and it's even true that Catholic practice features wine prominently, albeit in tiny sips. If the prize is drinking wine, though, there are easier ways to get it than to become Roman Catholic. In the same way Bleakley's Big Ideas seem like things one could easily have without the extra baggage of actually being LDS.

The business metaphors in my previous post in this thread weren't just facetious. A successful company needs a Big Idea but that isn't enough because a Big Idea can always be copied by competitors. What a company needs is a Big Idea that is also implemented so well, down to small details, that anyone else's imitation of that Big Idea is going to be an obviously inferior knock-off. I can't claim to know but I question whether the LDS church really implements Bleakley's Big Ideas that thoroughly well. Are they really organically central in LDS culture?

Meadowchik wrote:
[O]ne could take the outdated goods the church and refurbish with them with updates via continuing revelation. Because the church has the resources and there might be enough interest for it now. This is about rescussitating the church.

True, just because until now the LDS church has not been pumping arterial blood through Bleakley's attractive Big Ideas doesn't mean that it couldn't reinvent itself with those ideas as the new core. Continuing revelation could indeed allow this, as far as I can tell. Asking an old organization to reinvent itself successfully is kind of like asking lightning to strike the same spot twice, though. One needs to have more than the Big Ideas themselves. One needs to have a whole detailed package that delivers them well. Unless one really believes that the LDS church is God's church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, hoping for this level of reinvention seems like hoping for a lot, I think.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:32 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 9075
Location: Cave
Physics Guy wrote:
What a company needs is a Big Idea that is also implemented so well, down to small details, that anyone else's imitation of that Big Idea is going to be an obviously inferior knock-off


An option to get around imitators is proper branding. A great example is Harley Davidson motorcycles. Up until recently; atrocious engineering, but even now it would be more like copying those copying them to make something that can run almost as good.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:30 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
Yeah, but that kind of branding is a complex product in its own right despite being intangible. Especially the idea of authenticity, as with Harley-Davidson. Once you can package and sell authenticity you've got it made.

Mormonism has a pretty strong brand identity but is it naturalism, universalism, and eternal progression? In the mind of the non-Mormon public, at least, I think it's more polygamy, no booze or coffee, and obeying old guys. Is the view from inside so very different?

Is Bleakley's kind of refocusing really like Harley-Davidson selling off its baked goods division to focus on motorcycles again, or more like Coca-Cola suddenly making all its labels white and trying to sell ice cream just because it always had a little bit of white in the logo?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:35 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Quote:
That a good point that I didn't take into account. But if Bleakley is primarily trying to cheer up Mormons, the main way he's doing it is to tell Mormons that non-Mormons will love their Mormon Big Ideas. He begins by harking back to the days when the LDS church was growing in the UK. Growth, even apart from being growth, is the best means of retention. Seeing new people come in makes people not think of leaving.

I think the problem is that Bleakley is like a Roman Catholic crowing about how so many Protestant sects are teetotal but Catholics drink wine. That's true, and it's even true that Catholic practice features wine prominently, albeit in tiny sips. If the prize is drinking wine, though, there are easier ways to get it than to become Roman Catholic. In the same way Bleakley's Big Ideas seem like things one could easily have without the extra baggage of actually being LDS.

The business metaphors in my previous post in this thread weren't just facetious. A successful company needs a Big Idea but that isn't enough because a Big Idea can always be copied by competitors. What a company needs is a Big Idea that is also implemented so well, down to small details, that anyone else's imitation of that Big Idea is going to be an obviously inferior knock-off. I can't claim to know but I question whether the LDS church really implements Bleakley's Big Ideas that thoroughly well. Are they really organically central in LDS culture?


I see. Well, you may be right. That said, I have a difficult time caring about the practical prospects of success here. Bleakley’s first big hurdle is that he does not run the LDS Church. Persuasion on the grass-roots level will only get you so far. If he wants to implement his vision he will have to start his own church and take his chances there. Not that his chances are necessarily good, but, if he is devoted to his vision, it is the only chance he has of seeing it come to fruition.

