Disabled = More Valiant in the Pre-existence?

Today marks the return of two things that I haven’t done since January: (1) Write a blog post, and (2) visit my husband’s ward.
My visit to the ward was pleasant. My daughter genuinely seemed to be enjoying herself—she informed me recently that “polka dots are [her] favorite color!“—and it was good to say “hello” to people that I haven’t seen in some time. It was the ward’s “Invitation Sunday,” so Sunday School was cut from the program in favor of food and socializing for the third hour. I’m good with that.
I was chatting with a sister in the ward whom I’m very fond of, and somehow the subject turned to my four year-old daughter and her disabilities. You’ll recall that my daughter has a rare genetic disorder called velo-cardio-facial syndrome or 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, sometimes mistakenly labeled “DiGeorge syndrome.” What does it mean to be missing bits and pieces from your 22nd chromosome? Well, for my daughter, it’s meant:
  • Soft Cleft Palate – Which prevented her from breast feeding as a baby. She had to be fed with special cleft nursers.
  • Hypotonia – She’s always been behind on physical milestones and spent some time working with a physical therapist when she was younger.
  • Umbilical Hernia – This was repaired surgically when she was six weeks old.
  • Speech Delays – The cleft palate has of course contributed to this, but most people with VCFS have them. It seems to break a person’s understanding of how language works.
  • Weakened Teeth Enamel – Her teeth decay quite rapidly.
  • Behavioral Problems – Her behavior is just “off.” I’m not quite sure how to describe it. At one point we feared that she has autism, but that seems less likely now. We’re pretty certain she has either ADD or ADHD, but it hasn’t been diagnosed yet.
My daughter attends a special education pre-school program, though she’s on the high-functioning end of the program. It’s our hope that she can eventually be transitioned into regular classrooms with the help of a teaching aide. She’s had three surgeries in her short lifetime and will likely be having her fourth this year.
Back to my conversation with the sister. Her own children have had some problems (though not as severe as my daughter’s), and we were discussing those. Finally she told me, “I really believe that when someone has challenges in this life like Harley has, it’s because they were a more perfect spirit in the pre-existence and don’t need the same level of testing that we need.”
I wasn’t completely sure what to say. My friend was very heartfelt and sincere, and had shared a thought that was obviously very tender to her. And yet, I can’t say I’m entirely comfortable with the idea.
To be clear, it’s not the first time that I’ve heard it expressed in Mormon discourse. I think the problem of evil and suffering is a very difficult one and I don’t grudge anyone their methods of grappling with it. I also don’t think it’s a bad idea to see people with disabilities in such a positive light rather than the negative light that some people try to heap on them. I remember reading one blogger during the 2008 elections who, in response to the praise directed at Sarah Palin for carrying a trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) baby to term, began arguing that people with disabilities are a burden to society and it’s okay to abort them, that we needed to stop with the “retard worship.” It made me want to throw up.
But I’m not entirely comfortable with that, because it strikes me as a combination of two other popular LDS explanations for observed detriments, one historic and one current:
  1. The pre-1978 doctrine that blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were the spirits of those who were less valiant in the pre-existence. [1]
  2. The current popular notion that women cannot hold the priesthood because they are actuallymore spiritual than men and men need it so that they can learn to be on par with women.
It’s like (1) because it draws on alleged pre-existence behavior in an attempt to explain a current situation. However, it’s also like (2) because, it attempts to say that the disabled are actually better than the rest of us—and this is why they do not need healthy minds and bodies.(1) was logically consistent but theologically ugly, while (2) is just incredibly backwards. If women are really more spiritual than men, then that’s all the more reason to put them in places of spiritual leadership where they’ll get the most use out of their superior talents. Likewise, if my daughter is really a more valiant and perfect spirit, isn’t that all the more reason to give her a healthy mind and body where she can do the most good for the human race?
