[Arthur Ruger]

I agree for the most part with Ray in that the miraculous happens in very unpredictable ways and moments. The mystery about those events may – with research and/or contemplative pondering – may reveal itself as explainable. Or it may simply be an occurrence outside the world of perception of our five senses. That world beyond the five senses as the place of the unexplained/unexplainable exists among other things in the form of intuitions, hunches, serendipity and the like.

Regarding miracles that are recorded and reported from our institutional history, I don’t think the actuality or reality of those events is so much the issue as the tendency of the Church to try to define the event in a faith promoting way. Worse is the psychological impact of the Church attempting to take ownership of a personal historical event and then exploit it.

My case in point is the miracle of survival of those who made it to Utah via the handcart route in 1856. I have a 4th-great grandmother and three children who survived the Martin Handcart ordeal which, as my wife insists, is an American story for everyone and not a Mormon story to be portrayed, explained and exploited by the Church for its on proselyting purposes. In that regard the film 17 Miracles became nothing more than a propaganda piece for the Church and exemplary of the almost casual way in which the Church honors its members who supposedly suffered and died for the cause and thereby are available to be utilized as martyrs for a loftier purpose.

The blatant folkloric portrayals of those miracles can be excused as faith promoting accounts that have no basis in fact.

Bottom line is that your personal miraculous experiences and my personal miraculous experiences are exactly that: yours and mine. They are ours to own. They are ours to interpret in any way that makes sense to us. That includes any experience of healing, prompting, burning bosom, finding money or any way to meet any crisis with which we have had to deal.

If we can remember that, then we actively take ownership of the magical, the miraculous and the mystical in our own lives. The Church has no claim on that stuff.

But like a big fat runaway railroad car, whenever the Church commandeers someone’s private miracle (and they are ALL private miracles from the get-go) it becomes almost impossible to refute the claims made or take any kind of opposing position to what is being claimed, what will be included in future folk lore, and what it all means.

[Arthur Ruger]

Charity, that was a wonderful reply.

[Arthur Ruger]

Yep … that very choir in which my voice is too low to sing tenor and to high to go bass. :yawn:

[Arthur Ruger]

The venue in life that seems to require endurance is more in the perceptive realm of mind and spirit. It is not better countered by an approach of moralizing about worthiness and exhortation to conscious believing with strict conformity to tradition and doctrine.

Does it matter more that one seeks good because seeking good is a commanded practice with the promise of happiness and future reward?

Or does it matter more that one seeks good for the sake of goodness itself?

The former amounts to “telling God what to do and the people how to behave”, as Watts wrote. Furthermore, from a literal perspective, one would have to assume that Jesus told his Apostles that it is the divine will that they spend the rest of their lives telling everybody how to behave rather than preaching the Resurrected Lord.

The latter suggests that the human will is of itself capable of perceiving the highest good of all concerned. it also suggests such a willful perspective need be practiced in order to obtain a sense of goodness as compared to a self-awareness of obedient worthiness. Such a sense of personal goodness might very well be what human life is about.

If Jesus expects from us a formula approach to performance as believing Mormons, would such a formula be invested in conformity with strictly proscribed in what to think and how to feel?

Could we not consciously – willfully, if you please – practice a formula of personal seeking, asking and knocking? Whatever is found, answered or opened is what Jesus promised. There’s nothing judgmental in any of that. There’s nothing in any of that which suggests that even a church’s approval is necessary for personal validation.

[Arthur Ruger]

Quote:

No individual apostle expresses authoritatively the LDS Church’s official position, especially in one General Conference talk. Seriously, we hear conflicting interpretations regularly in General Conference. To latch on to one particular view as THE authoritative position of the Church, especially when there are other talks that present a very different view, simply isn’t fair to the wide range of views held and expressed by the leadership.

Point taken. Thanks Ray.

I haven’t perceived Elder Nelson as one who is more openly and aggressively authoritative as was McConkie and the public straightening out of George Pace in 1981 that I referred to.

I’m also aware that when Apostle Benson’s 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet was first presented, President Kimball was bothered sufficiently to require its withdrawal. The interaction within the FP and the Twelve in fact left Benson momentarily concerned that he might be formally rebuked.

One account of this incident is in Edward Kimball’s biography of his father, Lengthen Your Stride and historian Michael Quinn has published another.

