"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo

leibowde84 · Apr 13, 2015

Why is it that when the creators of South Park ridicule the Mormon faith via a hit Broadway Musical, nothing much happens. No outcry from the Mormon community beyond some of them vowing not to watch it (reasonable response).

Then, some satirical cartoons about Muhammad (along with other religious figures) are published, and people are in uproar ... riots, protests, cold-blooded murder, claims that "Islam is under attack by secular society" (which is untrue in this instance, as CH commonly poked-fun at all religious identities ... they just hate organized religion in general).

What's the deal?! Why is the Mormon Church so much more reasonable than the international Islamic community. I mean, while not all Muslims should be connected to murderers who kill in the name of their religion, there were many who chose to protest the cartoons instead of ridiculing the sub-human monsters who murdered in cold-blood. It was almost as if many Muslims understood the frustration that caused the murderers to behave so immorally. Yet, when a very popular musical ridiculing the beliefs of Mormonism is played daily in NYC ... nothing happens.

Why are the Mormons so ready and willing to live and let live (except for homosexuals after the Amicus Brief today to the SCOTUS) when it comes to the freedom of expression, no matter how insulting that expression is, yet the idea is beyond much of the Islamic world. Again, do not put words into my mouth. I understand that many Muslims do not share the view that the protesters and rioters had ... and certainly I do not blame anyone for the murders except for the murderers themselves. But, the spirit of paranoia seems to be present in many Islamic communities, making it impossible for them to turn the other cheek when they see their religion mocked.

Skwim · Apr 13, 2015

My guess is that the Islamic community hasn't grasped the fact that the less one draws attention to something the less it will be noticed. In the case of the musical the Mormons did exactly the right thing. Give muslims a hundred years or so.

Tumah · Apr 13, 2015

Are you sure you want to use Mormons as the foil for Islamic reasonableness? Don't you think you should use something a bit more reasonable?

It's a joke! It's a joke! Dear G-d its a JOKE!! Don't shoot me!!! Heeeellll...

leibowde84 · Apr 13, 2015

Tumah said:
Are you sure you want to use Mormons as the foil for Islamic reasonableness? Don't you think you should use something a bit more reasonable?

It's a joke! It's a joke! Dear G-d its a JOKE!! Don't shoot me!!! Heeeellll...

I think it is perfectly reasonable. Looking at the "prophecies" that they attribute to Muhammad, I think Islam is equally as "far-fetched". And, their societal behavior is far superior.

Mycroft · Apr 13, 2015

I think it's largely because Mormonism finds its origins in America and feels, therefore, more relevant. What I'm most curious to know is why people feel Mormonism is any more legitimate as a religion than Scientology since both share similar origins.

leibowde84 · Apr 13, 2015

Quatermass said:
I think it's largely because Mormonism finds its origins in America and feels, therefore, more relevant. What I'm most curious to know is why people feel Mormonism is any more legitimate as a religion than Scientology since both share similar origins.

Scientology is an extremely evil, invasive, and threatening organization founded by a sociopath Sci-Fi writer who took advantage of susceptible youth. Mormonism seems pretty harmless.

While the beliefs might be the same, the treatment of Scientology is warranted, whereas the Mormons really don't hurt that many people.

Katzpur · Apr 13, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Scientology is an extremely evil, invasive, and threatening organization founded by a sociopath Sci-Fi writer who took advantage of susceptible youth. Mormonism seems pretty harmless.

While the beliefs might be the same, the treatment of Scientology is warranted, whereas the Mormons really don't hurt that many people.

Actually, the beliefs aren't even remotely the same. They couldn't be much more opposite.

leibowde84 · Apr 13, 2015

Katzpur said:
Actually, the beliefs aren't even remotely the same. They couldn't be much more opposite.

I actually would like to learn more about Mormonism. I was under the impression that there was some "sci-fi"-esque beliefs in Mormonism. Is that not true?

Aquitaine · Apr 13, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Why is it that when the creators of South Park ridicule the Mormon faith via a hit Broadway Musical, nothing much happens. No outcry from the Mormon community beyond some of them vowing not to watch it (reasonable response).

