endowment question

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

dingobex wrote:

So I’ve begun taking endowment classes with my bishop (i live to far away for formal classes) Originally when i went to speak to my bishop about the temple i just wanted a recommend but somehow that turned into endowment classes, which i was fine with at the time but now i’m starting worry. To be perfectly honest i’m not sure i want to take out my endowments atm. It feels like a massive commitment and i take commitment and integrity very seriously.

It’s little things that have me worried for one the word damnation keeps coming up in classes, now perhaps because of the cultural gap between my bishop and myself the word damnation means something different but i highly doubt it, as it’s written in D&C. When i think of the word damnation from a theological point of view i think of condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin. So when my bishop talks about someone going into the temple unprepared or without first confessing all of his sins as bringing damnation upon himself, and consequently someone who doesn’t live their endowment with exactness for example not wearing their temple garments 100% of the time, except for sports and bathing, as also bringing damnation upon themselves.

That kind of catastrophizing makes me feel physically sick to my stomach. I can understand walking into the temple with sin as being a serious sin, but honestly who decides what serious sin is, that seems to change between bishops. If your bishop is a letter of the law kinda guy he will stick to the stock standard but what about those sins not expressly mentioned but have become socially classified as serious.

One of my dear friends is a ex mo and he and i often have debates about this kind of thing, and up until now i really didn’t care but now that the bishop keeps using the word damnation i find myself thinking about what my friend has said. My friend uses the example of masturbation, depending on which bishop you get, it can be seen as completely natural and normal or demonic and leading to homosexuality.

I’m beginning to see why so many Mormons seem to hate themselves, their riddled with the kinda guilt we only think the Catholics have.

And don’t even get me started on the temple garments, i personally dislike someone dictating to me what i have to wear to bed and thus how comfortable i will be. I have extremely sensitive skin, i am not wearing anything except what i absolutely have to, to bed. Nor am i wearing anything under my clothes on a “sickeningly” hot boiling day here in OZ. Hell as fair as i’m concerned once the temp goes above 95f/35c i reserve the right to wear singlets, short, shorts and skirts. If i want to show my legs an inch above the knee on a summers day, i bloody well will!!!! and i refuse to let my body be sexualised, i don’t sexualize men, so don’t sexualize me.

Shoulders and knees are not sexual to anyone except a pervert. and all of that brings me back to going into the temple unprepared, or in my case unprepared and unwilling to live the law of garments with exactness. To say that i would be damning myself makes me feel sick and disgusted, and certainly not comfortable making such a lifelong and strong commitment.

Not to mention the new changes to church policy, which i understand the justification the church gave and would support it, except that by labeling homosexuality as apostasy you’ve condemned those who make the change from ‘SSA’ to ‘Homosexuality’ to a life of shunning and excommunication from their families and loved ones. The Church says they don’t teach shunning but the doctrine strictly says to shun apostates and the definition of apostasy seems all to arbitrary amoungst some members let alone the actual impact of the church itself labeling you an apostate.

It’s all just feeling a bit passive aggressive, controlling and manipulating at the moment and whole too much like my old religion which is making me feel sick to my stomach.

When I read all this, I don’t think you should do it — the consequences and threat of damnation bother you. You don’t want to wear garments, and the new church policy has you disillusioned with the church.

Are you single? The endowment also heightens penalties if you make a mistake. If you are an unendowed person, the consequences are less severe if you make a mistake. And of course, sexual activity is one of the biggest problems unmarried people face.

I’d wait and try to find a gentle way out of this situation. You can go on the “I don’t have any deeds to confess, and feel worthy based on what I’ve been taught, but the commitment scares me”. Leave it at that and don’t give any more information.

I am unmarried but at 32 I’ve long since found I can cope with celibacy but I understand what you mean. What worries me the most is the inconsistent and often subjective definition of what constitutes sin. I don’t want to live my life in fear of this kind of failure and as it stands it feels heavily geared towards failure. Based on what my bishop has taught me, I feel like the endowments would be impossible to live up to. If not wearing both peices of my garments 100% of the time is enough to damn me what other ‘petty’ and ‘invalidating’ conditions might there be. I have serious health issues that have me worried about wearing the garments in summer, I don’t want to make myself sick but I don’t want to live in fear and guilt either of not wearing them in summer.

I did ask my bishop and he said under those circumstances it would be upto my personal choice and discretion but I worry he’s watering it down to ‘convert’ me like when my stake president told me tithing was only 10% of my surplus income but my bishop later corrected me to 10% of my gross income.

