PDA

View Full Version : Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad




Natural Citizen
03-23-2015, 05:41 PM
http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/3b/6d/10/00/utah-only-state-firing-squad.si.jpg
Reuters/Brian Snyder

"The debate is really more than just the firing squad. It's should we have capital punishment or not?" he said at the time, according to NBC News. "It's not our preference, but we need to have a fallback."




Continued - Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad (http://rt.com/usa/243409-utah-only-state-firing-squad/)

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 05:53 PM
What's more interesting is why Utah is the only state to have a firing squad. Most people don't know why.

Natural Citizen
03-23-2015, 05:57 PM
What's more interesting is why Utah is the only state to have a firing squad. Most people don't know why.

So why is that? Why are they the only state to pop a cap in a feller? Can't just drop a grenade and not explain, S_F. Sheesh. The suspense is killing me over here, man.

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 06:01 PM
So why is that? Why are they the only state to pop a cap in a feller? Can't just drop a grenade and not explain, S_F. Sheesh. The suspense is killing me over here, man.

It is because Mormonism teaches that the blood of men can atone for sin. In Mormonism, there are some sins that Jesus can't atone for, so the person's blood must be spilled.

Natural Citizen
03-23-2015, 06:05 PM
It is because Mormonism teaches that the blood of men can atone for sin. In Mormonism, there are some sins that Jesus can't atone for, so the person's blood must be spilled.

Ah. Hm. That is an interesting take. You're rolling with that with the idea that because Utah is largely considered to be a Mormon state, I suppose? It is interesting, I'll give you that.

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 06:06 PM
Ah. Hm. That is an interesting take. You're rolling with that with the idea that because Utah is largely a considered to be a Morman state, I suppose? It is interesting, I'll give you that.

Oh, its the truth. You can ask Pierzstyx or Helmuth.

Original_Intent
03-23-2015, 06:41 PM
No, as a lifelong LDS that is not the truth.
We do believe that certain crimes warrant the death penalty, that said it has nothing to do with the Savior's atonement being insufficient.
If capital punishment is administered, there is NO doctrine regarding that the blood must literally be spilled - hanging, lethal injection, firing squad. Just get the job done.
Also, this is available as an OPTION to the executee.
There are some offshoot LDS faiths that do teach blood atonement, that is not the doctrine of the mainstream LDS church.

You do know that bearing false witness is one of the Big Ten, right Sola? You really shouldn't make accusations based on your limited knowledge and prejudice. Or maybe you are one of those who feel that since Christ fulfilled the Law, obedience to the ten commandments is passe?

DamianTV
03-23-2015, 06:49 PM
Firing Squad is as out of date as the Constitution.
(take that with a grain of salt, its a tongue in cheek statement)

What is needed is a more modern form of Execution.

- Death by Monsanto
- Death by Vaccination
- Death by Cop
- Death by Modern Medicine
- Death by Terrorist
- Death by Denial of Welfare
- Death by Debt
- Death by Exile
- Death by Human Driven Vehicle
- Death by Fukushima
- Death by Downhill Sledding
- Death by Three Felonies Per Day
- Death by Employment

Short list of more modernized forms of Execution.

CPUd
03-23-2015, 06:54 PM
This is in case the state can't get the drugs for lethal injection in the event of an embargo. Or if the condemned does not trust the lethal injection procedure to be as quick and painless as it is claimed to be.

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 07:03 PM
No, as a lifelong LDS that is not the truth.
We do believe that certain crimes warrant the death penalty, that said it has nothing to do with the Savior's atonement being insufficient.
If capital punishment is administered, there is NO doctrine regarding that the blood must literally be spilled - hanging, lethal injection, firing squad. Just get the job done.
Also, this is available as an OPTION to the executee.
There are some offshoot LDS faiths that do teach blood atonement, that is not the doctrine of the mainstream LDS church.

You do know that bearing false witness is one of the Big Ten, right Sola? You really shouldn't make accusations based on your limited knowledge and prejudice. Or maybe you are one of those who feel that since Christ fulfilled the Law, obedience to the ten commandments is passe?

You don't believe Brigham Young who is one of your prophets?

Brigham Young said:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them....

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."

PierzStyx
03-23-2015, 07:34 PM
Oh, its the truth. You can ask Pierzstyx or Helmuth.

I'll tell you that, once again, you are wrong. You think you know so much when in actuality you know so little.

