Jump to content


Photo

Ezekial 37:15-17


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Bickendan

Bickendan

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 11 July 2005 - 12:40 AM

Discuss.

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 July 2005 - 01:32 AM

That they were so divided among themselves, too much of the old enmity between Judah and Ephriam remaining even in their captivity. But, as to this, by a sign of two sticks made one in the hand of the prophet is foreshown the happy coalition that should be, at their return, between the two nations of Israel and Judah. In this there was a type of the uniting of Jews and Gentiles, Jews and Samaritans, in Christ and his church. And so the prophet slides into a prediction of the kingdom of Christ, which should be set up in the world with God’s tabernacle in it, and of the glories and graces of that kingdom.

#3 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 July 2005 - 04:16 PM

The Mormons try to use this verse to claim that the Bible and the book of Mormon became one. But the Hebrew text does not support this at all. The Hebrew word used for stick (`ets), means literally, a stick! It does not mean books.

From Strongs: OT:6086
(ates); from OT:6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):
KJV - + carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

The answer to Ezekiel 37:15-17 comes a few verses later:

Ezek 37:22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again.

Ezekiel was prophesying the reuniting of the two nations, Judah and Israel, separated since the time of King Rehoboam.

I have a sincere question for Bickendan. The Mormons claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel (specifically, “Lamanites”, “the principal ancestors of the American Indians"). We now have DNA techniques to prove or disprove this claim. There was a group in Africa that claimed to be descendants of the Levites, and the claim was verified with great certainty:

http://partners.nyti...wish-genes.html

There are other examples I could provide. Shouldn’t it cause you some pause that your church will not allow itself to be subjected to such genetic testing? It could prove once and for all if this claim in the Book of Mormon is correct.

Fred

#4 Bickendan

Bickendan

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 12 July 2005 - 12:55 PM

The Mormons try to use this verse to claim that the Bible and the book of Mormon became one. But the Hebrew text does not support this at all. The Hebrew word used for stick (`ets), means literally, a stick! It does not mean books.

From Strongs: OT:6086
(ates); from OT:6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):
KJV - + carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.

Since I don't know Hebrew, I can't answer the above, although I had heard that wood tablets was a writing surface in those times. I can't back that up, however. But I tend to think of it more as a metaphore in my own interpretation.

The answer to Ezekiel 37:15-17 comes a few verses later:

Ezek 37:22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again.

Ezekiel was prophesying the reuniting of the two nations, Judah and Israel, separated since the time of King Rehoboam.

I have a sincere question for Bickendan. The Mormons claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel (specifically, “Lamanites”, “the principal ancestors of the American Indians"). We now have DNA techniques to prove or disprove this claim. There was a group in Africa that claimed to be descendants of the Levites, and the claim was verified with great certainty:

http://partners.nyti...wish-genes.html

Very interesting. We believe that the ten tribes were scattered throughout the earth; seems to me part of the Levite tribe was found. We also believe that they'll eventually all be reunited.

There are other examples I could provide. Shouldn’t it cause you some pause that your church will not allow itself to be subjected to such genetic testing? It could prove once and for all if this claim in the Book of Mormon is correct.

Fred

View Post

I don't imagine that the church has much to say about genetic testing, either way. Personally, I'd imagine that it'd have to be up to the various governments of Mesoamerica. The church, or rather archaeologists in the church, are interested in the Mayan ruins, however. The Mayan culture, from their understanding, seems to match well with the cultures of the Book of Mormon, namely the Nephites and Lamanites.

Bickendan

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2005 - 02:30 PM

(comes out of lurking) can someone clarify for me:

If the Mormons claim to be one of the lost tribes (First Mormons are of European decent), then how can they also claim to be related to American Indians (Asiatic). I feel I have missed some important point.

#6 Bickendan

Bickendan

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 12 July 2005 - 03:55 PM

(comes out of lurking) can someone clarify for me:

If the Mormons claim to be one of the lost tribes (First Mormons are of European decent), then how can they also claim to be related to American Indians (Asiatic).  I feel I have missed some important point.

View Post

The going theory in Mormon view is that the Mayans aren't East Asiatic decended. They (Nephites and Lamanites) came over from the Holy Land roughly 600 BC and the Jaredites some 2000 years before that.
Whereas the Asiatic Nomads that crossed the Bering Strait populated North America.
So in a sense, you have several native groups in America from different places.
As far as Mormons being one of the lost tribes, consider it being adopted into one of the tribes. The tribes most represented by the church membership is Ephraim and Mennasah. Once adopted into the tribe, the lineage continues.