That misrepresentation didn’t sit well with me and I worry my bishop is white washing this down for the same purpose but ultimately leading me to failure and damnation.

I hope that all makes sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

dingobex wrote:

To be perfectly honest i’m not sure i want to take out my endowments atm. It feels like a massive commitment and i take commitment and integrity very seriously. It’s little things that have me worried for one the word damnation keeps coming up in classes, now perhaps because of the cultural gap between my bishop and myself the word damnation means something different but i highly doubt it, as it’s written in D&C. When i think of the word damnation from a theological point of view i think of condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin. So when my bishop talks about someone going into the temple unprepared or without first confessing all of his sins as bringing damnation upon himself, and consequently someone who doesn’t live their endowment with exactness for example not wearing their temple garments 100% of the time, except for sports and bathing, as also bringing damnation upon themselves.

In the past I’ve felt this way as well, that the temple really upped the ante when it came to righteous living. I reached the point where I developed scrupulosity, I never felt comfortable in my own skin. Never.

Here’s the thing though… if the temple really does work that way, upping the ante on potential punishments, then the temple would ultimately be a damning experience for everyone. Everyone sins after going to the temple. Everyone. Big sins, small sins, some as big as your head, *and bigger* (to borrow from “I’ve Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts” :crazy: ). I don’t believe the purpose of the temple was to damn people, I believe it was to bless people.

I also compare it to becoming a parent. If you wait around until you are skilled enough to be a perfect parent before you have your first child you will never have children. Parental skills can be developed before having children but it’s difficult. I think everyone ends up becoming a parent before they are truly ready but over time they grow into the role. Even then no one ever becomes a perfect parent.

The endowment could work similarly. The endowment alone isn’t like a light switch where our nature changes in an instant. For the most part the same person that enters the temple is the same person that leaves. In the temple we receive a role that we spend a lifetime growing into. If we had to wait until we have already grown into the role before going to the temple we’ll never end up going. Even the people that receive their endowment never “arrive” in this lifetime.

And for the record I don’t view receiving the endowment or becoming a parent as essential. I just think this whole “damnation” business was never the intent of the endowment. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I agree with the other comments, that given your feelings if I were you I wouldn’t go, but it sounds like you’ve already made that decision. I’m not a big fan of the model where we push ordinances on people or how ordinances are tied to social promotion. I believe the scriptures lay out an “ask and ye shall receive” model, where someone receives something when they start to show interest (where interest is what qualifies someone as being ready). Often in church I see a “Here, take it. Take it!” model, where someone receives something at a predetermined age whether they ask for it or not. For the most part the endowment is a little better in that regard but it can become another ordinance on autopilot when getting married, going on a mission, or as a reactivation carrot.

Thank you! This makes me feel a lot better

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

TataniaAvalon wrote:

Fwiw on the garments you covenant to wear them the rest of your days and not 100% of the time minus bathing and sports. So if you don’t feel comfortable wearing them in bed. … don’t. It’s us humans who like rules and laws that say 100% of the time. That’s pharisee thinking and it drives me nuts. On the whole damnation thing we’re not prefect we can’t be perfect that’s what the atonement is for, seems like your bishop has forgotten that. I’d agree with everyone else, tell him you’ve thought and prayed about it and you don’t feel like it’s time. You may get some pressure to go but stick with your no.

“The rest of your days” completely changes the context for me and takes the pressure off. So why then does the endowment teaching manual say to wear them at all times except showering and sports etc…. “the rest of your days” implies to me that they should be worn when reasonably possible and as often as possible but doesn’t enforce time or circumstance. For example under that definition I might choose bot to wear them if they would show under my clothing but I would however put them straight back on when in more comfortable clothing later that day etc….

Am I wrong?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

dingobex wrote:

I am unmarried but at 32 I’ve long since found I can cope with celibacy but I understand what you mean. What worries me the most is the inconsistent and often subjective definition of what constitutes sin. I don’t want to live my life in fear of this kind of failure and as it stands it feels heavily geared towards failure. Based on what my bishop has taught me, I feel like the endowments would be impossible to live up to. If not wearing both peices of my garments 100% of the time is enough to damn me what other ‘petty’ and ‘invalidating’ conditions might there be. I have serious health issues that have me worried about wearing the garments in summer, I don’t want to make myself sick but I don’t want to live in fear and guilt either of not wearing them in summer.

I did ask my bishop and he said under those circumstances it would be upto my personal choice and discretion but I worry he’s watering it down to ‘convert’ me like when my stake president told me tithing was only 10% of my surplus income but my bishop later corrected me to 10% of my gross income.