I am a strong advocate of people striking out on their own if they are really this unhappy. I don’t encourage people to leave the LDS Church, but, unless you are ready to sacrifice or compromise your own position or integrity, you will never last inside. So stop kicking against the pricks and start a new thing already. His Mormon Church idea has plenty going for it, in my opinion. But, you are right that only a few out of very many such concerns succeed.

Religious devotion is not a business calculation, and seekers don’t generally settle for convenience or a nifty package. The steady growth of the American branch of the Orthodox Church shows that there is a small but decent number of people who want a serious religious experience and not just a swell community. These are the kinds of people old-time Mormonism appealed to. Better stick with that demographic than try to go big and attract any ignorant evangelical who is somewhat bored or unhappy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:49 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
It's true that niche markets can be loyal and provide a steady living for a dedicated company. I like that idea a lot, actually. Going big isn't everything.

The current leadership of the LDS church seems willing to go that way, too. What else but a loyal niche market is the small, sifted church of true believers who are all doubling down on old-time doctrine?

Bleakley, however, seems not only to be asking for a re-invented Mormonism that would retain strong appeal for a few keen Mormons in the twenty-first century. He seems to be hoping that this rebooted Mormonism would go big, the way the Mormon church seemed to be going when he was young.

In fact my take on his essay is that he's actullly emphasizing the hoped-for mass appeal more than persistence in a niche. If he were content to remain in a small church whose few members really loved their peculiar doctrines, he wouldn't have been lamenting decline in numbers so much.

It probably is all a moot point as you say, though. Bleakley can't actually change the LDS church, so what effect his changes would have will never be seen.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:18 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20097
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Quote:
Bleakley, however, seems not only to be asking for a re-invented Mormonism that would retain strong appeal for a few keen Mormons in the twenty-first century. He seems to be hoping that this rebooted Mormonism would go big, the way the Mormon church seemed to be going when he was young.

In fact my take on his essay is that he's actullly emphasizing the hoped-for mass appeal more than persistence in a niche. If he were content to remain in a small church whose few members really loved their peculiar doctrines, he wouldn't have been lamenting decline in numbers so much.


He’s filled with enthusiasm! He won’t get anywhere without an unrealistic vision. Remember Joseph Smith was crowned king of his little theocratic kingdom. That resulted in a religion with millions of adherents, at least a century and a half after the fact. Big visions inspire people. Bleakley must generate excitement if he is to effect anything.

I won’t sit around waiting to see observable success from him. I don’t care to. Bully for him, I say. I wish him all the best, and I think I understand the utility of talking big and dreaming big. This is not to say he is not sincere. I believe him to be totally sincere. He is transported by his own enthusiasm to think and say these things. I find it to be a totally natural and predictable thing.

But I reiterate that schism is the only way to see this go anywhere. I am not encouraging it. I state what seem to me to be the facts. Since he has no authority, there is little chance that his grass-roots campaigning at a few meetings will bring much of anything to pass. Starting his own branch would give him the opportunity to try out his ideas to see if they have any merit.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:52 pm 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
That does sound more likely than Bleakley suddenly getting the leadership to listen to him.

Is a wave of schisms around the corner as the main LDS church is seen to be foundering and enthusiasts of all stripes set out in their own little lifeboats? Or is it already happening? Has it always been happening? I know that the Restoration movement splintered quite a bit in its early days but my impression was that the main LDS church had kept itself together for the last century or so. Have I just not heard of a steady stream of splinter groups all this time?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5689
Location: Firmly on this earth
What he needs to do is persuade people he has had his own First Vision, and NOT screw it up with multiple versions.... :biggrin:

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:56 am 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1692
As I spoke about in another post, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=52275 I had an interesting experience at the Sunstone Europe Conference. I enjoyed the presentations and the people, and it had a profound impact on me, especially the ecumenical service led by the Community of Christ. The impactwas was so profound that I felt more mentally and emotionally fortified this past week. I think I can identify the major components that made the experience beneficial, which I think are relevant to Bleakley's presentation. For the record, I am not saying that I think the experience could have only happened with the CoC. What is interest to me is what was it about the CoC's service that made it beneficial.