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 13 July 2005 - 03:58 PM

The church, or rather archaeologists in the church, are interested in the Mayan ruins, however. The Mayan culture, from their understanding, seems to match well with the cultures of the Book of Mormon, namely the Nephites and Lamanites..


We should consider the history behind why they are doing this. They are essentially "reinventing" the history in the Book of Mormon, because apparently unbeknownst to many Mormons, scholars within the Mormon church have caved to the overwhelming lack of any evidence that the American Indians were direct descendants of the Israelites. That is why some of the LDS scholars are trying to shrink the geography to the Mayan region.

But there are major problems with the alleged Mayan connection, since there is also no evidence that the Mayans were descendants of Israel, all evidence points to an Asian decent. . The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith on unequivocally taught that American Indians were direct descendants of the Israelites - so to re-write this is to essentially deny the writings of these prophets. For example, in 1831 Smith wrote:

"…take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites (D&C 54:7-8)."

Southern Mexico is a long way from Missouri! :lol:

Much more information can be found here:
http://www.utlm.org/...3.htm#Phoenicia

I do stand corrected on something, as apparently I am a bit behind the times. Apparently some LDS scientists have tried to validate the Israelite connection through DNA, to no avail:

Because Mormonism and the Book of Mormon have faced stiff criticism from traditional Christian churches, leaders of the Mormon church initially expressed hope that genetic research might validate their beliefs.
___"The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical or morphological research," Murphy wrote in his academic paper titled "Lamanite Genesis, Geology and Genetics."
___The paper was published last fall in "American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon." Murphy also is a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington, where his dissertation work focuses on Mormon representations of Native Americans.
___Any hopes the LDS church had of gaining credence through science have been dashed, Murphy wrote in the essay. "So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. ... Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the Book of Mormon in genetics." - http://www.baptistst...es/mormons.html


Fred

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2005 - 07:52 PM

Thanks Bickendan , that cleared that up.



Some fascinating reading amongst those links Fred, Thanks.

I found this quote more than a little disturbing however.

Preaching in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in 1853, Brigham Young identified the Indians in Utah Territory as Lamanites:

Do you pray for Israel? You will no doubt answer in the affirmative. These Indians are the seed of Israel, through the loins of Joseph who was sold into Egypt; they are the children of Abraham, and belong to the chosen seed; were it not so, you would never have seen them with dark, red skins. This is in consequence of the curse that has been placed upon them, which never would have come upon them . . . had their fathers not violated the order of God . . . They are of the House of Israel . . . We are here in the mountains, with these Lamanites for our neighbors, . . . Never permit yourself to sleep in your houses until your doors are made perfectly secure, that the Indians cannot come in and kill you in your sleep. . . . Are you sure you have faith enough to control the ungovernable nature of the Lamanites, or subdue a Gentile mob? (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 106-107).


Cursed and given dark skin!
Demonising the Indians.

While one can easily overlook perceptions of the day, it’s still rings with a scary message.

#9 Bickendan

Bickendan

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 13 July 2005 - 11:50 PM

The church, or rather archaeologists in the church, are interested in the Mayan ruins, however. The Mayan culture, from their understanding, seems to match well with the cultures of the Book of Mormon, namely the Nephites and Lamanites..

We should consider the history behind why they are doing this. They are essentially "reinventing" the history in the Book of Mormon, because apparently unbeknownst to many Mormons, scholars within the Mormon church have caved to the overwhelming lack of any evidence that the American Indians were direct descendants of the Israelites. That is why some of the LDS scholars are trying to shrink the geography to the Mayan region.

But there are major problems with the alleged Mayan connection, since there is also no evidence that the Mayans were descendants of Israel, all evidence points to an Asian decent. . The problem is exacerbated by the fact that Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith on unequivocally taught that American Indians were direct descendants of the Israelites - so to re-write this is to essentially deny the writings of these prophets. For example, in 1831 Smith wrote:

"…take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites (D&C 54:7-8)."

Southern Mexico is a long way from Missouri! :)

Indeed. Consider, though, that the northern extents of the Aztec Empire probably reached the northern reaches of Mexico, so the borders of the Lamanites being near the land of Missouri, although still very far off, is an understandable claim for the time.

Also, a member in my ward served his mission in the Southwest amongst the Hopi and Navajo Indians. What struck him was that the Hopi had beliefs, stories and traditions that were very similar to those found in the Book of Mormon-- but they weren't as interested in the church as the Navajo were.