I also just learned that Elder Oaks in 2009 gave the following, entitled Love and Law, which essentially accords with Elder Nelson.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/love-and-law?lang=eng

[Arthur Ruger]

For me the most enduring treasure of my earlier life in the church was the spiritual sense of living that seemed to permeate every aspect of my life – a life asset that remained in place even after I had rejected the uncomfortable shackles of literalist religion and requirements of a proscribed way of living.

Sam Keene has called that sort of proscribed way of being an “automatic stance.” The automatic stance of Mormons is their belief in revealed religion based on contemporary revelations from God going back to the earliest moments in Church history.

But for me the spiritual sense that eventually grew with my maturation was that of a God who communes individually with human beings – who does not restrict himself to chosen “prophets” or the contemporary holy icons of Mormon culture in particular and Christian culture in general. Early on I believed those who said God would prompt if I would listen. I also believed when they said God would not prompt if I was unworthy.

When my eventual mid-life crisis of faith commenced, I was surprised that I did not feel more painfully  bereft of God’s promptings despite the fact that the literalist culture had constantly and confidently predicted that those who fall away suffer the loss of the spirit. What was portrayed was a God prone to pouting and who would no longer speak to me because of divine displeasure with my non-conforming attitude, behavior and overall un-worshipful spirituality.

In Christian terms, one might describe it as deeply personal interaction with God through the Holy Spirit … but an interaction free of any restriction or proscriptions of scripture. Neither God nor I needed anyone else’s permission, approval or biblical validation to define our relationship.

In non-Christian terms, the on-going communion is an interaction with the higher power or a deeper source to which I belong, from which and within which I have a personal mortal identity.

Having obtained this knowledge and experience from inside a fundamentalist portrayal of reality and religion, my early years of habit in this way of being prompted and trusting the impulses were years of internalizing ideas and recognitions which were defined in the context of Church doctrine, theology and practice.  What I perceived as prompted was defined for me by those having religious authority over me. I have in recent years referred to those definitions as someone else’s magic.

[Arthur Ruger]

Quote:

Daeruin wrote:

Arthur, can I re-prompt you with the OP’s questions? What form did your answer or spiritual knowledge take? Was it different than the traditional or what you were expecting?

For me the method suggested by the Moroni promises was not a connection to Mormonism, Moroni or true-churchiness concepts per se, but more the result of my movement towards a personal mystic sense of communion with the Divine, Higher Power or whatever serves to express connection with something more spiritual than tangible in my experience of life.

The original form of process for me only began with a prayerful asking those “golden questions”, so to speak, that the Church seemed to want me to ask. The answer to that asking was in essence a stupor of thought; a non-answer in some ways and yet in another way the only answer to the true-churchiness questions I could get.

However, having been somewhat inspired by an idea presented to me in another venue that if I have something to ask God, I could not restrict the answer only to things I expected to perceive, or things someone else taught me to expect. In essence, in asking for divine wisdom and inspiration, I could not set limits on the answer and would be obligated to accept, live by, apply, or understand the answer in whatever form it came and whatever meaning it prompted me to understand.

That began for me then a lifelong habit – borne of LDS teachings to me that just as did Joseph Smith, I too could receive personal revelation for myself.

The lifelong habit came out of my “twisting” the Moroni promises as interpreted and insisted upon by the Church into a means of extending my spiritual antenna for promptings in whatever form they came and were perceived. Since then, I have tried to value promptings as I’ve sensed them and tested them for validity.

I stopped asking silly questions of God about true-churchiness, true books, true prophets and began asking the higher power for advice and prompting on things that mattered much more in my life.

I’m a mystic at heart.

As Watts wrote,

Quote:

“A Christianity which is not basically mystical must become either a political ideology or a mindless fundamentalism.”

[Arthur Ruger]

I know, I know … my posting here has been erratic (this is the first post since July of last year.) But then, I repent.

By way of clarification, I left the Church via the “remove-my-name” method which I first requested in 1991 but did not achieve successful escape until 1999.