Then, some satirical cartoons about Muhammad (along with other religious figures) are published, and people are in uproar ... riots, protests, cold-blooded murder, claims that "Islam is under attack by secular society" (which is untrue in this instance, as CH commonly poked-fun at all religious identities ... they just hate organized religion in general).

What's the deal?! Why is the Mormon Church so much more reasonable than the international Islamic community. I mean, while not all Muslims should be connected to murderers who kill in the name of their religion, there were many who chose to protest the cartoons instead of ridiculing the sub-human monsters who murdered in cold-blood. It was almost as if many Muslims understood the frustration that caused the murderers to behave so immorally. Yet, when a very popular musical ridiculing the beliefs of Mormonism is played daily in NYC ... nothing happens.

Why are the Mormons so ready and willing to live and let live (except for homosexuals after the Amicus Brief today to the SCOTUS) when it comes to the freedom of expression, no matter how insulting that expression is, yet the idea is beyond much of the Islamic world. Again, do not put words into my mouth. I understand that many Muslims do not share the view that the protesters and rioters had ... and certainly I do not blame anyone for the murders except for the murderers themselves. But, the spirit of paranoia seems to be present in many Islamic communities, making it impossible for them to turn the other cheek when they see their religion mocked.

I think this is very relevant: WARNING NSFW:
No One Murdered Because Of This Image | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

All jokes aside, the article does ask a serious question: why has there been no potentially lethal backlash against said image - especially considering it offends four religions as opposed to just one?

Katzpur · Apr 13, 2015

leibowde84 said:
I actually would like to learn more about Mormonism.

Well, I'm sure that there are quite a number of posters here on RF who would vouch for me as a reliable source of information, and always willing to answer questions about my religion.

I was under the impression that there was some "sci-fi"-esque beliefs in Mormonism. Is that not true?

There are undoubtedly people on this forum who think so. In my opinion, those people don't really know anywhere near as much about Mormonism as they seem to think. I'd say that in most of these cases, their knowledge of Mormonism is pretty much on par with what you'd expect of people who rely on the National Enquirer for their news on current events. I guess the bottom line is that it really just depends upon what you believe qualifies as science fiction. If you believe it to be utter nonsense that a virgin gave birth to the Son of God, then you'll find equally outlandish beliefs in Mormonism. I would say that science fiction in Mormonism is right up there with science fiction in traditional Christianity, but that it definitely does not surpass it.

fantome profane · Apr 13, 2015

Katzpur said:
There are undoubtedly people on this forum who would say there are "sci-fi-esque" beliefs in Mormonism. In my opinion, those people don't really know as much about Mormonism as they would like everybody else to believe. I'd say that in many instances, their knowledge of Mormonism is pretty much on par with what you'd expect someone who gets most of his news on current events from the National Enquirer.

But what is true is that when the Bible was written people really didn't know what "planets" were, but when the book of Mormon was written science and science fiction had developed to a state where the idea of other planets had entered the general imagination.

Katzpur · Apr 13, 2015

fantome profane said:
But what is true is that when the Bible was written people really didn't know what "planets" were, but when the book of Mormon was written science and science fiction had developed to a state where the idea of other planets had entered the general imagination.

A few points: (1) We don't believe that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century. It is our belief that it's an ancient secular and religious history. (2) I'm not sure what you think "other planets" has to do with anything. The only verse in the Book of Mormon that even mentions planets is this: "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (3) There is nothing relating to science fiction in the belief that God created the planets -- except, of course, to those who don't believe in God at all, and to them, it's all science fiction.

Deadtroopers · Apr 23, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Why is it that when the creators of South Park ridicule the Mormon faith via a hit Broadway Musical, nothing much happens. No outcry from the Mormon community beyond some of them vowing not to watch it (reasonable response).

Then, some satirical cartoons about Muhammad (along with other religious figures) are published, and people are in uproar ... riots, protests, cold-blooded murder, claims that "Islam is under attack by secular society" (which is untrue in this instance, as CH commonly poked-fun at all religious identities ... they just hate organized religion in general).