Much more information can be found here:
http://www.utlm.org/...3.htm#Phoenicia

I do stand corrected on something, as apparently I am a bit behind the times. Apparently some LDS scientists have tried to validate the Israelite connection through DNA, to no avail:

Because Mormonism and the Book of Mormon have faced stiff criticism from traditional Christian churches, leaders of the Mormon church initially expressed hope that genetic research might validate their beliefs.
___"The hope is that DNA research would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical or morphological research," Murphy wrote in his academic paper titled "Lamanite Genesis, Geology and Genetics."
___The paper was published last fall in "American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon." Murphy also is a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington, where his dissertation work focuses on Mormon representations of Native Americans.
___Any hopes the LDS church had of gaining credence through science have been dashed, Murphy wrote in the essay. "So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. ... Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the Book of Mormon in genetics." - http://www.baptistst...es/mormons.html

Fred

View Post

I think this is a 'time will tell' matter. I personally think that the geography of Guatemala and southeastern Mexico well matches the Book of Mormon.

Thanks Bickendan , that cleared that up.


No problem :)

Cursed and given dark skin!
Demonising the Indians.

While one can easily overlook perceptions of the day, it’s still rings with a scary message.


And now the view seems to be the opposite: These Lamanites, or rather, the natives of Central and South America, present the fastest growing area of the church. It's estimated that within 10 years, Spanish will be the predominant language in the church. Why is this such a fast growing area? I imagine that people less fortunate in life are possibly more willing to seek a church, but the Catholic Church is still large in the area. I think that the Book of Mormon rings true for people as a history of their kind, and this is what a missionary from my ward who's serving in Guatemala right now has said in a letter that his parents shared in the ward.

Whether these Lamanites are from Israel in Jeremiah's time remains to be seen (and I'm inclined to believe that they are). I will say with certainty, however, that they are from Asia-- Israel, afterall, is in Asia :lol:

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 14 July 2005 - 02:23 PM

I think this is a 'time will tell' matter. I personally think that the geography of Guatemala and southeastern Mexico well matches the Book of Mormon.

View Post


Well IMO that ‘time’ is here and now. You are balancing a geographic similarity against some pretty hard scientific evidence. Even without the knowledge of DNA, racial profiling would suggest that native Americans are of Asian decent, (I don’t think anyone could mistake an Asian for someone of Middle Eastern extraction).

What struck him was that the Hopi had beliefs, stories and traditions that were very similar to those found in the Book of Mormon


One should be careful in drawing conclusions like this. Interview enough tribes (assuming all have a different view of history) and eventually something will match in some way, coincidences abound and mathematically are certain. If you want to be clinical about this, develop a check list ‘for and against’, I would bet that evidence ‘for’ is no greater than random.
As an example one of the Hindu beliefs is the creation and destruction of the universe, not unlike the ‘cyclic big bang’ theory on a time scale that is one a scale far greater than other religions, are we to assume that the Hindu’s has some revealed knowledge about the big bang, or should we put it down to coincidence?




Fred Williams, 92g, or Admin3 One thing I forgot to ask about the article from the IIR. What in your opinion is the accuracy of that article, was it a fair interpretation or is the author biased? Just need to put the article in perspective, as it seem factual enough, but as this is not my area of expertises I would welcome your opinion/s.

#11 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 15 July 2005 - 08:21 AM

Thanks Bickendan , that cleared that up.
Some fascinating reading amongst those links Fred, Thanks.

I found this quote more than a little disturbing however.
Cursed and given dark skin!
Demonising the Indians.

While one can easily overlook perceptions of the day, it’s still rings with a scary message.

View Post


Many Christians claim Cham (Ham) was cursed in the same way with black skin. It is a ridiculous readig/interpretation of the curse. The curse was for S@xual impropriety.

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 July 2005 - 09:16 AM

Indeed. Consider, though, that the northern extents of the Aztec Empire probably reached the northern reaches of Mexico, so the borders of the Lamanites being near the land of Missouri, although still very far off, is an understandable claim for the time.


But that still does not help the problem, because it is very clear and unequivocal that Smith and later prophets were often referring to North American Indians! You then wrote something that ironically supports this claim, but I’m sure not as you intended:

Also, a member in my ward served his mission in the Southwest amongst the Hopi and Navajo Indians. What struck him was that the Hopi had beliefs, stories and traditions that were very similar to those found in the Book of Mormon-- but they weren't as interested in the church as the Navajo were.