Since that time, under the influence of DW who instinctively knew that although in no way could I ever be a TBM-type, I had in fact taken a serious self-inflicted hit to my cultural identity by requesting name removal. T’was all about psychological health for me (and nothing to do with the true-churchiness of it all) when she took the lessons, got baptized the same day that I was re-baptized. Henceforth, on any given Sunday my go-to-meeting uniform has lots of grains of salt in the pockets. I wanted to give you my “context” before offering the following:

Applying the Moroni promises according to my own method and madness, I suppose, is what started me on my eventual journey out of the Church. IMO, the Moroni promises are in fact a powerful tool – a tool that in reality the correlated church cannot manage or control regardless of all that procedural and scriptural formulaic process. As a spiritual process the Moroni promises are a method ANYONE – members, non-members, investigators, etc.- can employ. It can be employed totally outside the control of the church itself for answers to any kind of question from which one desires a spiritually-sourced response.

In many ways what I’m about to say conforms with official Church dogma. Ask God what is true and God will tell you.

If one trusts God and accepts/believes that God will reveal truths to humans, then the Moroni promises are one method of getting divine opinion on your personal revelation. The process has nothing to do with Church conformity or worthiness. Only a contrite spirit and willingness to be prompted and to trust the prompting is really necessary.

When I began doing this and getting results that had nothing to do with my standing as a Church member, I learned that the Father and the Mother are not connected to, limited by nor bound by Mormon doctrine and theology claims.

If the Higher Power is real, the Moroni Promises are but one method of eliminating any Church middle men or any kind of authority and going directly to the source.

Applying the Moroni formula and trusting the Moroni promises started me on the path to spiritual knowledge that continues flowing before me to this day.

It works for me.

And … as is promised in Sec 121, my confidence waxes stronger and stronger and my dependence on someone else’s religious opinion has declined to almost nil.

I’ve shared this attitude with my bishop, my home-teacher (who is on the high council) and my high priests group (to which I am connected as a non-priesthood-holding member cause I’m an old guy who has yet to complete the steps for a restoration of blessings.) In other words, my participation is not driven by priesthood obligations or responsibilities which in theory could be used as leverage. I keep telling those who ask why that letting that particular monkey climb on my back again is a very serious issue of commitment.

[Arthur Ruger]

On personal revelation in the church and who has trouble with it …

Two weeks ago, as I sat listening to the testimonies on what my wife and I call “Open-Mike Sunday” (when the leaders swallow hard and hope the members don’t talk weird during testimony-bearing) I was struck with the thought that Mormons – almost as second nature – talk to God in a very casual and non-assuming manner. Just listen to any of the prayers by members and you will mostly hear them talking to their Dad, albeit in a respectful and reverential manner.

“Talking to Dad” was one of the things that eventually placed me in conflict with leadership regarding personal revelation as it relates to orthodoxy and conformity. You see, I really thrived over the years by my own application of what I call the Moroni Promises. Those chestnut verses have had incredible potency in my life because of the literal way I took the promises and applied them according to standard LDS challenges and teaching.

If one talks to God in prayer and is lacking in the fearful reverence that suggests that you are only supposed to ask “approved” questions of God … you have your own “open-mike” access to God and carte blanc to ask anything you want as you apply the mystical magic of the Moroni Promises.

Ask God anything … ANYTHING … and not simply or merely that which Church programming seeks to limit your curiosity.

Ask if Joseph had multiple wives …

ask if Brigham flubbed his handling of the handcart disaster …

ask what took so long to get priesthood availability to all worthy males …

ask sincerely whether or not LGBT is the mortal sin most churches insist it is …

ask whether or not social justice is significant …

ask whether or not there are limitations to the First and Second Great Commandments based on official Church rules …

ask anything.

As a young father and husband, when I realized I would never be limited to asking only what the Church said I could ask, it was liberating … like the feeling you got when the Church tells you a prayer to Mother in Heaven falls on deaf ears (Prove it!)

When I realized I could ask sincerely if a church calling was from The Lord or from the Bishop’s organizational chart, there was significant freedom from guilty consciences.

When I refused a calling to teach the High Priest Group after having been released as the Group Leader, when the new HPGL told me that the answers to my prayers (which disagreed with the promptings from his prayers) were from “the wrong source,” I only smiled.

Me and the Moroni Promises have kept me much saner than otherwise I would be.