First, I learned enough remarkable teachings from the Community of Christ that impressed me. I had struggled previously in my life with what love means exactly, specifically what it means to "go the second mile" and "to turn the other cheek," and I had approached the answer after my faith transition: love requires healthy boundaries. So in addition to the values of love and respect for others that the CoC shared in common, I also noticed their emphasis on healthy boundaries.

Second, the CoC apostle attending, Robin Linkhart, also spoke to me and about "institutional accountability," which impressed me. (I had just over several days been debating institutional accountability with some Mormons online, and still hadn't gotten an acknowledgement from them that LDS institutional accountability even exists in theory!) The CoC also conveyed a sense of institutional humility and spoke about letting go of their "one true church" claims. Also, their emphasis on continuing revelation and their communal approach to is represented a refreshing willingness to learn and a lack of dogmatism.

Third, the ritual capped off the experience, and in my opinion made it as powerful as it was. Because of these specific ideas: respect, love with boundaries, institutional accountability and humility, and continuing revelation, I felt able to participate, and I was explicitly told that atheists were welcomed to do so. The ritual of communion--taking on the name of Christ--for me, was a communication and celebration with other people of deeply shared values.

To convey how valuable this experience in my opinion was to me, I will share that I have a child with some extremely serious mental health challenges. Two days after my return home, this child broke down asking for help. This was another life-or-death moment. And I was able to feel calm and peaceful to an extent that I've never had before in this scenario, I could sit and listen but also say productive words, and I watched the strain of my child's hopelessness lift out of her face. We made a plan, again, and so far we are seeing progress.

So, this is all to say that ritual and community can have extreme potential benefit for people. However, not all ritual or community is the same. Some kinds of community and some kinds of ritual are better than others for a given person. Part of what impacts the quality of the ritual and community is the principles.

So what Bleakley is doing, in my opinion, is seeking an improvement of the principles in Mormonism. Without looking at it's marketability of the probability that the improvement can occur, I think the essential focus would be the best values it offers to improve Mormonism's principles. Better principles will make a better experience.

I would be shocked to see the LDS church let go of its one-true-church claims and I do see that as probably a fundamental stumbling-block to its growth and to an alignment to moral principles and continual learning. But I hope for incremental improvements for better experiences for those who live within church system or on its margins. I also think that the church is pragmatic and has been searching for ways to improve the church overall. While it has seriously limited itself, I do think the surveys and studies and media-watching means it hears some of the collective criticisms and concerns and can be persuaded by argument and data, when they are strong enough.

It was interesting for me to see the Community of Christ up close and also hear refreshing insights from Peter Bleakley. They both validated my belief that Mormonism could be better than it is.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Phoenix discussion
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:27 am 
Savior (mortal ministry)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 927
Meadowchik wrote:
I had struggled previously in my life with what love means exactly, specifically what it means to "go the second mile" and "to turn the other cheek," and I had approached the answer after my faith transition: love requires healthy boundaries.

Jesus could presumably have said, "If anyone forces you to carry a burden for forty miles, go another forty," or, "If anyone breaks your leg, offer the other leg," but he didn't, even though in other places he uses extreme imagery like cutting off hands and plucking out eyes. The command asks more than human nature normally wants to give but it clearly doesn't demand that one accept serious injury just for another's convenience.

There's also a passage where Jesus has ventured into predominantly non-Jewish territory and a local woman asks for a healing. Jesus declines on the grounds that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel and it isn't right to give the children's bread to dogs. So far from living up to his image of unlimited compassion, Jesus sounds like an outright racist right there in the Gospel, but whatever else the story means, it means that even Jesus set a boundary. When the Gentile woman notes that dogs can get scraps that fall from the table, Jesus gives in after all. So maybe the story also means that it's okay to renegotiate boundaries in special cases. That's potentially a slippery slope down to not really having any boundaries in practice, but I think it can also be an encouragement to setting boundaries. You don't have to worry about being trapped in them just because you've set them because you can always change them if you want.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kittens_and_Jesus and 9 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