So it seems clear to me you are implying that American Indians (Hopi/Navajo) are indeed Lamanites? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on one hand deny the Lamanites were American Indians, then on the other hand imply they are! The Mormons have long been convinced that American Indians are Lamanites, because this is precisely what the Book of Mormon and the prophets taught. Only in recent years, due to the overwhelming evidence against this idea, has the identity of the Lamanites shifted to the Mayans. Here are more examples:

Joseph Smith: In this important and interesting book [the Book of Mormon], the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages, to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. . . . The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Deseret Book, 1976, vol. 4, p. 537). -  http://www.utlm.org/...3.htm#Phoenicia


There are many more examples. Joseph Smith in plain language claimed the Lamanites were American Indians. I bet if you were to tell us what you were taught as a youth, you were taught this same thing. But now the Mormon church is changing their position because the original story proved to not be credible.

Mitochondrial DNA analysis requires no underpinning belief in any worldview to accept it. It is solid science, science that has already established beyond a reasonable doubt that several Jewish groups in Africa claiming to be descendants of the Jews, used successfully to prove the connection they had been proclaiming for years. The only group that makes a similar claim but failed this test were the Mormons.

But there are many more problems with the claims that the Mormon church represents the true Christian church. The problems run deep and far. Where the Bible has powerful evidence to support it is of divine origin (see my bibleevidences.com website) the Book of Mormon fails in many different areas, not just historical and archeological inaccuracies as we have been discussing here.

Since the topic has veered well away from the OP (it was my fault), I’ll open a new thread to open a discussion on whether or not Mormonism falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

#13 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 July 2005 - 09:18 AM

Fred Williams, 92g, or Admin3 One thing I forgot to ask about the article from the IIR.  What in your opinion is the accuracy of that article, was it a fair interpretation or is the author biased?  Just need to put the article in perspective, as it seem factual enough, but as this is not my area of expertises I would welcome your opinion/s.

View Post


Chance, due to a combination of laziness and denseness, I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding IIR.

Fred

#14 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 15 July 2005 - 09:20 AM

Many Christians claim Cham (Ham) was cursed in the same way with black skin. It is a ridiculous readig/interpretation of the curse. The curse was for S@xual impropriety.

View Post


Geezer's right, this is one of those unfortunate misinterpretations many self-described Christians in the past have made, (and some still make) regarding Ham. We have a thread covering what this passage really means in our 'Hidden Treasures of the Bible" section:

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=133

#15 Bickendan

Bickendan

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 16 July 2005 - 01:22 AM

But that still does not help the problem, because it is very clear and unequivocal that Smith and later prophets were often referring to North American Indians!  You then wrote something that ironically supports this claim, but I’m sure not as you intended:

So it seems clear to me you are implying that American Indians (Hopi/Navajo) are indeed Lamanites? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t on one hand deny the Lamanites were American Indians, then on the other hand imply they are! The Mormons have long been convinced that American Indians are Lamanites, because this is precisely what the Book of Mormon and the prophets taught. Only in recent years, due to the overwhelming evidence against this idea, has the identity of the Lamanites shifted to the Mayans. Here are more examples:

There are many more examples. Joseph Smith in plain language claimed the Lamanites were American Indians. I bet if you were to tell us what you were taught as a youth, you were taught this same thing.

I was. But at the same time, the descriptions of the land forms in the Book of Mormon didn't seem to work with North American geography. I've always been very fond of maps, and I couldn't place the Book of Mormon in North America for that: The city of Zarahemla was to be in a 'narrow neck of land seperating the lands of the north and south'; even when I was young, I thought that to be Panama. Looking at where the Mayans were concentrated and other descriptions of the Book of Mormon, Guatemala, Belize and southeastern Mexico work better. Also, regarding the Hopi and Navajo, the Book of Mormon closes around 400 AD; some migrations northward were mentioned in Alma or Mosiah, I believe (I'll have to reread it :rolleyes:).

But now the Mormon church is changing their position because the original story proved to not be credible.

I've heard the generic term 'Indian', which includes Central and South America. *shrugs*
As far as DNA is concerned, browse the links from this page: http://lds.org/newsr...1-18078,00.html.

Bick

#16 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2005 - 02:16 PM

Chance, due to a combination of laziness and denseness, I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding IIR.

Fred

View Post


Just trying to get a handle as to the scholastic content. I suspect one could find many criticisms of the Mormon church, but I personally would not be able to tell the better ones from poorer ones. So I just asked if in your opinion if you think the IIR have done an accurate assessment. Reasoning that yourself is quite knowledgeable in matters biblical and would immediately be able to pick holes in the argument, if any.

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2005 - 02:19 PM

As far as DNA is concerned, browse the links from this page: http://lds.org/newsr...1-18078,00.html.

Bick

View Post


There is a mountain of reading amongst those links within the link, can you summarise some of the main points?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users