[Arthur Ruger]

I remember a couple of years ago before my wife was baptized and I was re-baptized, we were reading D. Michael Quinn’s book, The Mormon Hierarchy: The Origins of Power. We never went too deeply into the book – which seems to be a historical survey of the origins of the LDS sense of priesthood and leadership.

We had been wading through an assortment of accounts of the early days around the restoration of the priesthood and the organization of the Church and leadership quorums.

Suddenly, my wife tossed the book onto the coffee table and exclaimed,

“Arthur this is boring!!! All these men seem to be sitting around discussing and arguing about who the big fish and little fish are going to be while the women are somewhere else, probably raising the children and keeping them safe, tending the gardens, washing the clothes and holding the rest of the family life together.”

I think I was still laughing in delight three days later.

[Arthur Ruger]

I appreciate both responses (wayfarer and SamBee) and your perspectives.

I’m not fully conscious … I suspect … of the particulars of my personal spiritual ax that I’ve been grinding on for years and how that attitude helped my escape velocity when my request for membership termination was granted and now after having been rebaptized for a year and a half, my ax remains in place but feels somehow different in my willingness to “lighten up.”

Along with issues about literal-minded religiousness I also feel that there is a less-than-mature level when that religiousness is focused almost entirely on obedience as the ultimate virtue.

 

Would “growth and maturity” be the right or wrong by-products of christian development?

With acceptance of a God who is Master and Commander and for whom obedience is the highest from of mortal behavior to which God responds and gives recognition. In that regard perhaps security and justification are those most sought after. Anything else is cosmetic and an attempt to lower the common denominator to a less-than-mature level focused almost entirely on obedience as the ultimate virtue.

Ask many literalist-informed Christians to define their belief system. More than likely you’ll get some sort of descriptive formula that describes a supposed plan that was figured out from scripture. You might also hear that God has revealed such a plan to man for his eternal salvation … and that conformity to that plan is the hinge that connects eternal happiness in God to man’s highest aspirations.

Ask a mystical Christian to define his religion and most easily the answer will be that the kingdom of God is within you, “the Father and I are one, … and so are you.”

Like trying to grasp and hold onto pudding, formula-based religious Christians do not seem to understand the impossibility of possessing God. For such believers, possessing God is not distinguished from any sense of God as the source of how we experience the mystery of life. Through the mechanics of living by creeds, religious Christians are focused on fixed forms of thought rather than any state of mind. For these humans God is a concept made real only by somehow grasping God; or believing imaginatively that you can and are grasping a connection to God as a function of something called “faith.”

As Watts wrote,

Quote:

…man is frightened of this living, ungraspable mystery, and is always trying to have it securely boxed up in some philosophical, ethical, theological, or psychological formula, where its vitality is destroyed …

In trying to hold God in one fixed form, we exclude him from all others, and, so far as our apprehension of him is concerned, “devitalize” him in the one that we hold. We lose his immanence because we try to grasp and draw down his transcendence.

To both greater and lesser degrees, do not formula-based Christians tend to form and commit themselves to performance-based theologies and does not such thinking then become the basis of congregations founded as a means of establishing communities in which conformity is equated to spirituality?

[Arthur Ruger]

One of the aspects of our theology is our agreement to assume, if you will, command and control of a mortal life – namely, our own. Along with of course unfolding interactions with other people who have also assumed command and control of their own lives and come to mortality also in our time.

Along with that assumption and in line with Joseph’s attitude regarding God’s glory (intelligence) and our mortal lives based on learning good principles and governing ourselves, is the obtaining of knowledge in a process that includes critical thinking.

It is indisputable that God WANTS as to think critically for ourselves, avoiding any temptation to hand our thinking over to someone else’s magic (particularly magic masquerading as divinely appointed/called authority.)

Were our ability to think critically sufficiently and personally developed to its fullest, that thinking would include awareness … SENSITIVITY-based awareness … of the implications of our convictions and the impact of how we express our convictions when we refuse to think critically about how others hear the messages we each proclaim.

In the formal settings of class and meeting it often feels like we are repeatedly forced to face the almost narcissistic smugness many members exude when they endeavor to share what they know with people who – they assume – do not “know” what they know … or in the case of teaching newly baptized, that the newbies do not “know” as much as what veteran members they think they “Know.” 

