|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 16:58:45 GMT -5
Todd, yet again you are so right. You keep in there buddy, you're doing a great job. A while back some guy was trying to convince the board that the early workers taught that only those who sowed their lives as seed received authority from God to preach the gospel. They had to sell everything they had, scatter it so as it could not be picked up again, then go out as a homeless minister, relying on God to meet their needs. Boy was he a nutcase or what? It all depends on what he meant by "sowed their lives as seed". And he was probably right that some early workers did teach that. I'm not sure if that makes him a nutcase though. Anyway, don't miss an opportunity to degrade someone for no reason In a lot of cases this is what God requires of his ministry, for very good reasons, and I wouldn't even have a problem with those early workers thinking (and telling others) that they were required to take nothing for their journey, and be unmarried, especially if that's what God had told them he wanted. That doesn't mean that they are lying when God later sends a married couple on a mission. That may have been what was required of God for the filling of that particular duty, but there are many places to fill in the kingdom of God.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 2, 2009 17:05:41 GMT -5
Todd, any one who belongs to the group that refers to themselves as Workers and Friends is often referred to and some even call themselves 2X2's...simply because the man's commandments that they go out 2X2 is the basis of the ministry! Yes, there are times when there is only one worker, other times when there are 3 workers together! Mostly though you'll see the workers' list all segregate the people's names into groups of two and/or it will say "companion later" whoever that person is! The group is also referred to as the truth's fellowship, the christian conventions....there are many many names for the group and that is because they've refused to assign themselves a singular name from the beginning.....you know it is hard to get taken serious when there are so many names one can't remember them all! That's just a slight in the facts of life! Don't you jest or hear people jest one another by giving them names that are not their real name? It's a joke and I'm sorry that the beginning workers did not see that becoming a problem! There's so much that they failed to take into consideration in their desire just to do whatever came next! It is coming back upon all of us and we cannot address those things by keeping our heads in the sand! That's really more then JMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 17:10:45 GMT -5
And he was probably right that some early workers did teach that. I'm not sure if that makes him a nutcase though. Anyway, don't miss an opportunity to degrade someone for no reason
Todd, please read the context of my post again, then consider this, "it was me I was referring to." Anyway, good to know I took the opportunity to degrade myself for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 17:12:05 GMT -5
Todd wrote: Ok, I realise that the core is about Jesus' death and resurrection but there is a whole lot more that gives it some meaning. I find it hard to believe that people going to be inspired by workers preaching just v3 & 4 or 1 Cor 15. People will hear that Jesus died for our sins and they will think, "Oh poor fella... I knew I shouldn't have sinned... anyway maybe he wasn't a very nice person". And then they will hear that he was raised from the dead and they will think, "Whew, now I don't feel half as bad... I hope he gets on ok from now on". Guess Rob was on right track then. The Bible tells us that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the world. Oh, so there was a cross involved in the Gospel. Hmmm... that might give the story some more meaning. I wonder how he got on the cross? How can it possibly be foolishness if we don't even know what happened? That would be like calling an invention foolish because we have never been told what it is designed for, or how it works.
|
|
|
Post by september on Jul 2, 2009 17:38:10 GMT -5
I know a married couple preaching in India and where they are also raising their two children. Amazing that they would take on this missionary work with children in tow and no guarantee of an income, depending only on the generous donations of others, knowing that God will provide. The only thing is, they wouldn't be welcome to share a platform with any worker I know.
|
|
|
Post by september on Jul 2, 2009 17:43:33 GMT -5
And another thing, I can think of a number of workers booted from the work for eyeing a woman with intent. Matt10 and I discussed one earlier and there was another Northern Irish chap who was in the work 10 years and decided to take a wife. He was booted too. Now of course that doesn't suggest for a moment that there are rules forbidding married workers. Just don't think of it or do it or the non-rules will be firmly and unequivocally applied.
