Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Matthews

SDA Fundamentalism

Recommended Posts

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

JoeMo

Very informative article.  Thanks for posting it.

It may be a little of track; but this quote from the article particularly intrigued me:

"Of particular note during this global conflagration was that some Adventist evangelists, who predicted the role of Turkey as fulfilling Daniel 11, found themselves embarrassed when the British defeated the Ottoman Empire, which meant that they were wrong and furthermore lost credibility (even if some church leaders had tried to squelch such an interpretation). Adventist church leaders realized that they needed to fine tune their eschatological understanding."

They were actually on the right track! Many of us who don't swallow the papal antichrist narrative believe that the deadly wound that was healed is the resurgence of fundamental militaristic Islam - a resurgence of the Ottoman Empire!  I was thrilled that some early SDA's thought around the lines of an Islamic beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TrevorL

Greetings JoeMo,

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

They were actually on the right track! Many of us who don't swallow the papal antichrist narrative believe that the deadly wound that was healed is the resurgence of fundamental militaristic Islam - a resurgence of the Ottoman Empire!  I was thrilled that some early SDA's thought around the lines of an Islamic beast.

I agree that this is off topic so I will be brief. My understanding of this is different.

Daniel 11:40–45 (KJV): 40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. 44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

I consider that 1917 was the fulfillment of the first part of verse 40, when Britain the King of the South at that time pushed at the Ottoman power and as a result the Ottoman Empire after many years of previous decline was reduced or finished, and only the area of the present day Turkey remained. I equate the invasion of the King of the North as representing the Russian power that will take Istanbul and re-establish the Second Rome, and possibly rename it Constantinople and then after some time proceed to invade the Middle East. I equate this portion with Ezekiel 38 that I believe is the Battle of Armageddon.

I equate this drying up of the Ottoman Empire as being equivalent to the drying up of the great river Euphrates in the following:

Revelation 16:12–16 (KJV): 12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. 16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Kind regards Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

The last major battle Mrs.White fought was to try to prevent Fundamentalism from getting a foot hold into our church. She was old, died while still fighting and lost the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen

Benjamin Wilkinson, mentioned in the Spectrum article, wrote at least two books. One was the Church Triumphant; the other, The Authorized Version Vindicated. A GC committee responded to the KJV Vindicated, more or less denouncing it as an irresponsible and poorly conceived book. In one of these volumes, Wilkinson claimed that he had discovered correspondence from the RC church to a Jesuit who was employed at an SDA college as a Bible teacher. Wilkinson claimed that the Jesuit disappeared when he was discovered.

Wilkinson was responsible for two ridiculous teachings that still plague certain elements of the denomination today i.e., KJV only and Jesuit infiltration. One of Wilkinson's devotees, Jim Arrabito, claimed that Dr. Froom was a Jesuit because of his roll in the production of QOD. He had no response when it was pointed out that Froom's parents were SDA. Jim was largely responsible for resurrecting the KJV only perspective and Jesuit infiltration through the fascinating seminars he produced in the 1980s.

As for the Jesuit story propagated by Wilkinson, it would be a relatively easy task to discover just who this alleged Jesuit was, since he was a college professor at Union College during Wilkinson's tenure there. Not many SDA Bible teachers just disappear. Cliff Goldstein was offering a cash prize to anyone who could produce evidence of Jesuit infiltration, so there is/was some relatively easy money available to anyone who would like to follow up on this allegation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Very informative article Gregory.  Thanks.

Please can someone describe "Fundamentalism" as it applies to Adventists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

I think every Church has a percentage of members that are fundamentalists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
1 hour ago, Gustave said:

I think every Church has a percentage of members that are fundamentalists. 

And even among those who reject fundamentalism are more recovering fundamentalists with residual fundamentalism in our lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
2 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

And even among those who reject fundamentalism are more recovering fundamentalists with residual fundamentalism in our lives. 

That was deep, and rings true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Define "fundamentalist".

Is this someone who believes the 27 Adventist "fundamentals" ?

Is this someone who believes Ellen White was infallible? 

What is a "fundamentalist" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 6/29/2019 at 9:29 PM, Kevin H said:

The last major battle Mrs.White fought was to try to prevent Fundamentalism from getting a foot hold into our church. She was old, died while still fighting and lost the battle.

I thought she was the fundamentalist? 

She was against playing football, having photographs and campaigned for people to wear odd clothing styles at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
17 hours ago, Gustave said:

She was against playing football, having photographs and campaigned for people to wear odd clothing styles at the time. 

I couldn't get on the EGW web-site (said it was under maintanice) but if I'm correct she was not against football, but against what the hitting does to people that play the sport. Even now in High School they are now not allowing kids to be hit that hard, there doing things to the helmets, etc. Anyway from what i've read there making many changes in high school football, which I think is a great thing!! So basically there catching up to what EGW said about football!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
6 hours ago, phkrause said:

I couldn't get on the EGW web-site (said it was under maintanice) but if I'm correct she was not against football, but against what the hitting does to people that play the sport. Even now in High School they are now not allowing kids to be hit that hard, there doing things to the helmets, etc. Anyway from what i've read there making many changes in high school football, which I think is a great thing!! So basically there catching up to what EGW said about football!!

Seventh day Adventists Vs. "Gentiles".

Gentile = Heathen or Pagan, someone NOT a Jew. 

"Diligent study is essential, and diligent hard work. Play is not essential. The influence has been growing among the students in their devotion to amusements, to a fascinating, bewitching power, to the counteracting of the influence to the truth upon the human mind and character .... What force of powers is put into your games of football and your other inventions after the way of the Gentiles—exercises which bless no one! .... I can not find an instance in the life of Christ where he devoted time to play and amusement. He was the great Educator for the present and the future life. I have not been able to find one instance where He educated His disciples to engage in amusements of football or pugilistic games, to obtain physical exercise... and yet Christ was our pattern in all things." Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 228, 229.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Rachel has asked us to define "fundamentalism."

That word must always be defined within an identified, specific context.  E.G.  Is it a political context?  Is it a religious context?  We will often need to be  more specific than that.

In a religious context, fundamentalism may be defined as a rigid, unchangeable attachment to a set of beliefs.  If we were to  use this statement in  our definition of fundamentalism as applied to Ellen White, we  would have to say that she was not a fundamentalist.  Over the years of her ministry     in the SDA denomination her beliefs changed and expanded in multiple areas.  Examples of this would include: the Sabbath, the Trinity, payment of tithe, eating unclean foods and more.

Another definition of fundamentalism, in a religious sense, would involve a strict literalism as applied to the Bible.   SDAs are well known as stating the a basic principle of Biblical interpretation is to understand the  text in a literal sense, unless it is clearly symbolic, or of some other sense that   would not be literal.  The Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation would include examples of passages that were symbolic.  As applied to Adventism, this understanding is more complicated.  In some parts of the Christian world, this view involves the idea that the original text was dictated, by God, word by word.  SDAs and EGW reject this view.  Ellen White's view on this is probably best contained in Selected Messages.

As understood, by some SDA members, fundamentalism is the idea that in the early days of the development of this denomination, a core set of beliefs was developed that should remain unchanged to this day and on into the end of  time.  One of the problems that people with this view have is that there is not total agreement as to what beliefs constitute that core set.  Some focus on a set of five basic beliefs.  But, in addition to not total agreement as to what those five are, there is disagreement as to the boundaries as to how they should be understood.  In any case, I will suggest that EGW rejected this view.  She taught that spiritual truth was progressive.   Throughout time the opportunities for increased understanding would  increase.

Gustave has mentioned a few ways in which he considers EGW to be a fundamentalist.  I have some agreement with what he posted, and would probably revise other parts of what  he wrote.  But, that is not the  major issue here.  I believe that if EGW were alive and writing today, she would revise some of what  she once wrote.  IOW, I believe that she would tell us that the social (and other) context has changed and that in this time and place, she would revise  her advice.  On  that basis, I would not consider her to be a fundamentalist, as sometimes defined.

On another point, I prefer Kenan H's view on this to that of Gustave.

NOTE:  On another point, I really appreciate the discussion of this  issue that is taking place here.  Continue on, all of you to include Rachel, Gustave, and others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Examples of this would include: the Sabbath, the Trinity, payment of tithe, eating unclean foods and more.

 

History professor Nicholas Miller from Andrew University provided historical evidence that shows how Adventism, while a Conservative movement, has for the most part being able to steer away from some of the fundamentalist pitfalls, adopting a more balanced approach to various issues, including the inspiration of Scripture. It is something, said Miller, that is rooted in the ideas that influenced the early history of the denomination, something that underlines the importance of researching Adventist history. ADVENTIST NEWS NETWORK®

On this perspective I truly agree based on what the pioneers initially stated in writing:

In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. STEAM PRESS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, BATTLE CREEK  MICH. 1872 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
 

 Nathan Miller quoted; “Pioneers did not believe absolute proof was needed to understand truth. They believed in the role of judgment for apprehending truth,” Miller also explained that unlike fundamentalists, Adventist pioneers, including church co-founder Ellen G. White, believed that apprehending truth was based on God’s Word, but that it was also possible to get important insights from “the book of nature,” and “in experiencing God’s working in human lives.” It is something, he said, that allowed Adventist pioneers to arrive at different conclusions from other Christian fundamentalists on topics such as eternal punishment, women speaking in church, and slavery, to name a few. ADVENTIST NEWS NETWORK®

Now, I totally agree with Nathan Miller being a historian myself. But the church started to change their principle of faith and it started with writing authoritarian fundamentalists 27 beliefs stating they have the right to have articles of faith, a creed, a discipline, aside from the Bible. Then we claim that EGW changed her belief and started believing in the trinity because of a book written by Froom who took her words out of context. That’s not what she wrote herself.

The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and THEY bring to view as clearly the personality and INDIVIDUALITY of EACH God IS THE FATHER of Christ; Christ IS THE SON of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. HE has been made EQUAL with THE FATHER. All THE COUNSELS of God are opened to HIS SON. TC, Vol. 8, p .268

Read the book of Daniel. Call up, point by point, the history of the kingdoms there represented. Behold statesmen, councils, powerful armies, and see how God wrought to abase the pride of men and lay human glory in the dust. God alone is represented as GREAT. In the vision of the prophet, HE IS seen casting down one mighty ruler and setting up another. HE IS Revealed as THE MONARCH of the Universe, about to set up HIS EVERLASTING Kingdom—THE ANCIENT of DAYS, THE LIVING God, THE SOURCE of ALL WISDOM THE RULER of the present, THE REVEALER of the future. Read and understand how poor, how frail, how short-lived, how erring, how guilty, is man in lifting up his soul unto vanity. THE HOLY SPIRIT through Isaiah points us to God, the living God, as the CHIEF OBJECT of attention--to God as revealed in Christ. E. White, Manuscript Releases, Vol. 16, par. 333

Here she sees THE FATHER and THE SON and writes THEM as INDIVIDUAL BEINGS!

THE SAVIOR came forth from the grave by THE LIFE that was in HIMSELF. DA (1898); p. 785

I saw a Throne, and on it sat THE FATHER and THE SON. I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired HIS Lovely person. THE FATHER’S person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light, covered HIM. I asked Jesus if HIS FATHER had a FORM like HIMSELF. HE Said HE Had, but I could not behold it, for said HE, ‘If you should once behold THE GLORY of HIS person, you would cease to exist. EW p. 54

THE FATHER  Consulted Jesus in regard to at once carrying out THEIR Purpose to make man to inhabit the earth. SP p. 24

I repeat Froom in 1946, 30 years after the death of Ellen White made false statements in his book Evangelism 615-617, about THE HOLY SPIRIT stating that EGW had changed.

This refers to THE OMNIPRESENCE of the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, called the COMFORTER. EGW, 14 MR 179.2

As by faith we look to Jesus, our faith pierces the shadow, and we adore God for HIS wondrous Love in giving Jesus THE COMFORTER.” Christ has left HIS HOLY SPIRIT to be HIS REPRESENTATIVE in the world… EGW, Lt 84, October 22, 1895)

THE HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT OF Christ; it is HIS REPRESENTATIVE.” — EGW, 13 MR 313.3, 1895 and 19 MR 297.3

What I stand on is faith in the Bible which is my creed, not the 27 Fundamental beliefs. I accept the original statement of the founders of the SDA faith. Yes, EGW changed her understanding about THE SON of THE MOST HIGH realizing the equality with THEM BOTH. She never understood who THE HOLY SPIRIT is, and she never believed in the trinity at all! People of all ages have falsified documents but they can’t with the Bible. I am so thankful for the Dead Sea Scroll.