That misrepresentation didn’t sit well with me and I worry my bishop is white washing this down for the same purpose but ultimately leading me to failure and damnation.

I hope that all makes sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

There is no covenant associated with the garment. The instruction is to “wear the garment throughout your life and not defile it”. During a recommend interview there are instructions sometimes given about wearing but as far as the temple is concerned it’s what I mentioned. Where and when is up to you and if you need a quote from Pres. McKay to a letter from a sister about sunbathing in a book I have about development of temple worship, I’ll try and find it for you. Personally I don’t sleep in my garments and recently passed my recommend interview with a clear conscience.

[Anonymous]

The actual initiatory and the culture that has grown up around it are very different.

There is no covenant in the initiatory. There simply is a statement that the garment is to be worn throughout your life and a promise that you will receive strength and protection if you don’t defile it.

All of the details outside the temple are people attaching conditions to what it means to weAr it throughout your life and what it means to them to not defile it. I know some people who don’t wear the garment in hot weather when they are involved in activities that cause them to sweat heavily, specifically because they feel like doing so defiles the garment. I know others who view sleeping naked at times as extended foreplay, so they don’t wear the garment at those times. How you define those phrases is completely up to you.

[Anonymous]

dingobex wrote:

“The rest of your days” completely changes the context for me and takes the pressure off. So why then does the endowment teaching manual say to wear them at all times except showering and sports etc…. “the rest of your days” implies to me that they should be worn when reasonably possible and as often as possible but doesn’t enforce time or circumstance. For example under that definition I might choose bot to wear them if they would show under my clothing but I would however put them straight back on when in more comfortable clothing later that day etc…. Am I wrong?

Here is what I pulled from the manual:

Quote:

4. Each person should understand the importance of wearing the temple garment.

Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior” (First Presidency letter, 10 Oct. 1988).

Technically, we never “covenant” or promise to wear the garment but we are instructed in the temple to do so “throughout [our] lives.” So the garment serves as an important reminder of the covenants made and not a covenant in and of itself. Unfortunately there are many people who will not notice the difference and may judge you if they notice that you are not wearing for an occasion when they themselves would have worn it.

Next the letter states, “This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …” Notice the passive voice. Who made this interpretation? Is it cultural? When did it come into common practice among the LDS? (Hint – the garment has changed over time both in physical appearance and in the times in which it has been worn)

Quote:

There are some who would welcome a detailed dress code answering every conceivable question about the wearing of the temple garment. They would have priesthood leaders legislate lengths, specify conditions of when and how it should and should not be worn, and impose penalties upon those who missed the mark by a fraction of an inch. Such individuals would have Church members strain at a thread and omit the weightier matters of the gospel of Jesus Christ (see Matt. 23:23–26).

Most Latter-day Saints, however, rejoice over the moral agency extended them by a loving Father in Heaven. They prize highly the trust placed in them by the Lord and Church leaders—a trust implied in this statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

In my opinion, there are two aspects to garment wearing: 1) the private and personal aspect between you and God and 2) the outward marking that serves as a group identifier for all the other members in the group.

If you are going to the temple to move up the social ladder into the “in crowd” in your LDS community – then wearing the garment according to accepted norms is super important. This is not as bad as it sounds. We all do things to be accepted by our community.

If the wearing of the garment has special meaning between you and God then wear it as your conscience and reason dictate. Period. Remember that it is “an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.” It is a symbol, not unlike a CTR ring, young women’s medallion, cross necklace, or “What would Jesus do?” bracelet. It is the inward commitment and not the specific form of the outward expression that matters. Just be prepared for some people that should know better to criticize if your conscience and reason about how to wear the garment do not dictate the same thing as theirs.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

dingobex wrote:

I am unmarried but at 32 I’ve long since found I can cope with celibacy but I understand what you mean. What worries me the most is the inconsistent and often subjective definition of what constitutes sin. I don’t want to live my life in fear of this kind of failure and as it stands it feels heavily geared towards failure. Based on what my bishop has taught me, I feel like the endowments would be impossible to live up to. If not wearing both peices of my garments 100% of the time is enough to damn me what other ‘petty’ and ‘invalidating’ conditions might there be. I have serious health issues that have me worried about wearing the garments in summer, I don’t want to make myself sick but I don’t want to live in fear and guilt either of not wearing them in summer.

I did ask my bishop and he said under those circumstances it would be upto my personal choice and discretion but I worry he’s watering it down to ‘convert’ me like when my stake president told me tithing was only 10% of my surplus income but my bishop later corrected me to 10% of my gross income.