For my own part, it’s my belief in the Imago Dei that gives me a high view of the disabled (and the rest of humanity, for that matter). The book of Genesis teaches that all of humanity was created in the Imago Dei, and I believe this gives each and every one of us inherent worth no matter what the circumstances effecting us. I affirm the worth of all kinds of groups that society tends to look down on (or at least used to), and I believe that you do not stop being valuable in the eyes of God just because you lose your contributing value to society. It does not matter if you are elderly, infirm, disabled, unattractive, unathletic, unproductive, undesirable, in prison, or unborn. Being created in the image of God gives you an inherent worth and value that no one can take away, and your life is worth saving. You don’t stop being made in the image of God just because you’re one of the above and society has little use for you.
I smiled at my friend and agreed that my daughter probably is a more perfect spirit than I am. Because I have to admit, I do think that much is true.

Comments

Disabled = More Valiant in the Pre-existence? — 44 Comments

  2. I have the same problem as your (1). (2) is less troubling to me, but still doesn’t sit quite right. I have a chronic mental health issue. Is that because I was more righteous in the pre-existence, or less? If it was so that the power of God might be made manifest in me- umm, well, two plus decades along and not much power being manifested yet. Various coping strategies and therapies, no lasting miracles.
    Some things in life just go awry, and I am not comfortable with assigning a moral barcode to each and every one of them. If I were to start with one, I logically would have to go through them all, and I don’t have the insight to do that justly.
  3. Welcome back to blogging, Jack!
    This issue reminds me somewhat of some statements made by St. Lawrence the Deacon in Prudentius’ hymn lauding him and telling his familiar story: when the greedy prefect insisted on confiscating all the ‘riches of the church’, Lawrence gathered all the poor, disenfranchised, and disabled who depended on alms and brought them into the sanctuary, where Lawrence informed the prefect that these people are the true wealth of the church and are far more valuable than earthly gold. Prudentius has St. Lawrence go on to declare:
    “These are the foster-sons of light
    Whom crippled bodies hedge around,
    Lest flesh unscathed should shelter souls
    Puffed up with pride and insolence.
    When illness racks the human frame,
    The spirit burns more ardently;
    When members glow with health and strength,
    The powers of mind and soul are dulled.” (Liber Peristephanon 2.205-212)
    Regardless of the questionable merits of his analysis of the reason for these maladies, he does admirably remind us of how incomparably more valuable each person bearing God’s image – no matter in what condition they live their life – is than anything else in all of heaven and earth.
  4. having grown up with a brother with chromosone damage and a host of behavioral … behaviors, people come up with many different reason for why someone is the way they are. My personal belief is we are where we are to face the trials we need to, some people that is running a business and other it is the struggle to do what is easier for other. also some people are placed in our lives to teach us.In my case, my brother taught me to know how to spot sneaky behavior with very cute and seemily innocent people
  5. Though I am a member of the LDS Church, I disagree with all of the beliefs as stated regarding disabled children, blacks, and women. None of these are the church’s official position on the matters. There are just too many people who make up reasons that sound good in their own minds and help them to feel comfortable with the situations in which they find themselves. For those things that happen for which we currently have no answer, it’s time that we pray and ask our church leaders for guidance rather than come up with personal justifications that place judgement on any group, gender, race, etc. I believe there are reasons for these things, but they are God’s reasons, which will always be rational.
  6. I’m uncomfortable with pretty much all analyses of our premortal worth. Every child is precious, and every child is different.
  8. My kid brother is autistic, and well-meaning people in our wards used to tell my mom “wow, you must have been so righteous in the pre-existence to be blessed with this challenge.”
    My mom is a nice person, so she never said anything. But she was thinking “Yeah? Well I’d rather have my son back than have spiritual bragging rights.”
    I agree with kew – we LDS always get in trouble when we try to come up with hard and fast categories for who was doing what in the pre-earth life. I think we are equally at risk when we speculate AFTER death as well.
    For instance, the whole doctrine of young babies who die getting a free ticket into the Celestial Kingdom never sat well with me. I mean, think of it – the majority of the world’s population has died before the age of three. That’s an awful lot of free tickets being handed out.
    And what on earth did I do wrong that I actually made it to adulthood and got the dubious honor of having a shot at screwing it up?
    I keep my mouth shut about this at church – because I’m aware there are probably mothers in the ward who’ve had a loss – and this notion is of great comfort to them. But it never sat well with me.