What's the deal?! Why is the Mormon Church so much more reasonable than the international Islamic community. I mean, while not all Muslims should be connected to murderers who kill in the name of their religion, there were many who chose to protest the cartoons instead of ridiculing the sub-human monsters who murdered in cold-blood. It was almost as if many Muslims understood the frustration that caused the murderers to behave so immorally. Yet, when a very popular musical ridiculing the beliefs of Mormonism is played daily in NYC ... nothing happens.

Why are the Mormons so ready and willing to live and let live (except for homosexuals after the Amicus Brief today to the SCOTUS) when it comes to the freedom of expression, no matter how insulting that expression is, yet the idea is beyond much of the Islamic world. Again, do not put words into my mouth. I understand that many Muslims do not share the view that the protesters and rioters had ... and certainly I do not blame anyone for the murders except for the murderers themselves. But, the spirit of paranoia seems to be present in many Islamic communities, making it impossible for them to turn the other cheek when they see their religion mocked.

Part of the reason is that, like the Anabaptists before them, they had the Shouty, Stabby kicked out of them by other Christians with more and bigger guns. Americans forget that The War on Terror tm isn't the first time the US Army has been called on to deal with this sort of crap. The fate of Deseret and the Nauvoo Legion will fall on IS and the Martyrs a hundred-fold.

Norman · Apr 23, 2015

leibowde84 said:
I actually would like to learn more about Mormonism. I was under the impression that there was some "sci-fi"-esque beliefs in Mormonism. Is that not true?

Norman: Hi leibowde84, If you really want to know more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? For the best experience I suggest having official representatives from our Church visit you. Just go to Mormon.org | What is the Mormon Church and Religion? and under the “I Want To” section, click on Meet with the Missionaries | Mormon.org and fill out the card “Request Missionary Visit.”

Under “What to expect” You will be contacted within two to three days. Male or female missionaries can meet with you in your home where you’ll probably be most comfortable, or, if you prefer, in one of our chapels or some other public place. A typical visit lasts about 45 minutes, though it can be shortened according to your schedule. The missionaries will introduce our basic beliefs—such as faith, repentance and obedience to God’s commandments - and discuss any other questions you have about the Church or about religion or life in general. These get-togethers are very casual. You won’t be asked to buy anything or make a donation, only to learn more about the Church that means so much to us.

If the things the missionaries share are interesting and meaningful to you, you can set up another appointment to discuss them in more depth and learn more. They can give you a Book of Mormon and accompany you to church meetings so that you can see for yourself what our faith is about. I know you will have a wonderful experience leibowde84, there will be no pressure put on you just a comfortable visit.

Source:

Mormon.org | What is the Mormon Church and Religion?

Deadtroopers · Apr 23, 2015

Katzpur said:
A few points: (1) We don't believe that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century. It is our belief that it's an ancient secular and religious history. (2) I'm not sure what you think "other planets" has to do with anything. The only verse in the Book of Mormon that even mentions planets is this: "The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (3) There is nothing relating to science fiction in the belief that God created the planets -- except, of course, to those who don't believe in God at all, and to them, it's all science fiction.

God was an ordinary man on another world who became a God. You are all going to become Gods and get your own planets. Bonkers but no more bonkers than any other religion. There is a Mrs God and Joe made the leap that Jesus couldn't just do half a dozen gigs in Jerusalem and Galilee; he had to tour in other times and places. Those are steps up from other most other Churches identifying as Christian. Just as the later Jesus myth of the Christians crops up almost fully formed in Philo of Alexandria's work, Smith's oeuvre is presaged in "View of the Hebrews", published seven years earlier and known to have been available just down the road. A lot of the place names in his Other Testament are very similar to and can be mapped onto the surrounding geography with little difficulty. The thing is written in cod KJV-speak. It can all be accounted for more plausibly by a long chalk by the all-to-familiar. All religions that we can investigate in history share a basic similarity in origin. They might have made sense in their time and place and in the ignorance and delusion of the original cultists; but they sure make no sense now in the cold light of reality and human reason. None of the current "thinkers" of the various Abrahamic religions and associated syncreticisms have anything coherent to say as to why there should be a Creation in the first place; why their various interpretations of God should get it so awfully wrong that God should start killing God's kids to put it right; and why there should be such (a)convuluted "Plan(s) of Redemption tm" to tie it all up in a bow. "Fiat Lux!" are almost the first words of this God and then we have 6019 years of "Fiat Cinquecento" (appallingly built Italian car of yesteryear that often fell apart before you had paid for it)? In the words of the song "You're Unbelievable".