I also know of a couple who very shortly after their wedding were convinced that their calling was in the work. The workers refused them and suggested they go and breed a worker instead. Which they obligingly did...
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 2, 2009 17:50:46 GMT -5
Todd, any one who belongs to the group that refers to themselves as Workers and Friends is often referred to and some even call themselves 2X2's...simply because the man's commandments that they go out 2X2 is the basis of the ministry! Yes, there are times when there is only one worker, other times when there are 3 workers together! Mostly though you'll see the workers' list all segregate the people's names into groups of two and/or it will say "companion later" whoever that person is! The group is also referred to as the truth's fellowship, the christian conventions....there are many many names for the group and that is because they've refused to assign themselves a singular name from the beginning.....you know it is hard to get taken serious when there are so many names one can't remember them all! That's just a slight in the facts of life! Don't you jest or hear people jest one another by giving them names that are not their real name? It's a joke and I'm sorry that the beginning workers did not see that becoming a problem! There's so much that they failed to take into consideration in their desire just to do whatever came next! It is coming back upon all of us and we cannot address those things by keeping our heads in the sand! That's really more then JMO I don't blame those early workers for taking no name because they never intended to form an organization. However the reality is that an organization did form and it was registered with many governments around the world. This is where the error came in. IMO the workers who felt the need to register the church should have been honest with its members about what they had done and what they called it. You can't have it both ways - register our ministry/church organization with governments and then claim it has no name.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 18:27:00 GMT -5
And he was probably right that some early workers did teach that. I'm not sure if that makes him a nutcase though. Anyway, don't miss an opportunity to degrade someone for no reason Todd, please read the context of my post again, then consider this, "it was me I was referring to." Anyway, good to know I took the opportunity to degrade myself for no good reason. Ok, I read your post again considering that you were talking about yourself, but I don’t see how that changes anything. If you were trying to convince the board that the early workers taught that only those who sowed their lives as seed could preach, if that is what they taught, I still can’t see how that makes you a nutcase. If in fact the workers didn’t teach this but you were trying to convince the board of that, then I could have agreed with you and said that you were a nutcase, but you didn’t say that. If you were basing your nutcase assessment on something else, you could have written it there, but you didn’t and that is why I made the comment about degrading someone without reason. Knowing that you know “him” personally, I have more confidence in your assessment of “nutcase”, but not for the reasons you seemed to be giving. Anyway, your revelation that you were talking about yourself was a nice little diversion from the topic even though it made no difference to what I was saying, and doesn’t really need to be read again in that light. You could respond to my comments if you like.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 21:10:06 GMT -5
Todd, any one who belongs to the group that refers to themselves as Workers and Friends is often referred to and some even call themselves 2X2's...simply because the man's commandments that they go out 2X2 is the basis of the ministry! Yes, there are times when there is only one worker, other times when there are 3 workers together! Mostly though you'll see the workers' list all segregate the people's names into groups of two and/or it will say "companion later" whoever that person is! 2x2 is not the basis of the ministry even if that is a factor that you see often. Here is an example of the logic people seemed to be using here, applied to a motor car…. One thing that is the basis for a motor car is that it has a metal roof. Yes, there is the odd car or two that has a vinyl or canvas roof, or no roof at all, but mostly you will see that cars have metal roofs, and not only that, most of them you can only get with a metal roof. So, we can see pure evidence that this is a requirement that a car has a metal roof….. But, it is wrong that cars can only have metal roofs because cars can work quite fine without a roof at all. Ok, I know that there are limitations to not having a roof, and there are certain things that are difficult if that is the case, but how wrong it is that it is a requirement that a car has a roof. That is just false, and whoever came up with the doctrine that a car must have a metal roof is a dumb, double speaking, brain damaged, fool…. It is wrong that these car manufacturers have made it a requirement that all cars have metal roofs. That’s probably