    I don’t like confident simplistic pat-answers in general. I’m aware the pat-answers provide a comforting role to a lot of the faithful – but that doesn’t mean I have to like them.
  9. The show “Rugrats”, which I watched growing up and which was about little kids, had a character whose favorite color was polka dot. I guess both your daughter and these cartoon writers have a similar diverse view of things that others miss.
  10. Seth R,
    So what is another possibility? Perhaps those who have lived and died on earth without the ability to be accountable are given the opportunity to be accountable in the spirit world.
    It seems to fit better to me.
  11. Or another possibility is that if you die young enough, you just come back for a second shot at it.
    Like I said, I think blanket answers are problematic in this area.
  12. I don’t like confident simplistic pat-answers in general. I’m aware the pat-answers provide a comforting role to a lot of the faithful – but that doesn’t mean I have to like them.
    So say we all.
  13. Thanks for the comments, everyone.
    The idea of young children automatically going to heaven when they die never sat well with me, either. But in Mormon discourse, isn’t that idea connected to the idea that the atonement covers a child until age 8?
    Seth, on the bright side, the well-meaning but rather backhanded compliments people gave your mother over your autistic brother were probably better than the comments my parents got when they tried to bring my autistic brother to conservative Protestant churches in the mid-80s (“Your son is possessed by a demon”).
  14. I get the feeling that all that talk of evil spirits in Jesus’ day was people with mental illness.
    I find it totally likely that ancient people in that day would look at someone with mental illness and say – “Yup – that must be demonic possession!”
  15. I get the feeling that all that talk of evil spirits in Jesus’ day was people with mental illness.
    I find it totally likely that ancient people in that day would look at someone with mental illness and say – “Yup – that must be demonic possession!”
    What does that mean for Jesus and the Biblical narrative?
  16. I’m going to quibble.
    The 1949 First Presidency statement does not say that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. To be precise, what the statement says is “that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality” — and it would be consistent with that to state that blacks were morevaliant in the pre-existence and that’s why they were given a handicap.
    I’m not endorsing that view, by the way. Nor am I saying that the statement as a whole, particularly in light of quoting Brigham Young, isn’t racist. (It’s probably a good thing I believe Church leaders are fallible.) All I’m saying is that the 1949 statement doesn’t teach the supposed doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.
    I do agree, though, that there’s some connection with what we did in the pre-existence and our lives here on Earth. But whatever the connection is hasn’t been revealed, and since “the details of this principle have not been made known,” to quote the 1949 statement, anything beyond that is purely speculation and not a basis for judging anyone, including ourselves, and certainly not an entire race or an entire group of people with various inborn challenges.
  17. Hi Eric,
    The 1949 First Presidency statement does not say that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.
    Technically this is correct.
    But it’s pretty clear from other sources that the 1949 First Presidency (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay) viewed the policies governing treatment of black members as punitive. For example, in a July 17 1947 letter to Lowry Nelson, the same three men stated, “From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” (Source) On top of that, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any LDS leader teaching that blacks were more valiant in the pre-existence, let alone prior to 1978.
    In light of that, I don’t see much hope that this reference wasn’t meant to invoke the commonly held belief that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.
  18. Yes, I’m being technical. Clearly by today’s standards (and maybe even the standards of the 1940s, for that matter) Church leaders, even at the very top, had racist attitudes and beliefs, and I have little doubt that the statement was interpreted in the way you state.
    My only quibble — and I acknowledge it as such — is with referring to a statement as indicative of an official doctrine when it doesn’t explicitly state that doctrine. That’s all.
    In my view, the doctrine of “blacks were more valiant” still belongs in the realm of widely believed folk doctrine rather than abandoned official doctrine.
    (FWIW, I have no interest in defending the statement as a whole on racial issues. It does explicitly endorse the “blacks have the mark of Cain” doctrine, which is a false doctrine and, thankfully, has been abandoned.)