I am not attacking you by the way; you seem like a nice person and from what I have read before quite cogent and reasonable. I am merely astonished that you are drawn to such laugh-out-loud wibble. I would riposte St Anselm and you with "ratiō quaerens intellectum"; Reason seeking Understanding. As with Serenity7855, you have me scratching my head. Apologies if I have misunderstood LDS in anyway or it's entirety. I am open to correction.

amorphous_constellation · Apr 24, 2015

leibowde84 said:
Why are the Mormons so ready and willing to live and let live (except for homosexuals after the Amicus Brief today to the SCOTUS) when it comes to the freedom of expression, no matter how insulting that expression is, yet the idea is beyond much of the Islamic world.

Skwim said:
My guess is that the Islamic community hasn't grasped the fact that the less one draws attention to something the less it will be noticed. In the case of the musical the Mormons did exactly the right thing. Give muslims a hundred years or so.

Well, there a few things that are working into this. Number one is the liberal perception, the liberal stance on how to deal with this. 2nd is the history of Christianity and how we reflect upon that, and along with that some Western foibles - all this goes in-between the eye and the lens when it comes to viewing the Islamic world.

Now part of the liberal's view is that time might do it, I think. That and the injection of modernity, an immersion in things like the internet and freedom of expression, all of this coming to them more and more for them to either clash against or accept. Liberals believe that once the door is open the light will be so blinding that they too will soon be voting for all those freedoms we've been long planting. After all, that's kind of the way it's went down for us as it relates to Christianity.

And so moving on to my 2nd point, Christianity is seen as having been obliterated. What medieval pope would tolerate pagan hippies, gay marriage, and freedom of speech? None. But how exactly did the bite get taken out of Christianity? Well, people got educated about it - over time they understood that it wasn't a religion that was good for war, that the OT doesn't really mix with the NT, that you can't really combine the warring of the OT with the gospel of NT - because once they could read they understood that the NT says things more along the line of 'turn the other cheek.'

So what they were doing was taking the gospel and promoting the Old Testament rules as something to preach with. Little did they know that even by the time of Christ, Jews didn't take all of that literally and evangelize or make wars with it, they had a far more intricate way of understanding those old stories with their oral tradition and debate so as to make it something you're supposed to give a lot more thought. Christianity was the breakaway thing that showed irreverence to that, but that's another thread.

So now turning back to the Islamic world, we see it more through how we now understand our historical interaction with the Christian world, the crux of which I tried to elucidate above. Another example might be the one between the Romans and the Northern tribal peoples like the Goths or the Celts. Now, the Barbarians did contribute to the fall of Rome, but study what Rome tried to do in that long struggle. They tried to make them into Romans - archeology shows the layout of Roman style cities, money was introduced as well as customs. Well, the Pagan/nominally Christian Barbarians had more war in them, and they won out and sacked Rome and we entered the dark ages.

So now when modern Rome sees an adversary in peoples whose way of life they disagree with, what is going to happen? Well, if history teaches us anything, the force with more of a will wins out. I doesn't matter if Rome has the phalanx or extreme discipline and uniformity, time and time again that strategy failed against a little bit of cunning. The more liberal a society (and ancient Rome even for its sins had more of liberal tinge than the others) the less prepared to truly defend itself it appears to be. So after the fall of ancient Rome, the Barbarians had their 1000 year dark age. Well, they came out of that crucible a great and wonderful liberal people who loves science and freedom. So the only way out is within. That is the conclusion - that time will do it, but it may be yet a very long time - for it took this long for us, and we can't have greater expectations for anyone else.

Skwim · Apr 24, 2015

ideogenous_mover said:
Well, there a few things that are working into this. Number one is the liberal perception, the liberal stance on how to deal with this.