That misrepresentation didn’t sit well with me and I worry my bishop is white washing this down for the same purpose but ultimately leading me to failure and damnation.

I hope that all makes sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

There is no covenant associated with the garment. The instruction is to “wear the garment throughout your life and not defile it”. During a recommend interview there are instructions sometimes given about wearing but as far as the temple is concerned it’s what I mentioned. Where and when is up to you and if you need a quote from Pres. McKay to a letter from a sister about sunbathing in a book I have about development of temple worship, I’ll try and find it for you. Personally I don’t sleep in my garments and recently passed my recommend interview with a clear conscience.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Knowing this makes me feel so much better. I was feeling like taking my endowments was tantamount to signing a damnation contract as the covenants were sounding unatainable and extremist.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The actual initiatory and the culture that has grown up around it are very different.

There is no covenant in the initiatory. There simply is a statement that the garment is to be worn throughout your life and a promise that you will receive strength and protection if you don’t defile it.

All of the details outside the temple are people attaching conditions to what it means to weAr it throughout your life and what it means to them to not defile it. I know some people who don’t wear the garment in hot weather when they are involved in activities that cause them to sweat heavily, specifically because they feel like doing so defiles the garment. I know others who view sleeping naked at times as extended foreplay, so they don’t wear the garment at those times. How you define those phrases is completely up to you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Knowing this makes me feel so much better. I was feeling like taking my endowments was tantamount to signing a damnation contract as the covenants were sounding unatainable and extremist.

That being said my bishop read straight from the teachers manual “must be worn at all times” except for bathing and sports. That to me sounds like the church has the expectation otherwise why teach it?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

dingobex wrote:

“The rest of your days” completely changes the context for me and takes the pressure off. So why then does the endowment teaching manual say to wear them at all times except showering and sports etc…. “the rest of your days” implies to me that they should be worn when reasonably possible and as often as possible but doesn’t enforce time or circumstance. For example under that definition I might choose bot to wear them if they would show under my clothing but I would however put them straight back on when in more comfortable clothing later that day etc…. Am I wrong?

Here is what I pulled from the manual:

Quote:

4. Each person should understand the importance of wearing the temple garment.

Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior” (First Presidency letter, 10 Oct. 1988).

Technically, we never “covenant” or promise to wear the garment but we are instructed in the temple to do so “throughout [our] lives.” So the garment serves as an important reminder of the covenants made and not a covenant in and of itself. Unfortunately there are many people who will not notice the difference and may judge you if they notice that you are not wearing for an occasion when they themselves would have worn it.

Next the letter states, “This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …” Notice the passive voice. Who made this interpretation? Is it cultural? When did it come into common practice among the LDS? (Hint – the garment has changed over time both in physical appearance and in the times in which it has been worn)

Quote:

There are some who would welcome a detailed dress code answering every conceivable question about the wearing of the temple garment. They would have priesthood leaders legislate lengths, specify conditions of when and how it should and should not be worn, and impose penalties upon those who missed the mark by a fraction of an inch. Such individuals would have Church members strain at a thread and omit the weightier matters of the gospel of Jesus Christ (see Matt. 23:23–26).

Most Latter-day Saints, however, rejoice over the moral agency extended them by a loving Father in Heaven. They prize highly the trust placed in them by the Lord and Church leaders—a trust implied in this statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

In my opinion, there are two aspects to garment wearing: 1) the private and personal aspect between you and God and 2) the outward marking that serves as a group identifier for all the other members in the group.

If you are going to the temple to move up the social ladder into the “in crowd” in your LDS community – then wearing the garment according to accepted norms is super important. This is not as bad as it sounds. We all do things to be accepted by our community.

If the wearing of the garment has special meaning between you and God then wear it as your conscience and reason dictate. Period. Remember that it is “an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.” It is a symbol, not unlike a CTR ring, young women’s medallion, cross necklace, or “What would Jesus do?” bracelet. It is the inward commitment and not the specific form of the outward expression that matters. Just be prepared for some people that should know better to criticize if your conscience and reason about how to wear the garment do not dictate the same thing as theirs.

OMG!!!! ROY, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I can not begin to tell you how frightened I have been but this explanation makes me feel so much better.

I grew up a jehovah witness, I was a witness well into my twenties. I grew up under black and white, totalitarian, fear based control. For 15 years I fantasied about how I could kill myself without actually committing suicide and damning myself. I promised myself I would never feel like that again.