    And no intent to threadjack here; your point (or one of them) was that many Mormons tend to draw a connection between our pre-existential behavior and our current situation. And while I do believe there’s a connection, I don’t really know what it is. But the teaching remains that those of us who are here — and that includes people with disabilities of all types — are here because we ultimately made the right decisions to be here and that God cares enough about us to put us in a position where we can grow into our divine potential. And that’s true for all of us, regardless of which disabilities we have.
    I like what you said:
    It does not matter if you are elderly, infirm, disabled, unattractive, unathletic, unproductive, undesirable, in prison, or unborn. Being created in the image of God gives you an inherent worth and value that no one can take away, and your life is worth saving. You don’t stop being made in the image of God just because you’re one of the above and society has little use for you.
    I hope that’s the message people take away from your post rather than my diversionary comments.
  19. Be more valiant in the pre-existence, get a handicap on Earth. Sheesh, that doesn’t sound like much of a motivation to be valiant in the pre-existence. Do these valiant pre-existence spirits know that they are going to get screwed when they come to Earth?
    And how the heck are you supposed to be valiant in the pre-existence anyway? The word ‘valiant’ usually suggests that you’ve faced danger. Do you have to battle Satan’s demons? Or do you just have to worship God more intensely, which may be more saintly, but is less heroic. I’ll have to read up more about Mormon theology.
  20. Also I find it interesting that the Mormon belief that the valiancy you showed in your pre-existence can affect your life in the material world has some similarity to the Hindu idea that how you behave in your last life affects which caste you are reborn into. While those are fascinating setups, they have the same social problems. It has already been mentioned how some Mormon leaders saw discrimination against blacks as just punishment for lack of pre-existence valiancy. Similarly, many Hindus see the poverty of the lowest Caste as revenge against the evils that they committed in their past life.
    But imagine growing up being told that you are being punished for sins that you supposedly did before you were even born. If Hinduism or Mormonism is wrong, think of how many people have suffered needlessly for crimes they never committed. This is why the whole “innocent until proven guilty” is a concept that should be followed in all walks of life.
  21. Be more valiant in the pre-existence, get a handicap on Earth.
    Just to be clear, although I was the one who suggested that idea, I’m not saying in the least that’s what I believe. All I was saying is that that possibility isn’t precluded by the 1949 First Presidency statement (nor is the opposite).
    It is LDS teaching that there’s a connection between our life in the pre-existence and our life now. But to say much of anything about the nature of the connection is speculation.
  22. Be more valiant in the pre-existence, get a handicap on Earth. Sheesh, that doesn’t sound like much of a motivation to be valiant in the pre-existence. Do these valiant pre-existence spirits know that they are going to get screwed when they come to Earth?
    The way this was taught to me growing up Mormon was that these handicaps prevent Satan and his angels from having any influence over you in mortal life. In other words, these sould were particularly valiant in the pre-existence (yes, in the war against Lucifer and his rebellious third of the host of heaven) have already done enough to qualify for their exaltation, so they merely need to come to earth to get a mortal body, which is a non-negotiable necessary step towards getting a perfected exalted body.
    So they’re not getting screwed; they did good enough on the CLEP exam to waive the requirement of actually taking the course. But they still have to be enrolled at the university for the semester in order to get the credits and graduate. So to speak. They’re already going to get exaltation, but they still have to get a physical body, so they get one but they also get protected from Satan’s influence during mortal life by infant death or severe disability. They have already “passed the test” so they don’t have to take it again, and Satan hates them for their super-valiance so he would go totally devil-balls to the wall to take them down if he had the chance.
    Conveniently, their limitations in mortal life also serve the dual purpose of giving everyone else good trials and chances to develop Christlike lives.
    I’m not saying I believe it. I’m saying that’s what I was taught.
  23. The story of the healing of the blind man in John 9 presents a problem to the justice of God because it sounds like God gave someone a birth defect so he could use it to His own glory. A Greek-scholar friend of a friend offered a good explanation:
    The passage reads like this:
    As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” (John 9:1-5, NASB)
    If we remove the words that were not in the original Greek (the ones that are in italics in good translations), and we change the punctuation (which was not in the original to begin with), then we have the possibility of translating this passage in a way that is more in keeping with the revealed character of God. For one thing, we are told that we should not do evil that good might result; I think God abides by this too. Anyway, it could read like this:
    As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man sinned, nor his parents. But in order that the works of God might be displayed in him we must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.”