Now part of the liberal's view is that time might do it, I think. That and the injection of modernity, an immersion in things like the internet and freedom of expression, all of this coming to them more and more for them to either clash against or accept. Liberals believe that once the door is open the light will be so blinding that they too will soon be voting for all those freedoms we've been long planting. After all, that's kind of the way it's went down for us as it relates to Christianity.

I know all the words here are English, but do you even know what you're trying to say here? I sure don't.

gsa · Apr 24, 2015

Deadtroopers said:
God was an ordinary man on another world who became a God. You are all going to become Gods and get your own planets. Bonkers but no more bonkers than any other religion. There is a Mrs God and Joe made the leap that Jesus couldn't just do half a dozen gigs in Jerusalem and Galilee; he had to tour in other times and places. Those are steps up from other most other Churches identifying as Christian. Just as the later Jesus myth of the Christians crops up almost fully formed in Philo of Alexandria's work, Smith's oeuvre is presaged in "View of the Hebrews", published seven years earlier and known to have been available just down the road. A lot of the place names in his Other Testament are very similar to and can be mapped onto the surrounding geography with little difficulty. The thing is written in cod KJV-speak. It can all be accounted for more plausibly by a long chalk by the all-to-familiar. All religions that we can investigate in history share a basic similarity in origin. They might have made sense in their time and place and in the ignorance and delusion of the original cultists; but they sure make no sense now in the cold light of reality and human reason. None of the current "thinkers" of the various Abrahamic religions and associated syncreticisms have anything coherent to say as to why there should be a Creation in the first place; why their various interpretations of God should get it so awfully wrong that God should start killing God's kids to put it right; and why there should be such (a)convuluted "Plan(s) of Redemption tm" to tie it all up in a bow. "Fiat Lux!" are almost the first words of this God and then we have 6019 years of "Fiat Cinquecento" (appallingly built Italian car of yesteryear that often fell apart before you had paid for it)? In the words of the song "You're Unbelievable".

I am not attacking you by the way; you seem like a nice person and from what I have read before quite cogent and reasonable. I am merely astonished that you are drawn to such laugh-out-loud wibble. I would riposte St Anselm and you with
"ratiō quaerens intellectum"; Reason seeking Understanding. As with Serenity7855, you have me scratching my head. Apologies if I have misunderstood LDS in anyway or it's entirety. I am open to correction.

One possible correction: Not so sure that you are guaranteed similar real estate (i.e., your own planet to implement your own plan of salvation). That doctrine , should it exist, appears about as shielded as the gnostic teachings of the Alawites, and perhaps as esoteric. The doctrine of exaltation is downplayed and presented as a rough analog of Orthodox Christianity's "theosis" doctrine. Given the missionary zeal of the LDS and their desire to be considered actual Christians, the avoidance is understandable, if that is what it is. It also helps explain the relative unwillingness to discuss "heavenly mother" and her role as a god(dess).

The rich irony of course is that the Book of Mormon accounts are about as historical as, say, the Book of Joshua, and just as morally abhorrent. Yet that book is cherished by the very people who classify the LDS as heretics and scoundrels. Who was it who said that history may not repeat, but it rhymes? And I can't help but notice the similar cultic origins of Islam and Mormonism, given their respective prophets' encounters with divine writings, angels and of course their...tastes. Of course, L. Ron seemed to be a little more transparent about all of this, perhaps explaining the dismal state of Scientology. It may also be that timing is everything.

amorphous_constellation · Apr 24, 2015

Skwim said:
I know all the words here are English, but do you even know what you're trying to say here? I sure don't.

Yeah, I think I know what I was going for, but maybe it didn't come across like it should. In that case, you can ask me what I mean by any part of it if you'd like. I thought I was being clear enough.... though I know the ideas are compacted so as to avoid writing a book in this case.

Deadtroopers · Apr 24, 2015

ideogenous_mover said:
Well, there a few things that are working into this. Number one is the liberal perception, the liberal stance on how to deal with this. 2nd is the history of Christianity and how we reflect upon that, and along with that some Western foibles - all this goes in-between the eye and the lens when it comes to viewing the Islamic world.