because of people like me. I won’t ever bother taking a name. I can’t see how it would make a bit of difference. Why don’t you just take one name then? If you want to give your service to God a name, go right ahead. Just pick one that is easy to remember so that you get taken serious. Could you please tell me what the problem is? Often people do not call someone by real name but mostly it is not in jest. They use words like “mate” or “darling”, and these are describing words, and I don’t have any problem with people who want to describe the ministry as “the truth”. I am a living example of not being called my real name most of my life, and ironically enough “Todd” is derived from a describing word, and because I have been called that since I was 1 year old, some people do not know my real name. I have even had good friendships with these people without them knowing my name, but just using a describing word to refer to me, so really a name is not necessary, because I have got on quite well. There was even a lady who knew me well, but having heard my real name once said that she didn’t really know that person, not realizing that they were talking about me, but either way it didn’t change anything, and her relationship with me hasn’t changed. I’m not sure what needs to be addressed. What is the problem? What do we lack by not having a name? The only benefit I could see in taking a name is so that the people who pretend that there is exclusivity have more justification to say that we are trying to separate ourselves from Christianity. We could then say “I am a 2x2F&Wtruthwaybun”, rather than profess to be a Christian, and in effect we would be saying, I am somebody different and exclusive and unless you are a 2x2F&Wtruthwaybun, you are not like me. That is where the exclusivity thoughts are born… it is by people like you would like to pretend that we are anything more than individuals before God, and that our faith is in our group rather than Jesus. And the only reason you would need to give the group a name is if that’s where your faith was, so that you can tell of your faith to others by using the name, just as many religions do, and as many individuals do when they say “I am a X” to the exclusion of others who are not of that same name. This is wrong, and our faith should be in our Lord and Saviour, and I really can’t see why you would give that a name.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 2, 2009 21:18:55 GMT -5
I don't blame those early workers for taking no name because they never intended to form an organization. What did they intend to do? I thought they had always intended to go out preaching, to convert people and to join them in fellowship with like believers as it was being done and is continuing to be done. What is different from then to now that they didn’t need a name back then, but that they need one now. Yes, the government requires registration for certain purposes and you really don’t have a choice. The name is pretty meaningless though. I mean, you could say to someone, “United Christian Conventions” and it really isn’t going to explain your faith, and also won’t guarantee a spot in heaven. Most people have no reason to use the name, and the fact that different names were used in different countries, makes it a bit hard for the workers to use the various registrations as a “name”. There is no denominational name. There is not one name that applies in every country, and in some countries a name is not registered at all. The fact that there was a registration made to fulfill a particular purpose (such as avoiding a call to war), is by requirement that a name is put on the piece of paper, and for anybody who has their faith in the group it might be of interest to them to know that name, and that is a good reason for them to not know the name because their faith should not be in the group. They should belong to God, not a name on a bit of paper, which is only temporal. Anybody who doesn’t have any specific reason to interact with the government regarding their faith, will be quite fine to carry on without a name.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 2, 2009 21:54:07 GMT -5
What is different from then to now that they didn’t need a name back then, but that they need one now. There is no denominational name. There is not one name that applies in every country, and in some countries a name is not registered at all. "There is not one name that applies in every country...". And that's a major facet of what seems to be a growing problem--lack of "sameness" world over. Isn't that a tenet of the faith?
I left in the late 60s. So much is different now. I realize there's another thread about that, but it ties in to the fact that it's hardly the same "Truth" any longer...from state to state or coast to coast now...from seams in stockings to sandals; long hair & bun to hair worn down or short; D&R on East coast and midwest, not in CA; ladies wearing pants and immodest clothing; television/no television; some know of a founder others don't; some not only say but believe "from the beginning", others readily admit no succession (especially now that a founder is known). These are things written of on this board. It seems that the doctrinal divisions are clearly underway.
Without a name, as doctrines continue to erode or change, how can "Truth" believers proclaim the same faith? It has elements of the faith of my childhood, but it surely isn't the "Truth" as I knew it.There are so many names already, The Truth, The Way, 2x2, F&W, etc. Very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 2, 2009 22:02:04 GMT -5
There is no denominational name. There is not one name that applies in every country, and in some countries a name is not registered at all. The fact that there was a registration made to fulfill a particular purpose (such as avoiding a call to war), is by requirement that a name is put on the piece of paper, and for anybody who has their faith in the group it might be of interest to them to know that name, and that is a good reason for them to not know the name because their faith should not be in the group. They should belong to God, not a name on a bit of paper, which is only temporal. Anybody who doesn’t have any specific reason to interact with the government regarding their faith, will be quite fine to carry on without a name. I can't imagine the first century church registering their organization with the authorities. If workers had no organization there would be no need to register. The authorities can see there is an organization even if the membership can't.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 2, 2009 22:06:56 GMT -5
Nathan, you don't quite seem to have got it yet with your 100% false claim. Without generalising too much it is quite safe to say that overseers will not allow married workers to be on their staff. It is therefore quite safe to say, then that they forbid workers to be married.
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married.
So the claim that overseers forbid workers to be married is correct.. ie ...it stands 100% true.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 2, 2009 22:23:33 GMT -5
Hey, Nate, how about we just let the readers decide?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 2, 2009 22:32:58 GMT -5
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 2, 2009 22:49:54 GMT -5
I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore. Right. But they weren't forbidden. Remember... nathan has historical documents.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 2, 2009 22:57:52 GMT -5
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore..... Scott Does it need a native English speaker to comprehend this? A church member is free to marry if they are not a worker. If a person is a worker they are expected to resign from the work before they marry. If they disobey the "married people are forbidden to preach the gospel" rule they are quickly dismissed and are no longer a worker. Which brings me back to: All workers are forbidden to marry.(but ex-workers are allowed to marry). All married believers are forbidden from preaching the gospel(except on rare occassions to speak in worker-controlled meetings when a 2x2 worker has no companion).
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 3, 2009 6:32:49 GMT -5
And another thing, I can think of a number of workers booted from the work for eyeing a woman with intent. Matt10 and I discussed one earlier and there was another Northern Irish chap who was in the work 10 years and decided to take a wife. He was booted too. Now of course that doesn't suggest for a moment that there are rules forbidding married workers. Just don't think of it or do it or the non-rules will be firmly and unequivocally applied. Had you considered that it may not have been a suitable mission to be on now that his marital condition had changed. If I saw that someone had taken a wife, even without being a wise fella, I would even tell this person to stay home with his wife, and if I know anything about relationships, I am betting that this chap actually wanted to settle down with his wife and provide for her. I have also known of single people who were told not to go into the work too, so it wasn't neccessarily the fact that they were married that made them unsuitable.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 3, 2009 6:56:18 GMT -5
What is different from then to now that they didn’t need a name back then, but that they need one now. There is no denominational name. There is not one name that applies in every country, and in some countries a name is not registered at all. "There is not one name that applies in every country...". And that's a major facet of what seems to be a growing problem--lack of "sameness" world over. Isn't that a tenet of the faith?
I left in the late 60s. So much is different now. I realize there's another thread about that, but it ties in to the fact that it's hardly the same "Truth" any longer...from state to state or coast to coast now...from seams in stockings to sandals; long hair & bun to hair worn down or short; D&R on East coast and midwest, not in CA; ladies wearing pants and immodest clothing; television/no television; some know of a founder others don't; some not only say but believe "from the beginning", others readily admit no succession (especially now that a founder is known). These are things written of on this board. It seems that the doctrinal divisions are clearly underway.Hey stanne, I can tell that you are new to this board because you missed one of the most obvious doctrinal differences, which was bought up recently, to the horror of some... and that is the consumption of differnent brands of breakfast cereals, sometimes within the one state, under the same overseer. [/color][/color][/quote] Assuming that the doctrines are erroding, are you saying that having a name is going to stop that? What does having a name have to do with stopping doctrinal change? Can you tell me some benefits of having a name? Not that confusing... I think you might be just pretending that it is confusing. BTW, getting back to the topic... Could you please tell me who the founder is and what He/She did that makes them the founder of The Truth, The Way, 2x2, F&W, etc. (sorry about the confusion)?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 3, 2009 7:05:09 GMT -5
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore..... Scott WHAT!! Are you for real?!?! Did this actually happen? It sounds to me more like they would have been given the boot for living a secret double life not because they got married. If they couldn't be open about their life on such a matter, I would say that was really the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2009 8:57:19 GMT -5
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore..... Scott WHAT!! Are you for real?!?! Did this actually happen? It sounds to me more like they would have been given the boot for living a secret double life not because they got married. If they couldn't be open about their life on such a matter, I would say that was really the problem. It's true. Regardless, the worker would have been booted out as soon as the marriage became known. Openness or not had nothing to do with the end of the workership. You are not allowed to be married and on the workers' list. I know of a number of fairly recent cases where two workers married and even then staying in the work was not an option. Half a century ago there were a few exceptions to the rule, but as far as I know today there are none and there are no jurisdictions which would welcome married workers. There's a reason why you will not see married workers any time soon. A large number of current workers feel that they have sacrificed marriage and a family to go into the work. There is no way those ones are going to allow any in who have not gone through the same sacrifice. Quite logical really.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 3, 2009 9:35:06 GMT -5
So nathan... which overseer permits married workers in his area?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 3, 2009 9:43:29 GMT -5
"Quote:That's just a slight in the facts of life! Don't you jest or hear people jest one another by giving them names that are not their real name? It's a joke and I'm sorry that the beginning workers did not see that becoming a problem!
Could you please tell me what the problem is? Often people do not call someone by real name but mostly it is not in jest. They use words like “mate” or “darling”, and these are describing words, and I don’t have any problem with people who want to describe the ministry as “the truth”. I am a living example of not being called my real name most of my life, and ironically enough “Todd” is derived from a describing word, and because I have been called that since I was 1 year old, some people do not know my real name. I have even had good friendships with these people without them knowing my name, but just using a describing word to refer to me, so really a name is not necessary, because I have got on quite well. There was even a lady who knew me well, but having heard my real name once said that she didn’t really know that person, not realizing that they were talking about me, but either way it didn’t change anything, and her relationship with me hasn’t changed."
In the USofA, to call a relatively strange person to yourself "mate" or "darling" can be construed as "harrassment"! I kid you not. In the medical training of the students of the day, we have to teach them not to call a patient or any visitor "darling", "honey" or any other familiar nicknames as it is "demeaning" to them. The formality of addressing a stranger or near stranger has gone back to the days when "sir", "madam" have become the "new" interaction names you give to people you do not know their name! Otherwise you put yourself up for "harassment" charges! I kid you not! So is it likewise, that you do not refer to any society or groups of people by a nickname and not get taken as "making fun of them"! Another kind of harassment! And I think it is high time, that the truth's fellowship change with the time! I think we should go with the registered names when conversation is being brought about the fellowship to one another and to strangers, that way we keep a connection with those who believe are have like faiths across the face of the earth! That is "IF" we want to be taken serious!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 3, 2009 10:00:43 GMT -5
Nathan, you don't quite seem to have got it yet with your 100% false claim. Without generalising too much it is quite safe to say that overseers will not allow married workers to be on their staff. It is therefore quite safe to say, then that they forbid workers to be married. If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. So the claim that overseers forbid workers to be married is correct.. ie ...it stands 100% true. ~~~ Well, we must agree to disagree. ALL of the Workers KNOW they are FREE to get marry any time they wish but not be in the work. Does that sound the overseers are forbidden the workers to get married? I don't think so.A disagreement at how it is put, perhaps Nathan, I think most American overseers would gently put it this way..."If you want to stay in the work, marriage can not be considered or accomplished. For the end result of that is, you would NO longer be considered a worker or IN the work!" End of conversation! I think perhaps it is time to mention also, that the turmoil of some workers' nature of wanting to be domesticated makes for "nerve problems"! However, if the worker suffering such things go "doctoring" or "resting" and finally gets married and quits being a worker...often the "nerve problem" abates and is seldom a major problem again! Sometimes, those desiring the homelife very much will go as far as to develop such problems in order to get out of the work gracefully! In that light, it is a shame that going out of the work is looked on with contempt so often! It makes for supporting lies for those desiring and needing to get out of the work without facing negative feedback and looks and some right down shunning!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 3, 2009 10:05:19 GMT -5
If a worker wishes to get married then they cease to be a worker BEFORE they are married. I heard of one that got married not too long ago and didn't tell anyone, and then went on special meeting rounds. Of course once the truth came out they kinda weren't a worker anymore..... Scott WHAT!! Are you for real?!?! Did this actually happen? It sounds to me more like they would have been given the boot for living a secret double life not because they got married. If they couldn't be open about their life on such a matter, I would say that was really the problem. Todd, this "secret double life" is no worse then what others have had to do as far as having to leave the work "for a time" to "doctor" or "rest".....it puts a lie to their shame, but that shame is not as bad as the shame they suffer for leaving the work because they desire to no longer be a worker and would like to become domesticated and have a partner to live with! It is common occurance, I have seen it over and over again. This frequent occurance puts those who really have health problems at risk, because it becomes to where the friends who usually are the ones who offer a place to doctor or rest to be free to offer help! The friends often give much so a worker can doctor or rest and when it's done to save face and yet get what the worker wants as far as returning to a normal life then the friends often are left with a bad taste in their mouth. No one resents "helping" an ex-worker for the right reasons, people just don't like being duped!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 3, 2009 10:54:32 GMT -5
Hey stanne, I can tell that you are new to this board because you missed one of the most obvious doctrinal differences, which was bought up recently, to the horror of some... and that is the consumption of differnent brands of breakfast cereals, sometimes within the one state, under the same overseer. I did skim something to that effect, but sort of went on by it. Yes, I am new here. I only found out about Wm I. a couple of weeks ago, and all of the online content about the faith of my childhood.Assuming that the doctrines are erroding, are you saying that having a name is going to stop that? What does having a name have to do with stopping doctrinal change? Can you tell me some benefits of having a name? It would serve to differentiate which sect believes which doctrine(s) and observes it or them. Not that confusing... I think you might be just pretending that it is confusing. No. Not pretending. I take matters of my faith or others' faith very seriously. I had never heard any "names" used other than an occasional reference to "Truth" or "Way" and the occasional "Christian or Protestant" when filling out hospital paperwork or something similar. It was quite shocking to learn of Wm I. and of all the names now associated with the faith.BTW, getting back to the topic... Could you please tell me who the founder is and what He/She did that makes them the founder of The Truth, The Way, 2x2, F&W, etc. (sorry about the confusion)? I'm not much into denying the obvious. It is clear to me that Wm I. et al fashioned a practice of faith attempting to "start up" a church patterned after some aspects of the early NT church. There is so much more recorded history of the real NT church however. I cannot deny the history or fullness of truth found in that church. Nor can I now accept the perhaps well-intentioned but misguided and inconsistent teachings of the "Truth".
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 3, 2009 11:00:48 GMT -5
stanne - Glad to have you on board. How did your find the websites and this board? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 3, 2009 11:10:50 GMT -5
stanne - Glad to have you on board. How did your find the websites and this board? Just curious. Hi and thanks for the welcome. I have exchanged emails with you (fairly recently). I would have PM'd you from here when I joined, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. I live in your state--does that help identify me? Oh...and I found this board by following a link from VOT, I think. I may have found VOT as a link from your website?
|
|