  24. So, the result of someone being really valiant in the fight against Lucifer in the pre-mortal life is….
    To have limited or no role in the second round of fighting?
    Sounds like bad people management to me.
  27. Bookslinger, that begs the question that this particular idea is actually true, doesn’t it?
  28. The commonly-held belief among many Mormons that those with trials in this life were more valiant in the pre-mortal existence comes across as a way of parents telling themselves that they are special parents with special children. It is a way to keep one’s morale up.
    I’m sure that this is entirely due to my reading a book that cited this study, but this reminds me of the study in the 1960s by a Harvard researcher who tested a bunch of kids in California, then selected the top 20% to be taught by the best teachers in the school. The teachers were told of this, but they were not supposed to discuss the students high pre-test scores with the students or their parents. All of the students did very well that year. Which is to be expected, because they were already superior, right? Except that the students were actually selected at random, as were the teachers. The power of suggestion and pre-conceived notions are pretty awesome. So parents of children with disabilities come up with ways to explain that the disability is actually an advantage. I don’t care for the explanation, but in the end, I guess what really matters is whether or not it helps the parents. It sounds like this has helped your friend, even if it is a misguided and probably erroneous thought.
  29. So, the result of someone being really valiant in the fight against Lucifer in the pre-mortal life is….
    To have limited or no role in the second round of fighting?
    Eh, I think that characterizing it as “the second round of fighting” might distort it more than a bit.
    God’s work and glory is not to win the war against Satan; it’s to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. “The Valiant” have already done everything necessary for their immortality and eternal life other than getting a mortal body. So they get a mortal body and to boot, they live lives that give everyone else the opportunity for deeper spiritual development and charity.
    Whatever, I don’t believe it at all, but I don’t think it’s irrational or incoherent.
  30. Seth: I think it’s a logical fallacy to assume (or require) that because something might be or can be true in some instances, that it must therefore be universally true in all instances.
    I’m open to the possibility that the OP’s question (Disabled = More Valiant in the Pre-existence) might be true in some instances. If it is, I don’t assume or require that it then be true in all instances.
    The scriptures give only a miniscule glimpse of pre-mortal and post-mortal existence. Same thing for present-time spirit-world existence. And those who have had more than a glimpse, Nephi, Moses, Enoch, Bro of Jared, were forbidden to relate most of what they saw. Therefore, I conclude that we’re not _supposed_ to know, until we come to the level of faith that they had.
  31. I’m open to the possibility that the OP’s question (Disabled = More Valiant in the Pre-existence) might be true in some instances. If it is, I don’t assume or require that it then be true in all instances.
    Good point.
  33. “So, the result of someone being really valiant in the fight against Lucifer in the pre-mortal life is….
    To have limited or no role in the second round of fighting?
    Sounds like bad people management to me.”
    I think most of the soldiers who have had to get redeployed to Iraq 3-4 times would say that having to have huge roles in the second, third, and fourth rounds of fighting sort of sucks. And many feel like the constant redeployments are the bad people management. Just sayin’.
    My opinion on the matter is that if it’s something that brings you comfort, then great. If it doesn’t, it’s just another theory that you don’t have to agree is true. Since we can’t know for sure anyway, it doesn’t hurt anyone either way.
  34. My opinion on the matter is that if it’s something that brings you comfort, then great. If it doesn’t, it’s just another theory that you don’t have to agree is true. Since we can’t know for sure anyway, it doesn’t hurt anyone either way.
    Good point. True or false, who’s hurt by this? It’s definitely solid Mormon doctrine as far as I know that infants who die are saved, and that people with diminished accountability are likewise saved by the atonement to the extent that their capacity is diminished, so it’s not like anyone will make bad life decisions of eternal consequence because of it.
    It it gives someone some kind of false sense of superiority, that’s no good, but pride’s no good whether or not the doctrine is true.