Now part of the liberal's view is that time might do it, I think. That and the injection of modernity, an immersion in things like the internet and freedom of expression, all of this coming to them more and more for them to either clash against or accept. Liberals believe that once the door is open the light will be so blinding that they too will soon be voting for all those freedoms we've been long planting. After all, that's kind of the way it's went down for us as it relates to Christianity.

And so moving on to my 2nd point, Christianity is seen as having been obliterated. What medieval pope would tolerate pagan hippies, gay marriage, and freedom of speech? None. But how exactly did the bite get taken out of Christianity? Well, people got educated about it - over time they understood that it wasn't a religion that was good for war, that the OT doesn't really mix with the NT, that you can't really combine the warring of the OT with the gospel of NT - because once they could read they understood that the NT says things more along the line of 'turn the other cheek.'

So what they were doing was taking the gospel and promoting the Old Testament rules as something to preach with. Little did they know that even by the time of Christ, Jews didn't take all of that literally and evangelize or make wars with it, they had a far more intricate way of understanding those old stories with their oral tradition and debate so as to make it something you're supposed to give a lot more thought. Christianity was the breakaway thing that showed irreverence to that, but that's another thread.

So now turning back to the Islamic world, we see it more through how we now understand our historical interaction with the Christian world, the crux of which I tried to elucidate above. Another example might be the one between the Romans and the Northern tribal peoples like the Goths or the Celts. Now, the Barbarians did contribute to the fall of Rome, but study what Rome tried to do in that long struggle. They tried to make them into Romans - archeology shows the layout of Roman style cities, money was introduced as well as customs. Well, the Pagan/nominally Christian Barbarians had more war in them, and they won out and sacked Rome and we entered the dark ages.

So now when modern Rome sees an adversary in peoples whose way of life they disagree with, what is going to happen? Well, if history teaches us anything, the force with more of a will wins out. I doesn't matter if Rome has the phalanx or extreme discipline and uniformity, time and time again that strategy failed against a little bit of cunning. The more liberal a society (and ancient Rome even for its sins had more of liberal tinge than the others) the less prepared to truly defend itself it appears to be. So after the fall of ancient Rome, the Barbarians had their 1000 year dark age. Well, they came out of that crucible a great and wonderful liberal people who loves science and freedom. So the only way out is within. That is the conclusion - that time will do it, but it may be yet a very long time - for it took this long for us, and we can't have greater expectations for anyone else.

The Jews had the Shouty Stabby tm killed out of them by the Romans in three near-genocidal wars the Jewish, Khito, and Bar Kokhva Wars. Similarly for the Christians of North-West and Central Europe in the Reformation and Wars of Religion. We, the English that is, were also able to export the more pernicious of our religous bigots to what is now the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, where they continue to cause trouble to this day. The North American Amish and Memnonite communities are what survived and emigrated of the Anabaptist communities that were winnowed by other Protestants less extreme and violent; but with more and bigger guns. Rather than Saved in the Blood of the Lamb, Christendom was bathed and saved in the blood of wolves. The gore was a neccessary precusor to the Enlightenment, the Triumph of Reason in Western Europe and the birth of Modern, that is to say Western European, Civilisation.

If you bother to actually look, most of those 'babarians' actually wanted in on the benefits of Roman 'civilisation'. Oadacer, and Theodoric after him, actually maintained the Late Roman state, complete with Senate and Consuls. Nearly all the successor states maintained Roman law alongside Gothic and Frankish law and it was the Roman law which largely won out. The only place this didn't happen was Britain, the so-called Romanised British kicked the civilian Imperial bureaucrats out in disgust after Constantius 'III' decamped with most of the field army before before the bulk of my 'barbarian' forefathers beached their keels. A minority were already there as foederatii - part of the Roman army.

What Rome abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.
(With apologies to A.E. Houseman)

It was the Roman aristocracy; military and civilian; having far more war in them than they knew what to do with that did for the Empire. That goes both for East and West. Did you get that? "having far more war in them than they knew what to do with..." Doesn't that bring another "civilised" Western Empire to mind, struggling also with hate-filled "Christians" who want to wag the dog?

"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ministry of Serendipity

Veteran Member

Not your average Mormon

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Not your average Mormon

Member

Defender of Truth

Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member