… or, as we actually witnessed in an early Gospel Doctrine class, the almost condescending way the discussion went in terms of new members having lamps that are yet unfilled with Mormon “oil” which is created by accepting mindlessly performance-based formulas of conformity.

[Arthur Ruger]

What is the point of willing participation and attendance in the meetings, programs and social activities of the LDS Church if a dwelling in the Celestial Kingdom in the Eternal Presence of Our Father and Our Mother is not our ultimate aim?

So much of what is preached and publicized in the Church today consists of encouraging and sustaining a notion that we celebrate our membership by being anxiously engaged in the organizational busy-ness of performance-driven behavior.

Why would anyone invest all that emotional, physical and spiritual energy if not seeking and believing in the ultimate LDS Gold Medal symbol of victorious mortality?

If we move only a step or two away from the narrow vision we are given through that spiritual keyhole formal correlated dogma offers believers, might we then be able to ask ourselves if there is any other reason for being religious; for seeking positive personal piety and for desiring some sort of epiphany that gives a sense of belonging to and being loved by Heavenly Parents?

Why incorporate religious practice into one’s life at all if it is possible to figure out a way to be strongly compassionate and ethical in the way one lives without a crutch of organizationed religion?

The Golden Rule with it’s implied reciprocity of kind and sensitive interaction among human beings does not have the Bible or a specific religion as its source. Why would it not make sense to simplify one’s mode of being by merely relating to everyone else as you would like them to relate to you?

Why keep on showing up, singing the songs in community, bowing the heads in community prayer, sharing and bearing thoughts and testimonies in the communal manner? Is it not because such is the habitual way Mormons – particularly those Mormons with many years in harness – see themselves; religious children of a Creator who has actually revealed His existence and connection to humanity?

Do most Mormons know any other way to “be” a Christian believer than being Christian by striving to “be” a Christian Mormon in the “True-Church-iness” mindset of performance and worthiness?

Does the all-or-nothing way of being a Christian Mormon leave any room for something less than anxious engagement in earning promised rewards …

… because there is a law irrevocably decreed that confirms to Mormons that Heaven is a reward for a lifetime of planting and then harvesting crops of religious merit based on performance?

Why could we not learn to be Mormons who are content with trying to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, giving, honorable and all those things that don’t require attendance, witnesses, the name of Jesus Christ and “by-the-power of the priesthood?”

As I stated previously, when we participated with members of our Episcopal Parish we were not even one time exposed to sermonizing, preaching, teaching or exhortation on how to be good Episcopals;

On how to satisfy and please God based on our performance as faithful Episcopals:

On how glorious the Episcopal faith is because no other creed has the total truth of Episcopalianism …

None of that

… just things like the Sermon on the Mount, personal struggles with moral dilemmas, forgiveness, faith, hope and charity with no eye single to any particular glory.

That is the way I plan to not be a Christian Mormon but rather, a Mormon Christian.

That is why I will take my wife to Church for as long as we both desire the give and take of communal and community participation with mutual regard and affection.

That is why in my own way, I have insisted to our leaders and to my pioneer-heritage family that I do want to participate with my spiritual brothers and sisters, but with no eye single to helping them and being helped by them to pass by after-life sentinels on some uniquely monopolized truth path that will leave me above and beyond all those who chose not to be faithful.

Performance-driven religion is a score-keeping religion. Like tournament golfers, I suppose, individuals are encouraged to carry around mental personal scorecardds and make entries of their performance strokes and go to clubhouse meetings where on-going tournament results reflect the good strokes and bad strokes and where songs and lyrics are sung to the one true way to swing a golf club.

Mormons can be as performance-driven as the correlated Church exhorts them to be, but they do not have to do that if they don’t want to

… so long as they understand – or learn to understand – that literalness in belief is but one way … but not the One and Only True Way of being.

There is a caveat that comes with literalness in belief; a caveat perhaps that most non-critical-thinking believers have a hard time realizing. Whether based on critically studied and well-thought-out concepts or based on blind trust, believers to an astonishing degree live a religious life by pretending and then acting as if the myth and accompanying theology were true.

Having internalized – in many cases for decades going back to birth – it is precisely that pretension and activity that is part of an uncritical, almost mindless religiosity that rarely extends to other venues of 21st century living. In fact, other venues in which believers culturally and socially participate (think “Let’s go shopping!” “Who’s going to win?” “I’m going to vote for -.”) provide the basis for moralizing preaching and teaching week by week in LDS chapels.