This cite will give you a longer run down of the historicity of the idea of the "blood Atonement" in early LDS thought. (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement) I'll give you the short version here though,

Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith, believed that in a pure theocracy a murderer who submit themselves willingly to execution as the consequences of their murderous actions and as a means to give the only thing they had anywhere equal to what they took-a "life for a life" in other words. The concept of "blood atonement" was a way to meld New Testament ideas of repentance with Old Testament ideas of justice, as can be found in Genesis 9:6 where God actually commands Noah to execute murderers. The doctrinal basis for this idea is sound as the Noahide Commandments are often held in Judeo-Christian thought to be applicable universally to all humanity and lasting, unlike the Law of Moses which was designed to apply only to the Israelites and was to come to an end. It is worth noting that this was not an LDS doctrine, but a theological exploration.

What the concept of "blood atonement" was NOT was a belief that the Atonement of Jesus Christ cannot redeem murderers. It is certainly true that Mormons believe in an Unpardonable Sin, but they get that belief from the Bible, wherein it says:

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matt. 12:31-32)

More Bible verses on the subject here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-The-Unpardonable-Sin/

While it is certainly possible, even probable that those who commit the unforgivable sin will commit murder, that is not the essence of it, only a part of it. The essence of the unpardonable sin is the total rejection of God and Jesus Christ when their utter reality has been revealed to you. Examples of this in LDS thought are Cain, who walked and talked with God, and Judas Iscariot, who rejected Christ and betrayed Him. These people become the Sons of Perdition, the children of Hell, reject their Savior, and love Satan more than God. They cannot gain forgiveness in this life or in the world to come. Why? Well that is more theoretical, but I tend to agree with Bible.org- those who commit the unpardonable sin reject Christ and therefore cannot gain forgiveness because they refuse to repent, they rejoice in sin. https://bible.org/question/what-unpardonable-sin

So, lets recap: You don't know what you're talking about, believing anti-Mormon lies instead of what the idea of blood atonement actual was, and you reference it as being the sole force in the firing squad decision despite the fact that many Mormons probably haven't even heard of it, because it isn't a doctrine. What you think is the truth just isn't true.

EDIT: Furthermore you misinterpret Brigham Young. As for sins that Jesus will not or cannot remit, the Bible verses above should be enough to show that such a belief is well within Christian teaching; the unforgivable sin being unforgivable-even by God. In addition, notice no where in that quote does Brigham actually say that a man being willing to be executed for his sins actually redeems the sinner. Rather he is saying that the sinner, overcome with their sins, would sacrifice themselves in the hope that it might bring some measure of mercy upon them in the next world. In other words, he is saying exactly what I explained above, not what you claim-that Mormons believe a man's blood can atone for their own sins. So again, you misinterpret and misquote Brigham Young for your own gain and through your own incorrect biases. Also, for those interested in context, here is the full speech: http://www.journalofdiscourses.com/4/10

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 07:46 PM
I'll tell you that, once again, you are wrong. You think you know so much when in actuality you know so little.

This cite will give you a longer run down of the historicity of the idea of the "blood Atonement" in early LDS thought. (http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement) I'll give you the short version here though,

Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith, believed that in a pure theocracy a murderer who submit themselves willingly to execution as the consequences of their murderous actions and as a means to give the only thing they had anywhere equal to what they took-a "life for a life" in other words. The concept of "blood atonement" was a way to meld New Testament ideas of repentance with Old Testament ideas of justice, as can be found in Genesis 9:6 where God actually commands Noah to execute murderers. The doctrinal basis for this idea is sound as the Noahide Commandments are often held in Judeo-Christian thought to be applicable universally to all humanity and lasting, unlike the Law of Moses which was designed to apply only to the Israelites and was to come to an end. It is worth noting that this was not an LDS doctrine, but a theological exploration.

What the concept of "blood atonement" was NOT was a belief that the Atonement of Jesus Christ cannot redeem murderers. It is certainly true that Mormons believe in an Unpardonable Sin, but they get that belief from the Bible, wherein it says:

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matt. 12:31-32)

More Bible verses on the subject here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-The-Unpardonable-Sin/

While it is certainly possible, even probable that those who commit the unforgivable sin will commit murder, that is not the essence of it, only a part of it. The essence of the unpardonable sin is the total rejection of God and Jesus Christ when their utter reality has been revealed to you. Examples of this in LDS thought are Cain, who walked and talked with God, and Judas Iscariot, who rejected Christ and betrayed Him. These people become the Sons of Perdition, the children of Hell, reject their Savior, and love Satan more than God. They cannot gain forgiveness in this life or in the world to come. Why? Well that is more theoretical, but I tend to agree with Bible.org- those who commit the unpardonable sin reject Christ and therefore cannot gain forgiveness because they refuse to repent, they rejoice in sin. https://bible.org/question/what-unpardonable-sin

So, lets recap: You don't know what you're talking about, believing anti-Mormon lies instead of what the idea of blood atonement actual was, and you reference it as being the sole force in the firing squad decision despite the fact that many Mormons probably haven't even heard of it, because it isn't a doctrine. What you think is the truth just isn't true.



That's not true. Brigham Young said:


"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.


There are "sins" (plural) for which Jesus cannot atone.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Sola_Fide
03-23-2015, 07:50 PM
What the concept of "blood atonement" was NOT was a belief that the Atonement of Jesus Christ cannot redeem murderers.

That's incorrect. Brigham Young said:


"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man."

You are contracting your prophet, Pierstyx, and you know the consequence of Mormons who reject the faith.

paleocon1
03-23-2015, 08:24 PM
Continued - Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad (http://rt.com/usa/243409-utah-only-state-firing-squad/)

and that is newsworthy because........................

Christian Liberty
03-23-2015, 08:25 PM
I've always supported firing squad as an efficient method, definitely not for the Mormon reason though.

Natural Citizen
03-23-2015, 08:36 PM
and that is newsworthy because........................

How is it not newsworthy?

Ender
03-24-2015, 12:13 AM
You don't believe Brigham Young who is one of your prophets?

Brigham Young said:

Mormon church statement on blood atonement

Published: Friday, June 18 2010 12:00 p.m. MDT

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.


Blood Atonement
See this page in the original 1992 publication.
Author: Snow, Lowell M.

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.


Bibliography
McConkie, Bruce R. "Blood Atonement Doctrine." In Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, 1966.
Penrose, Charles W. Blood Atonement, As Taught by Leading Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, 1884.
Peterson, Paul H. "The Mormon Reformation," pp. 176-99. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1981.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. "The Doctrine of Blood Atonement." In Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1, pp. 180-91. Salt Lake City, 1957.
LOWELL M. SNOW

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement

Ender
03-24-2015, 12:23 AM
What's more interesting is why Utah is the only state to have a firing squad. Most people don't know why.

The condemned will also have a choice. A firing squad can be a whole lot better than a gone-wrong lethal injection

Sola_Fide
03-24-2015, 12:40 AM
Mormon church statement on blood atonement

Published: Friday, June 18 2010 12:00 p.m. MDT

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.


Blood Atonement
See this page in the original 1992 publication.
Author: Snow, Lowell M.

The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.

Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.


Bibliography
McConkie, Bruce R. "Blood Atonement Doctrine." In Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, 1966.
Penrose, Charles W. Blood Atonement, As Taught by Leading Elders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, 1884.
Peterson, Paul H. "The Mormon Reformation," pp. 176-99. Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1981.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. "The Doctrine of Blood Atonement." In Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1, pp. 180-91. Salt Lake City, 1957.
LOWELL M. SNOW

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blood_Atonement


It's not important that Mormons believed in blood atonement for the purposes of voluntary death or anything like that. The important thing to understand is that Mormons believe that there are some sins that the Atonement of Jesus cannot atone for. That is what Brigham Young and others said. This is because Mormons don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible or the Atonement of the Bible. It's another god altogether.

(For moderation purposes: this is the opinion of Sola Fide and he would never attempt to make a definite statement about Christian beliefs on RPFs because that will get him banned)

Original_Intent
03-24-2015, 12:57 AM
The previous post reveals the true purpose of the thread. Even if everything that SF claims were true (which isn't the case) that's a loooong stretch to this having anything to do with Utah bringing back the firing squad. Really, SFs main purpose had nothing to do with discussing firing squads, but rather was merely to seque into the real meat of what he wanted to discuss - the LDS believe in blood atonement, that LDS do not believe that Christ died for all sins, that LDS do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament, etc. And as has been stated above, he is speaking from either a position of ignorance or deceit.

Sola_Fide
03-24-2015, 01:07 AM
The previous post reveals the true purpose of the thread. Even if everything that SF claims were true (which isn't the case) that's a loooong stretch to this having anything to do with Utah bringing back the firing squad. Really, SFs main purpose had nothing to do with discussing firing squads, but rather was merely to seque into the real meat of what he wanted to discuss - the LDS believe in blood atonement, that LDS do not believe that Christ died for all sins, that LDS do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament, etc. And as has been stated above, he is speaking from either a position of ignorance or deceit.

Is there some kind of rule that my posts or these threads can never go off into a different branch of discussion? I'd like to see that rule implemented on the board. Talk about a complete shutdown of ideas and discussion. That's nuts. The moderators would never sleep.

Original_Intent
03-24-2015, 01:21 AM
OK, your first comment on the thread was that there was some reason why Utah had brought back the firing squad and most people don't know that.

Provide some evidence that the many allusions that you have made have any basis in fact. The main thrust of every point you have tried and failed to make is that LDS people don't believe that Christ atoned for all sins, Mormons don't believe in the Christ and the atonement of the Bible, etc.

Every LDS person here has stated that what you are stating is a misrepresentation of our beliefs, the quoted material from the official LDS website negates what you say. Therefore, provide some reason why your assertions are more accurate than those of LDS people and the official statement made by the church regarding their beliefs.

Sola_Fide
03-24-2015, 01:38 AM
OK, your first comment on the thread was that there was some reason why Utah had brought back the firing squad and most people don't know that.

Provide some evidence that the many allusions that you have made have any basis in fact. The main thrust of every point you have tried and failed to make is that LDS people don't believe that Christ atoned for all sins, Mormons don't believe in the Christ and the atonement of the Bible, etc.

Every LDS person here has stated that what you are stating is a misrepresentation of our beliefs, the quoted material from the official LDS website negates what you say. Therefore, provide some reason why your assertions are more accurate than those of LDS people and the official statement made by the church regarding their beliefs.

Well, the "official LDS website" has revised many things that Mormons have believed since the beginning. Many people have recognized this. Incidentally, that's another way you can know it's not true. By the way, never trust an "official church pronouncement" from any church on this earth. There is no church that is infallible, whether it's the LDS "apostles" or Rome or anything else. Only the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are infallible.

Original_Intent
03-24-2015, 01:52 AM
We agree on that. We do not believe in the infallibility of any man. Those Old and New Testament scriptures were also written by fallible men, and have been translated numerous times by fallible men. The only infallible scripture is the word of God coming to your heart. The fact that it often comes while studying the scriptures, often clarifying an obscure passage to our understanding is one of the great blessings of the scriptures.

When Peter acknowledged Christ as the Son of God, Christ said he was blessed because flesh and blood had not revealed it to him (nor had the scriptures) the Father had revealed it to him. This personal revelation is the key to everything. It is what has told you of the value of the scriptures - you didn't figure that out on your own, it was and is a gift.

The only legitimate purpose for any organized religion is to lead us to that personal relationship with God. Anything short of that is putting your trust in the arm of flesh. Even the scriptures are worthless if the do not lead us back to God.

Natural Citizen
03-24-2015, 01:56 AM
Are they really the first state to bring this back? Is it accurate? I'm not sure.

Original_Intent
03-24-2015, 01:58 AM
On a lighter note -

There’s an old saying: “Catholics say the pope is infallible but don’t really believe it; Mormons say the prophet is fallible but don’t really believe it.”

paleocon1
03-24-2015, 07:06 AM
................................... Only the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are infallible.
and you KNOW this just how?

Stratovarious
03-24-2015, 07:15 AM
Continued - Utah becomes only state in America to approve death by firing squad (http://rt.com/usa/243409-utah-only-state-firing-squad/)

According to the photo they chose, they either hang em' and shoot em' ,or use them as clay pigeons, is tha skeet or trap ?

Ender
03-24-2015, 08:13 AM
It's not important that Mormons believed in blood atonement for the purposes of voluntary death or anything like that. The important thing to understand is that Mormons believe that there are some sins that the Atonement of Jesus cannot atone for. That is what Brigham Young and others said. This is because Mormons don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible or the Atonement of the Bible. It's another god altogether.

(For moderation purposes: this is the opinion of Sola Fide and he would never attempt to make a definite statement about Christian beliefs on RPFs because that will get him banned)

And YOU preach that Jesus' Atonement can only save God's chosen few- that the rest of mankind goes to eternal hell, no matter what they do.

Your only purpose on this thread is to bash another religion; give it a rest.

phill4paul
03-24-2015, 09:05 AM
And YOU preach that Jesus' Atonement can only save God's chosen few- that the rest of mankind goes to eternal hell, no matter what they do.

Your only purpose on this thread is to bash another religion; give it a rest.

That and turn every damn thread on the forum into a religious discussion. This place just keeps getting worse and worse in that regard with certain members being the main culprits.

Jeremy
03-24-2015, 09:08 AM
Closed per request.