I get that were an imperfect church leds by imperfect men. But high control terrifies me. I believe in a loving father and I believe in agency. I want to make a covenant with my father because I love and miss him, because I want to go home and because I want to welcome him into my mortal life as much as possible. But I was beginning to feel endowments were being used as a means of control and not a sacred and loving commitment to our father. [BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT]

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

dingobex wrote:

OMG!!!! ROY, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I can not begin to tell you how frightened I have been but this explanation makes me feel so much better.

Dingobex, I am so glad that you found this explanation helpful. I just want to emphasize that this might not be the interpretation of your bishop or others. They may not look kindly to you having a different interpretation. If you strongly need validation from the authority figures in your life this may be very difficult. Otherwise you can have your own interpretation / practice and follow your conscience on your own without making a scene or asking permission. A sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

[Anonymous]

dingobex wrote:

high control terrifies me

That’s a common factor in why people push against the temple, against any common practice (like standing for rest hymns), or the Church as a whole. I totally agree; I could not participate in something if I felt I was being forced. What I would encourage for you is to tap into that desire you mentioned for making covenants with your father. The temple, the Church, or any church can be seen either as controlling or as offering. Much of it is rooted in our own perceptions.

I don’t wear white shirts anymore. The more I hear about white shirts, the darker my shirts get. I’m pushing against control. But here’s the important twist: when I wear a suit, I almost always DO wear a white shirt, because I think it generally looks better… not always, but more often. So, when I wear a white shirt with a suit, I don’t even think about my protest. I just do it because that’s what I want.

I have found that the more I do something out of my own desire, even if it is exactly the same thing that others do or the same thing for which other feel compelled, the more I feel like an agent unto myself.

So, when it comes to the temple, the endowment, or the garment, go to it with your own sense of what you are trying to accomplish. Don’t worry about how others interpret it. That’s fine that they do so, and it’s fine that you do so. If your interpretations are a bit different from each other, that’s OK.

[Anonymous]

Hi it is wonderful that you are getting such amazing insight and help with your endownment questions. I just wanted to make it clear that for women, garment wearing is very much a outward marker/sign of being a “good little lds woman”. You can choose to wear them as you deem correct as others have stated, but truly it will be like a Muslim woman choosing not to wear a head scarf in public. It is very shocking to those in the lds culture to see a woman not covered completely ie wearing something sleeveless or an inch above the knee. We as a culture have turned shoulders,knees and lower legs into sexual objects even on young children and babies. So just be prepared mentally for the gossip and potential shunning if you wear clothing that shows you are not wearing garments. That being said, I choose to wear mine as I see fit along with clothing that makes it pretty clear that when its 100 degrees outside that I am comfortable. Yes I get looks and a few comments but I will tell you what, I enjoy my garments and their symbolism because I determine how and when I wear them. I also always try to wear them to church on Sunday’s and for a few moments most days. I have no issue answering yes to the temple recommend question as I have prayed and feel this is correct for me. Don’t let garments be a block for the endownment just realize the difference between what the culture expects and what you determine with Heavenly Father. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Dax wrote:

Hi it is wonderful that you are getting such amazing insight and help with your endownment questions. I just wanted to make it clear that for women, garment wearing is very much a outward marker/sign of being a “good little lds woman”. You can choose to wear them as you deem correct as others have stated, but truly it will be like a Muslim woman choosing not to wear a head scarf in public. It is very shocking to those in the lds culture to see a woman not covered completely ie wearing something sleeveless or an inch above the knee. We as a culture have turned shoulders,knees and lower legs into sexual objects even on young children and babies. So just be prepared mentally for the gossip and potential shunning if you wear clothing that shows you are not wearing garments. That being said, I choose to wear mine as I see fit along with clothing that makes it pretty clear that when its 100 degrees outside that I am comfortable. Yes I get looks and a few comments but I will tell you what, I enjoy my garments and their symbolism because I determine how and when I wear them. I also always try to wear them to church on Sunday’s and for a few moments most days. I have no issue answering yes to the temple recommend question as I have prayed and feel this is correct for me. Don’t let garments be a block for the endownment just realize the difference between what the culture expects and what you determine with Heavenly Father. Good luck!

Thanks Dax, I am worried about the social stigma and bullying mostly because I don’t know the doctrine well enough and panick that im doing something wrong. But I am learning now I just have to decide if im ready.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I know others who view sleeping naked at times as extended foreplay, so they don’t wear the garment at those times.

As I’ve said elsewhere, if you feel you need protection and reminders of your covenants while in the bedroom with your eternal companion, you’ve got problems no underwear can fix.

[Author]

Posts