Morality is not theology because it consists, as Alan Watts wrote, “of telling people how to behave.”

Focusing on morality – telling people how to behave – does not impact public or private thinking except as it relates to control of behavior and an inculcation of a belief in a merit-based gospel of performance. So long as the emphasis is on morality the emphasis is on control.

 

Preaching morality rather than the virtues of goodness – particularly the common good we all ought to be seeking – gives us mostly sermons and exhortations limited to issues that are defined entirely by judgmental thinking.

 

Judgmental thinking in a religious or spiritual context drags the positive and negative aspects of human behavior into moral areas where actions are governed out of a concern for reward or punishment and validation by our communal religious crowd.

 

Judgmental thinking has at its core the idea of worthiness based on reward and punishment. Reward-or-punishment teachings are tools of fear, shame and guilt and if ever used successfully, always result in the right things being done for the wrong reasons.

In our Church often do we not feel like one must lean toward if not actually feel one’s self as being righteously inclined, but unworthy? Do we not feel like were need the external hand up offered by the Church’s social participation program as a means of personal on-going atonement for our human frailty?

Does not such a felt need make it exceedingly difficult to attend and participate in a literal-minded mindset without feeling inadequate, guilty and to a degree unworthy of the perfection modeled by Heavenly Father, His Kept-Hidden Heavenly Wife and their totally perfect Son?

I might try to remind everyone I encounter in my non-Celestial-minded church participation that none of the doctrine, theology, performance-based judgmental standards are real or based on anything spiritual except the unsubstantiated testimonies of others.

However, in a culture that seems to insist that if a single soul testifies in public, a rigid and inflexible truth has been declared, a truth by which all those who hear the testimony will be judged, my reminder tends to be ignored out of ignorance, fear of apostasy or literal-minded convictions whose roots run deep within a psyche.

I believe that I share my own spiritual with emancipated and thinking cultural Mormons – and that includes the venerables and the not-so-venerable who have stopped the literal-thinking for the most part. Our self-conscious and suppressed pain and anger in meetings is among other things based on a fear, shame or guilt at being wrong, on offending a myriad of friends, family and acquaintances who might then be disappointed or condemning of our broken hearts.

It is that struggle that is much more important for our well being than worrying about the falsehood connected to that which we are exhorted to mindlessly conform.

But I am not going anywhere. As Bishop Wooley told Brigham Young, “If it were your church I might [leave it] but it is my church as much as it is yours.”

I am a cultural and heritage-based Mormon. I am also an heir to the religious-minded psyche that was nurtured out of my childhood and that served and informed a spiritual-mindedness that accompanied me out of the protected valleys of Rocky Mountain religion.

It seems that my Mormon way of seeing things – which is not a correlated Utah Church-based Mormonism – is part of my spiritual psyche. Even though none of the fantasy theology and cosmology is true for me, it is not that theology and cosmology that draws out my spiritual hunger and prompts me to go be with my own beloved kind of people.

I won’t share my secret rejection of the Celestial Kingdom notion with most of my beloved fellow Saints. That of course would not be appropriate as I have even less a mandate to proselyte or evangelize regarding error without being able to replace error with a worthwhile truth.

This is an almost irrevocable truth in life. If a way of being is working satisfactorily for a human being who has a conviction basis to that way, it is not ethical for me to say

“Although I cannot replace what you believe with the right stuff, what you are believing and doing is not only false, but wrong for you.”

To do so makes me as guilty of mindless and judgmental criticism as are those friends and loved ones who frustrate me most.

Christian Mormonism may be the natal language of my nurturing but I now through experience have learned to speak Mormon Christian … and there is a marked difference.

Mormon Christian is my language of spirit.

It is the language best suited for me even thought that suit must exclude a costume of conformity that I cannot wear.

[Arthur Ruger]

Thank you to each of you … have not been back since originally posting this.

I’m also an admin on the Facebook Site https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheVenerables/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheVenerables/ and do a lot of opining there.

We are caught up in planning and preparing for a trip to Idaho and Utah in two weeks … first time back home for me since 2004. We’re excited.

Thank you for your kind responses.

[Author]

Posts