  35. Katy and Kullervo, I certainly agree with that sentiment.
    Which is why I generally keep my fat mouth shut about it at church, and confine the issue to esoteric blog discussions.
  36. And Seth–I certainly don’t begrudge you or your family with being annoyed for well meaning comments by people who just doing get it. Because it’s annoying to have someone else’s ways of dealing with stuff, or opinions, or whatever, foisted on you unsolicited.
    I was once told by someone that, as a convert to the church, I was so lucky that I’d married a man with pioneer ancestry–because converting to the church must have meant that I wasn’t as valiant in the pre-existence to deserve to be born to a Mormon family. I was pissed.
  37. “Because it’s annoying to have someone else’s ways of dealing with stuff, or opinions, or whatever, foisted on you unsolicited.”
    And that’s true no matter what the circumstances. I cannot fathom why people think unsolicited advice or counsel is ever appreciated. Like when people start telling me what I “just need to do” in order to get a full-time teaching job. Or how my wife and I can have a successful pregnancy. Or anything.
    *sigh*
  38. I was just looking in the new Handbook 2 for information about members with disabilities in response to a different topic when I read this:
    “Leaders and members should not attempt to explain why the challenge of a disability has come to a family. They should never suggest that a disability is a punishment from God (see John 9:2–3). Nor should they suggest that it is a blessing to have a child who has a disability.” (21.1.26)
    I have no idea if that was in the handbook before, but I hope that more members see it now that it is public.
  39. I was just looking in the new Handbook 2 for information about members with disabilities in response to a different topic when I read this:
    “Leaders and members should not attempt to explain why the challenge of a disability has come to a family. They should never suggest that a disability is a punishment from God (see John 9:2–3). Nor should they suggest that it is a blessing to have a child who has a disability.” (21.1.26)
    I have no idea if that was in the handbook before, but I hope that more members see it now that it is public.
    I don’t know that this is the same thing as a statement of doctrine though.
  40. I actually just stumbled on this blog trying to google if there is an actual church source on this theory that disabled people were more valiant in the pre-existance and thus get a “free pass” in the mortal existance. A friend and I were discussing yesterday whether this is just a VERY widespread cultural thing within Mormons or something that was said at some point (probably long ago) over the pulpit that lead to this seemingly cultural take on the subject. So far, I haven’t found any general conference type quote on it, but I have a feeling someone of importance must have said it back in the ’50s or something for it to be so widespread. Personally, I think it is good that people look at my autistic daughter as stronger than them. It lends to them treating her well, which is awesome. Better than looking at her as a curse or a burden!
  41. Yes, I’m a little late to this, but…
    ..the comments my parents got when they tried to bring my autistic brother to conservative Protestant churches in the mid-80s (“Your son is possessed by a demon”).
    (Facepalm) I would understand this comment at a faith healer type of church, but it’s still way over the top! And, I have 3 high functioning autistic sons, and I suspect I have shades of autism.
    I am puzzled that there are children who die peacefully in their sleep (think SIDS), and other children who die horrible, suffering deaths. Like, at a traveling book fair I worked at was at UCSF once, and a woman there had stopped by with 4 y.o. daughter with cancer for a Morphine prescription for her. Both LDS theology & much of Christianity hints of Salvation for little children.
    So, what gets accomplished by suffering vs. not suffering for children who die?
    If it was so that the power of God might be made manifest in me…
    If we are not healed in this life, there is the Resurrection. Yet, Is it harder to resurrect someone with deformities, etc., than a “normal” person, especially centuries after death?
    I have no answers for this one.
    ““Leaders and members should not attempt to explain why the challenge of a disability has come to a family.”
    Wow, a former Bishop told me that my 3 sons are autistic because I was a bad parent. What a guilt trip that caused for me! Now I have something a little more binding to disprove that idea.
  42. Having been through this, with a son whose first child is Downs’, I can say that there is no answer. Our Christian nature should account for and love the oppressed. According to the gospels, the man wasn’t born blind due to his sin or his parents’, but so that the glory of God could be manifest.
    And so it is.
    Or, it is the nature’s way of strenghtening the genetic code by permitting adversity.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity