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

SDA Fundamentalism

Recommended Posts

stinsonmarri
On 7/6/2019 at 10:41 PM, Gregory Matthews said:
Quote
SDA's in the 19th Century rejected the Trinity and claimed the Atonement wasn't completed until 1844 from what I understand.

 

This is exactly my belief and what my faith is based on! Pastor Matthew can you give me the full quotes from EGW that she changed. Please do not give it from the book Evangelism that Froom wrote. If you don't mind only from the books she wrote up until her death in 1915 and her Manuscripts. I want it to only come from her writings and also the one she first published that the General Conference didn't revised after her death, please.

Thank You and much blessings sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Gregory Matthews

Stinsonmarri:  The quote in the above post was made by Gustave, in a post on the 2nd page of this thread, on Saturday at 6:48 PM.  Contrary to what your post seems to say, I did not make the above cited statement.

As you are probably aware, during the lifetime of Ellen White, that is prior to her death, her books were often revised by people who edited them.   

As is well known, early SDA leaders in this developing denomination rejected the idea of that Trinity.  Some debate exists as to exactly where Ellen White was, both as to those early years, and in her later life.  However, it is generally believed that in those early years, she was not a trinitarian and that in her later years, she moved into a doctrinal  understanding that was Trinitarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Stinsonmarri, For a recent study of the belief of EGW and other early SDA leaders, as well as Biblical and Historic studies on the Trinity, see the following book:

Peterson, Paul & McIver, Rob, Editors. Biblical and Theological studies on the Trinity,  Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 251 pages. 

NOTE:  Gustave will also find it interesting.  The following is  a list of what is in the book.

 

CCI07092019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

The above book may be purchased from:

*  Amazon for $28.44.

*  Avondale Academic Press for $24.95.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen

I suspect that a lot of SDA clergymen might never continue denominational service if they did study historical theology, particularly that of Luther and Melanchthon. I mention Melanchthon because of his roll in preparing the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. EGW said~ that the day of the Augsburg Confession was the greatest day of the Reformation. Coming from a Methodist background and having been called by God to emphasize sanctification, it is certainly understandable that EGW wrote as she did. Depending on what one reads of EGW and Luther , it's not difficult to conclude that EGW did not stand on the same ground as Luther. While the cross and justification by imputed righteousness were central to the German Reformation, EGW herself stated that as a Methodist, she poorly understood both justification and sanctification. Considering the general drift of her writings, justification by faith did not take a prominent place in her work. Of the thousands of pages which bear her name, Selected Messages contains about 50 pages on the topic.

The bright side is that the Book of Concord contains an in depth, comprehensive view of the theological conflicts of the German Reformation, including the Augsburg Confession, the RC reply [Confutation], and Melanchthon's detailed defense of the Confession [Apology]. No one need remain ignorant of such an important topic.

Share this post


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

I suspect that a lot of SDA clergymen might never continue denominational service if they did study historical theology, particularly that of Luther and Melanchthon. I mention Melanchthon because of his roll in preparing the Augsburg Confession and its Apology. EGW said~ that the day of the Augsburg Confession was the greatest day of the Reformation. Coming from a Methodist background and having been called by God to emphasize sanctification, it is certainly understandable that EGW wrote as she did. Depending on what one reads of EGW and Luther , it's not difficult to conclude that EGW did not stand on the same ground as Luther. While the cross and justification by imputed righteousness were central to the German Reformation, EGW herself stated that as a Methodist, she poorly understood both justification and sanctification. Considering the general drift of her writings, justification by faith did not take a prominent place in her work. Of the thousands of pages which bear her name, Selected Messages contains about 50 pages on the topic.

The bright side is that the Book of Concord contains an in depth, comprehensive view of the theological conflicts of the German Reformation, including the Augsburg Confession, the RC reply [Confutation], and Melanchthon's detailed defense of the Confession [Apology]. No one need remain ignorant of such an important topic.

GHansen,

Do you understand the SDA doctrine of salvation to have more in common with Luther's doctrine OR the Catholic  confutation of it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
16 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'm saying that Adventism was radically different and the fundamentalism was unique to that culture which forbid tennis, oysters and so on. 

The Scripture forbids oysters. 

Does that mean Leviticus Chapter 11 is "radical fundamentalism".   The Israelites - just coming out of Egypt, probably thought so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

"Fundamental" seems like "foundational".  

What one teaches later, cannot contradict what was established first.  It's kinda like the controversy going on about the US Constitution.  Some teach "strict Constitutionalism" and say the Constitution must be read literally and applied literally.  Others say the Constitution is a "living document" that should change with the culture - that the intent of the authors should be ascertained, and that intent should influence later application of law and justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

What was the source of early SDA doctrinal teachings?  Every early SDA founding father already had beliefs about things.  They brought those with them, into their study of the Bible.  They did not just set those aside when they began their studies.  Mrs White had a Methodist upbringing. 

Considering this, it is amazing how much they did break with the teachings of the churches from which they came.  They were searching - not just sticking with their former education.   Their desire was to find as much of the truth as they could.   They should be applauded for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
8 hours ago, Gustave said:

GHansen,

Do you understand the SDA doctrine of salvation to have more in common with Luther's doctrine OR the Catholic  confutation of it? 

Article IV: Of Justification.

1] Also they [our churches] teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

The Confutation says "All Catholics admit that our works of themselves have no merit but God's grace makes them worthy to earn eternal life"

Article VI: Of New Obedience.

1] Also they [our churches] teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification 2] before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

The Confutation says: On this account their frequent ascription of justification to faith is not admitted since it pertains to grace and love. For St. Paul says: "Though I have all faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor. 13:2. Here St. Paul certifies to the princes and the entire Church that faith alone does not justify. Accordingly he teaches that love is the chief virtue, Col. 3:14: "Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen

There is a  distinction between Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals  and SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics, hardcore legalism and the influence of EGW. The proof texting method evinced by Haskell's Bible Handbook, Bible Readings for the Home and the Amazing Facts brochures perpetuates false doctrine among SDA. While there is a lot of room for difference of opinion on prophecy, confusion among SDA on justification by faith and the new obedience is a great tragedy. This confusion has allowed the doctrine of sinless perfection to gain traction. It has also spawned a cottage industry of seminars and guest speakers who sow falsehood throughout the denomination.

EGW is responsible for much of this, as her emphasis on sanctification and the Decalogue affirms the legalistic nature of sinful man. Just as the Prodigal expected to work his way back into his father's favor, natural man's first notion is to earn salvation. The idea that God counts faith for righteousness is simply inconceivable. The kind of law free gospel advocated by writers such as F.F. Bruce in his Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free or Luther in Christian Liberty  just isn't "enough" for the natural man. This human instinct to "do something" or "do more" has been exploited/monetized by the denomination through its tithing doctrine, Sabbath-keeping, , health reform, etc. Nothing wrong with these things. All three  predate Moses; however, it is the thoughts and intents of the heart that God considers. 

Share this post


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

There is a  distinction between Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals  and SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics, hardcore legalism and the influence of EGW. The proof texting method evinced by Haskell's Bible Handbook, Bible Readings for the Home and the Amazing Facts brochures perpetuates false doctrine among SDA. While there is a lot of room for difference of opinion on prophecy, confusion among SDA on justification by faith and the new obedience is a great tragedy. This confusion has allowed the doctrine of sinless perfection to gain traction. It has also spawned a cottage industry of seminars and guest speakers who sow falsehood throughout the denomination.

EGW is responsible for much of this, as her emphasis on sanctification and the Decalogue affirms the legalistic nature of sinful man. Just as the Prodigal expected to work his way back into his father's favor, natural man's first notion is to earn salvation. The idea that God counts faith for righteousness is simply inconceivable. The kind of law free gospel advocated by writers such as F.F. Bruce in his Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free or Luther in Christian Liberty  just isn't "enough" for the natural man. This human instinct to "do something" or "do more" has been exploited/monetized by the denomination through its tithing doctrine, Sabbath-keeping, , health reform, etc. Nothing wrong with these things. All three  predate Moses; however, it is the thoughts and intents of the heart that God considers. 

That was an extremely articulate & honest answer GHansen. Thank you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The Scripture forbids oysters. 

Does that mean Leviticus Chapter 11 is "radical fundamentalism".   The Israelites - just coming out of Egypt, probably thought so. 

To Israel it did but not prior to Moses.

So yes, a "Christian" abstaining from Oysters (because they God doesn't want them consumed) is a form of fundamentalism. Scripture describes such individuals as possessing weak faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
4 hours ago, GHansen said:

There is a  distinction between Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals  and SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics, hardcore legalism and the influence of EGW. The proof texting method evinced by Haskell's Bible Handbook, Bible Readings for the Home and the Amazing Facts brochures perpetuates false doctrine among SDA. While there is a lot of room for difference of opinion on prophecy, confusion among SDA on justification by faith and the new obedience is a great tragedy. This confusion has allowed the doctrine of sinless perfection to gain traction. It has also spawned a cottage industry of seminars and guest speakers who sow falsehood throughout the denomination.

EGW is responsible for much of this, as her emphasis on sanctification and the Decalogue affirms the legalistic nature of sinful man. Just as the Prodigal expected to work his way back into his father's favor, natural man's first notion is to earn salvation. The idea that God counts faith for righteousness is simply inconceivable. The kind of law free gospel advocated by writers such as F.F. Bruce in his Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free or Luther in Christian Liberty  just isn't "enough" for the natural man. This human instinct to "do something" or "do more" has been exploited/monetized by the denomination through its tithing doctrine, Sabbath-keeping, , health reform, etc. Nothing wrong with these things. All three  predate Moses; however, it is the thoughts and intents of the heart that God considers. 

While Mrs. White gave warnings about sports, you must look at all she said and did and not isolated statements here and there. Besides the statements, she donated land to PUC for a sports field and she loved to attend games there. But she enjoyed the games and seeing students do their best. She did not take favorite sides or cutthroat competitiveness. 

In a similar way what you said in the above quotes looking at "SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics" come from the same problems as your comments on Mrs. White and sports. Frankly I am having a very hard time in seeing the difference between the bad hermeneutics of what you label as "SDA Fundamentalism" and your own hermeneutics as expressed in your posts here, except they want to cling to their conclusions as everlasting truth to push on all, and you want to cling to your conclusions to put down Mrs. White. And I see both uses of bad hermeneutics as both based on Protestant Fundamentalism as articulated in The Fundamentals as both of you take your quotes and hang all your beliefs on the quotes instead of asking questions like "Who was she addressing?" "What else did she say or do about this topic?" "Did her views grow over time?" I keep pointing out here that I have read a number of letters that she wrote to those who were using their bad hermeneutics and forming what you call "SDA Fundamentalism" and telling them that they were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GHansen
43 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

While Mrs. White gave warnings about sports, you must look at all she said and did and not isolated statements here and there. Besides the statements, she donated land to PUC for a sports field and she loved to attend games there. But she enjoyed the games and seeing students do their best. She did not take favorite sides or cutthroat competitiveness. 

In a similar way what you said in the above quotes looking at "SDA Fundamentalism brought about by bad hermeneutics" come from the same problems as your comments on Mrs. White and sports. 

Kevin, I haven't addressed the issue of sports at all, nor have hermeneutics been an issue on this thread. Hermeneutics is about the proper interpretation of the Bible and here, for the most part, we are discussing historical theology. The thread on Romans 3:31 would have been a better place to bring up hermeneutics since that thread was about the meaning of Biblical texts.

I will not descend into the Sr. White said this or that depths other than to say I have read in their entirety scores of her books, periodical articles, etc. i.e., I have looked at nearly "everything" she said on various topics. Her writings obviously have not been helpful since there exist numerous factions in the church, each with their own favorite quotes to support their position. Sometimes I still do topical studies in her writings which involve looking at hundreds of quotations. Unfortunately, EGW may have made relatively few statements on a given topic but one must plow thorough scores of repetitive quotes in various compilations to discover those few original quotes. Often, they are not helpful at all.

To be perfectly honest, I really don't care what she said about this, that, or the other thing. People who do care have identified numerous ways she used Scripture. Rarely did it involve what today we would call exegesis or employ hermeneutical or linguistic principles. She used texts for illustrative purposes, devotionally, often without reference to the Biblical writers intended meaning or context. For example,  she said "Transgression of the law is the only definition of sin in the Bible." This quote contributes to the legalistic miasma which permeates the denomination, since "law"  is normally interpreted to refer to the Decalogue, which, in its immediate context, it does not.

"Commandments" in the writings of John don't refer to the Decalogue, they refer to the teachings of Christ; nevertheless, numerous references to the "commandments" are wrested from their context and interpreted as the Decalogue by SDA. EGW hasn't prevented that, more likely, she contributed to it.

Share this post


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

EGW hasn't prevented that, more likely, she contributed to it.

Kevin, EGW is not necessarily to blame for readers misunderstanding what she said. During her lifetime, she despaired over the abuse and misuse of her writings. Hard to imagine the situation nowadays. She has had a toxic influence on the theology of the church simply because she has served as a sort of Scripture or inspired interpreter whether she approved of that or not. The sinful nature of Christ teaching and sinless perfectionism devotees usually refer to her, once the absurdity of their position  has been shown from Scripture.

Many subjects, such as diet, education, medical ministry, she is a great resource. I just haven't found her helpful when it comes to interpreting Scripture. perhaps that's on me; nevertheless, I am what I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

Back when I was SDA, I so thoroughly read and read and read Ellen White's writings that I would "hear" what she had said about just every portion of Scripture.  After I left in '96, it took more than 5 years before I stopped immediately hearing what she had said, when doing Bible study.  I'm 25 years out now.  I do remember much of what she wrote.  But now, when I read a Bible passage, I will just think of other similar or connecting Bible passages. 

I spent many years depressed, thinking how I could be lost if I did not reach perfect Christ likeness - thinking the delay of His return could be partly my fault.  Then I discovered that the Ten Commandments are really a promise of what He will do - in me.  My perfection is His responsibility.  I just have to believe that He will do it, if I want Him to. 

I might also point out that we will not be perfectly filled with His spirit, and thus perfectly keeping His laws, until we are returned to "the land".  That won't happen until after the glorious return.  Check out Ezekiel 36:24-38.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H
7 hours ago, GHansen said:

Kevin, EGW is not necessarily to blame for readers misunderstanding what she said. During her lifetime, she despaired over the abuse and misuse of her writings. Hard to imagine the situation nowadays. She has had a toxic influence on the theology of the church simply because she has served as a sort of Scripture or inspired interpreter whether she approved of that or not. The sinful nature of Christ teaching and sinless perfectionism devotees usually refer to her, once the absurdity of their position  has been shown from Scripture.

Many subjects, such as diet, education, medical ministry, she is a great resource. I just haven't found her helpful when it comes to interpreting Scripture. perhaps that's on me; nevertheless, I am what I am.

Your last two posts have a lot of useful information, and it can be used as safeguards to our study of both the Bible and Mrs. White. And frankly it can be applied to the Bible just as well as to Mrs. White. 

There are 3 ways we can read the Bible. Two of these ways we frequently see in both the Bible and Mrs. White and one is rarely seen but is expected. The first view, which we don't find that often in how later Bible writers and Mrs. White is Exegesis: What the text meant to the original community that the Bible writer or editor was writing to. The other two which we find frequently in the Bible and Mrs.White, are analogy or application to a similar situation and homiletical or as you put it illustrative applications. You are spot on with that and we need to be aware of these. Mrs.White refused to answer questions when people wanted an exegetical answer from her to solve controversies. She would either say things like "My writings are not to answer questions such as what is the meaning of the daily in the Bible" or tell them to study it out, that exegesis is our job not hers (and she seemed baffled that we were not taking advantage of this. She was very interested in exegesis but knew that was not her job so could not spend much time on it. She appears to enjoy the little time she could spend on it and seems, at least to me, to be jealous of us for our freedom to do exegesis, and again baffled that we were not excited about doing it and wanted to be lazy and look for a prophet who would give us the exegetical answer.)

I need to get going, but the way she is used for last generation perfection and a sinful nature Jesus is horrible. Yes, she saw a last generation righteousness but it was NOT what the last generation people theorize. They are looking for the last generation to be a small group of people who have gained such victory over sin that is of a new quality then ever before. Mrs. White sees people in each generation who have developed a deep unshakable love for Jesus that can withstand all opposition. Then there are those who have accepted Jesus but who's faith is still developing and they may have fallen asleep before developing that deep unshakable love for Jesus. Then there are people who have not accepted Jesus but who could potentially accept him, and those who have committed the unpardonable sin, those who have so hardened their hearts towards Jesus that there was nothing more Jesus could do for them.  Her view of last generation is that the two middle groups end up going either into the first group of unshakable love for Jesus or the last group of total rejection. But our last generation people refuse to look at this. 

Similarly with those who see Jesus has having the fallen nature. They use this for their last generation righteousness. But to Mrs. White Jesus had his own nature unlike Adam before the fall and unlike us after the fall. She saw him as fully human to all or weaknesses but not having the bend to sin that we have. 

When discussing these two topics and we disprove them from the Bible so they turn to Mrs. White, I then turn to Mrs. White and show them that these views are disproven from Mrs. White as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin H

Oh, she NEVER saw herself as an inspired interpreter of scripture. She saw herself as an inspired applicator and inspired to  help to point out parts of the Bible we should focus on (such as the 3 angels messages) but would NOT interpret these she left that job to us.  It was not until the mid 1920s when in reaction to the 1922 General Conference and the rejection of the 1919 Washington D. C Bible conference before people started to call her an inspired commentary on the Bible or an inspired interpreter of scripture, and despite our understanding of the state of the dead, she probably still rolled over in her grave when that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo

GHansen and Kevin H:

Great, honest, open-minded posts.  I appreciate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
On 7/9/2019 at 7:14 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri, For a recent study of the belief of EGW and other early SDA leaders, as well as Biblical and Historic studies on the Trinity, see the following book:

Peterson, Paul & McIver, Rob, Editors. Biblical and Theological studies on the Trinity,  Avondale Academic Press, 2014, 251 pages. 

NOTE:  Gustave will also find it interesting.  The following is  a list of what is in the book.

 

CCI07092019.jpg

Pastor Matthew: Not being disrespectful, but I ask you to provide for me only from the writings of EGW before she died. I want to read from what she wrote where she changed and believed in a trinity. I want to read the words trinity from her and no one else. I feel that you are not providing me her words but writing about what she was suppose to have said from others. I do not agree with anyone writings but directly from her own books! So kindly sir send me the pages from her writings that she said that she believed in the trinity. Just like you post the above, to me it would be easier to post what she wrote herself do you think. Why do I have to get it second handed from someone else? I want you to show me from her writings that was published up to 1915 before she died!

Oh, I do not care who stated it, I just want to state that what I believe and I want to prove me wrong by her writings! Thank You!

Blessings!

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stinsonmarri
21 hours ago, GHansen said:

Many subjects, such as diet, education, medical ministry, she is a great resource. I just haven't found her helpful when it comes to interpreting Scripture. perhaps that's on me; nevertheless, I am what I am.

This is the major problem with the ministers. They start laying a burden on EGW like she was suppose to explain every scripture in the Bible. No prophet in the Bible did it and she never claim to be a prophet at all. She was a messenger and she relate what YAHSHUA would give her in vision, that's it! She never had a vision on the beast or the papacy. She even said we have less to say about the papacy in TM p. 212 and you don't hear minister speaking or preaching about that at all! She even admitted that both Daniel and Revelation would be clearly understood just before THE MESSIAH comes! It's always about EGW, instead of the Bible! Did she write things she thought she understood, yes she did, but she said not to hold on anything once thought to be correct and found out it was error; she said to let it go. But to admit you was wrong in what you believed, most will not do it! We will hold things even though it makes no sense! I truly don't get it and all of you stopping blaming EGW because she not here to speak for herself; she was weary with all this mess about her during her time then and  she would be appall today!

Blessings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Stinsonmarri:  You have informed us of  your scholarly background.    I have taken that seriously.  In taking that seriously, I have provided you with a book that I thought you would find of value.  The same is true for the book that I suggested you might find of value.  IT is clearly not a book that has a focus on what EGW taught on the Trinity.  Did you read the Table of Contents?  Did you note a chapter on John Kellogg and the Trinity?  That would be of interest to Gustave, as he has commented on that subject.  If you have not interest on that part of our SDA history, you would not be interested in that chapter.  Did you note the chapter on Islam and the Trinity?  If you have no interest in what that major religion teaches, you would not be interested in that book.

You have been telling us of your scholarly interest in the subject of the Trinity, and now are telling us that you have not interest in that book.   Instead, you only want to focus on what EGW wrote on that subject.  Well, with that focus you will not be interested in that book.  It clearly does not have EGW as a central focus.

I guess I was in error in thinking you would be interested in this book.  In the future I will attempt to refrain from suggesting books to you that you might find of value.

By the  way,  I find books with which I disagree to be of great value in  informing me as to what is being said in the scholarly world.  "Therefore, my library has many books with which I disagree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 7/9/2019 at 11:50 PM, Gustave said:

Scripture describes such individuals as possessing weak faith. 

Rather - individuals who trust the LORD to know what is best for us.  He created oysters to be cleaning filters for bodies of water.  Why would He want people to eat the filters from His sanitation plant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Past comments have been posted in regard to EGW and the extent to which she was a fundamentalist.  I may later comment more on fundamentalism.  But, for now, I will make a brief comment that is due to the comments that others have made about oysters.

Until late in her life,  Ellen White enjoyed eating oysters.  When she was ill, she would often request  food that contained oysters.

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...