EGW and the pioneers knew that more light would come from the Bible as time grew closer to the coming of YAHSHUA. She wrote a book to the Gospel Workers and especially last to the ministers to wake up and realize that truth will show up error. The Church has gone on a fanatical trip about the Jesuit who the Bible does not mention at all! The Bible mentions the little stout horn that became empire but was wounded but lived to become the worst church in history. Did the Bible speak of Islam, yes it did, it said it will be dried up and it is heading that way now!

As I stated in another place on this forum, the Bible is simple yet full of Wisdom. But the church is falling just like Israel. During the time of YAHSHUA, the Pharisees had become Hellenized and today we are Hellenized even more. We fill that the Bible cannot explain itself, so we like the Pharisees have to explain it the way the Greek philosophers of the day-use religion. It is all propaganda to diffuse and deceive the masses. Who are we to explain YAHWEH’S Message as if HE needs our help? YAHSHUA made it very clear that the rocks would cry out the truth if we don’t. HE wanted us to give the Message that HE stated and not base it on our traditions and doctrines.

Fundamentalism is actually hard to define. I read several different definitions, but they all do point to doctrines and tradition, what YAHSHUA rejected strongly. I am a simple historian that believe that the Bible explains itself. I also believe that YAHWEH chose an Afrikan language for a reason base on its specific grammar and meanings of words. HE is no respect of person or color because THEY Created all colors and life and that’s it for me. That’s the Gospel or Presentation I will continue to give.

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Seventh day Adventists Vs. "Gentiles".

Gentile = Heathen or Pagan, someone NOT a Jew. 

"Diligent study is essential, and diligent hard work. Play is not essential. The influence has been growing among the students in their devotion to amusements, to a fascinating, bewitching power, to the counteracting of the influence to the truth upon the human mind and character .... What force of powers is put into your games of football and your other inventions after the way of the Gentiles—exercises which bless no one! .... I can not find an instance in the life of Christ where he devoted time to play and amusement. He was the great Educator for the present and the future life. I have not been able to find one instance where He educated His disciples to engage in amusements of football or pugilistic games, to obtain physical exercise... and yet Christ was our pattern in all things." Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 228, 229.

Thanks but that's not what I had in mind. There was another statement!! When I can get on the site I will find and post!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pierrepaul
On 7/2/2019 at 10:31 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Define "fundamentalist".

Is this someone who believes the 27 Adventist "fundamentals" ?

Is this someone who believes Ellen White was infallible? 

What is a "fundamentalist" ?

A Fundamentalist is one who adheres to the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century and thereby asserts the five fundamements: 1. Sola scriptura; 2. Biblical literalism and inerrancy; 3. Virgin Birth; 4. Bodily resurrection and return of Jesus Christ; 5. Substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

SDAs who adhere to the "Investigative Judgement" doctrine are not fundamentalists as they have a different understanding of the atonement. EGW wasn't a fundamentalist as she didn't adhere to biblical literalism. Many SDAs are not fundamentalists as they elevate EGW's writing to the status of "inspired writings" (while twisting themselves into intellectual pretzels to assert that they are still sola scriptura).

Adventism was never part of the fundamentalist movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pierrepaul
On 7/3/2019 at 1:56 AM, Gustave said:

I thought she was the fundamentalist? 

She was against playing football, having photographs and campaigned for people to wear odd clothing styles at the time. 

EGW was not a fundamentalist. None of football, photographs or clothing styles have anything to do with fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

In my response to Rachel, when she asked about fundamentalism, I  made a major error, not in what I wrote, but in what I did not write.  I knew better, and I simply did not include it in my response.

So, for additional material see:

http://magazine.biola.edu/article/14-summer/the-fundamentals-vs-fundamentalism/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Then why call SDA doctrines "fundamental" ? 

I always thought an SDA "fundamentalist" is one who adheres to the "27 Fundamental Doctrines". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
3 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

A Fundamentalist is one who adheres to the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century and thereby asserts the five fundamements: 1. Sola scriptura; 2. Biblical literalism and inerrancy; 3. Virgin Birth; 4. Bodily resurrection and return of Jesus Christ; 5. Substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

SDAs who adhere to the "Investigative Judgement" doctrine are not fundamentalists as they have a different understanding of the atonement. EGW wasn't a fundamentalist as she didn't adhere to biblical literalism. Many SDAs are not fundamentalists as they elevate EGW's writing to the status of "inspired writings" (while twisting themselves into intellectual pretzels to assert that they are still sola scriptura).

Adventism was never part of the fundamentalist movement.

Then why call the SDA doctrines "The 27 Fundamental Doctrines"?

I always thought an SDA "fundamentalist" was one who adheres to the "27 Fundamental Doctrines". 

Why not call them something else - like "foundational" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
9 hours ago, phkrause said:

Thanks but that's not what I had in mind. There was another statement!! When I can get on the site I will find and post!!

Here is another one. 

 

"In the night season messages have been given to me to give you in Battle Creek, and to all our schools... Thus Satan and his angels are laying their snares for your souls...'Be sober, be vigilant" [not in kicking football and educating yourselves in the objectionable games which ought to make every Christian blush with mortification at the afterthought] "be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Yes, he is on your playground watching your amusements, catching every soul that is off guard, sowing his seeds in human minds, and controlling the human intellect. For Christ's sake call a halt to the Battle Creek College, and consider the after-workings upon the heart and the character and the principles of those amusements copied after the fashion of other schools. You have been steadily progressing in the ways of the Gentiles, and not after the example of Christ. Satan is on the schoolground; he is present in every exercise in the school room. The students have had their minds deeply excited in their games, and are not in the best condition to receive instruction, the counsel, the reproof, most essential for them in this life and for the future immortal life." Fundamentals of Christian Education, pp. 220; 225.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
9 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

EGW was not a fundamentalist. None of football, photographs or clothing styles have anything to do with fundamentalism.

That's "textbook" fanaticism / fundamentalism / dogmatism 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen

PierrePaul, Thanks for bringing this discussion back to earth. The Spectrum article, if I understood it, was about the impact the Fundamentalist" movement had on Adventism around the 1919 Bible Conference. There was a 3 or 4 volume book titled "The Fundamentals" which set forth certain Christian beliefs as the fundamentals of Christian faith, most likely as you have listed them.

"Fundamentalist" Adventism is essentially a crass form of legalism, perhaps accurately described as semi-Pelagianism, which emphasizes the Decalogue and human effort in salvation. SDA fundamentalism includes teachings on the "sinful" nature of Christ, the SDA denomination/corporate structure as the Remnant, total victory over all sin without a mediator [legalism on crystal meth]  and possibly other teachings which can easily be discredited through responsible Bible study. 

Most people who hold these views read Scripture through the filter of what they think EGW said, thus becoming confused and bewildered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
9 hours ago, phkrause said:

Seventh day Adventists Vs. "Gentiles".

Gentile = Heathen or Pagan, someone NOT a Jew. 

This is not Biblical.  Gentiles are Japheth children. Gen 10:5 You will not find it anywhere else in Gen Chapter 10. The KJV in error used this word to refer to heathen or other nations. You will only find that Paul was the one chosen to work with the Gentiles, nor other nationality or ethnic people will you find him writing to except the Book of Hebrew. All the other books are Greek and Indo-Europeans nations.

So we see that those who were of “the Sons of Japheth” produced what are called Gentiles. The European (that is, those known today as Caucasians) came from Japheth. Africans, for example, are not Gentiles, according to the Scriptures. How do I know this? Because the Scriptures that follow at Genesis 10:6 THEN proceed to speak about “the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan,” the progenitors of those of African descent. So only those who are from the lineage of Japheth are “Gentiles.” Those from Ham are not Gentiles. Who Are The Gentiles According to Scripture? BY R. JEROME HARRIS

 The connection between Japheth and the Europeans originates from Genesis 10:5, which states, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands.” Japheth – Father of the Europeans, by Moe | History of the Brotherhood, Meaning of Words

Japheth is the father of the gentile nations… reaching to the “outer limits” of civilization. HIS Story Our Story Part 3, by Pastor Dave Martin; The Crosscreek Church

These are some of the writers who differ in many things but all stick to the truth that Japheth is the father of the Gentiles!

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...