NOM

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:53 am**

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:11 am Terryl Givens didn’t travel far and wide through the Church giving firesides for free. I don’t know who was financing that, but someone was. And while he probably doesn’t get rich off of his books, if his motivation is solely to help people, why sell a book? He could provide all his information for free in a blog if he’s really just out to help people.

In my estimation, Terryl Givens is guilty of priestcraft, he is one of those men who “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 26). If you look at that definition, he preaches, he sets himself up as a light unto the world, and he labors for money. Terryl Givens is just a much less successful Joel Osteen with less charisma, less ambition, a pseudo-academic approach and a much weirder denomination to work with. He hawks a kinder, gentler version of Mormonism that doesn’t really exist and does nothing to change the reality of what the Church is really like. But what he does do is provide intellectually dishonest rationalizations that keep some members in it, and for that he is useful to the Church.

I guess it's just where we're both at, NBI. I have nothing but apathy for his overall apologist message, but it simply doesn't bother me that he's getting a slice of the pie. Givens guilty of priestcraft? Of course he is. The whole church is set up as one big priestcraft operation, one big MLM, one huge real estate conglomerate, with Mormons ripping each other off right, left and centre. It's always been that way, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I'm just glad I'm not the one getting ripped off anymore. So I'm not annoyed that Givens is doing the same thing, albeit on a much smaller scale. John Dehlin makes way more money than I do off his operation, and that doesn't bother me either. But when Givens says he's uncomfortable with the level of coercion that JS used during the Nauvoo years of polygamy during a Mormon Stories interview? This I can use to say to other people, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. That's useful to me, what both Givens and Dehlin are doing. If I can be a more angry version of Givens, and that saves my marriage and relationships with my children, he's useful to people like me. Clearly you have no use for him, NBI, and that's cool.

That he, Bushman and Prince come to different conclusions than me is something I'm not losing sleep over.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:01 am**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:19 am
Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:45 am ...but look at the hatchet job Gee does on the BOA volume in the JS papers project:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/.
This is fascinating to me. They're fighting over the differences between the Keebler Elf and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun when maybe they should be putting more energy into the question of whether snack-based fairies even exist.

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training. It is regretable that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.
Doesn't Gee realize that is how the church approaches everything? That it's exactly how apologetics work, his included?

I should have pasted this in a few weeks ago, with the comments that were eventually deleted. Even though they have still included some Dan Vogel comments that are supporting Hauglid/Jensen. It's quite the crapshow. What's fascinating to me is the minutiae mistakes that Gee is focused on in the BOA volume, and he says the whole thing is suspect as a result. Uh, BOM anyone? So with all the mistakes in that book, is the whole thing suspect? Unbelievable. Gee must be a lot of fun at parties.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:07 am**

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:01 am I should have pasted this in a few weeks ago, with the comments that were eventually deleted. Even though they have still included some Dan Vogel comments that are supporting Hauglid/Jensen. It's quite the crapshow. What's fascinating to me is the minutiae mistakes that Gee is focused on in the BOA volume, and he says the whole thing is suspect as a result. Uh, BOM anyone? So with all the mistakes in that book, is the whole thing suspect? Unbelievable. Gee must be a lot of fun at parties.

I think some of the quotes were saved on the mormondiscussions board a few weeks back, but they really are amazing.

From the moment Hauglid called the work of Gee and Muhlstein "abhorrent,"you knew there would be some serious tension between the camps of apologists esp with regards to the BoA.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:11 am**

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:11 am In my estimation, Terryl Givens is guilty of priestcraft, he is one of those men who “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 26).

You do know this book is made up right? Preistcraft is a made up Mormon thing. So why rail against him for not following the teachings of a made up book, regardless of whether we think he believes in the book or not? Is he a hypocrite? Maybe. We all are, in some way or another. I dont mean to come off as aggressive here, but seriously, the low-hanging fruit of ex-mormonism is to point at people and scream "He's not doing what he preaches!" is a little basic.
The real question is, is Givens being dishonest by willfully ignoring evidence contrary to facts? The more I read about the human mind, the more I am beginning to understand that is unanswerable by everyone including Givens himself.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:24 am**

Emower wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:11 am
Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:11 am In my estimation, Terryl Givens is guilty of priestcraft, he is one of those men who “preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” (2 Nephi 26).
You do know this book is made up right? Preistcraft is a made up Mormon thing. So why rail against him for not following the teachings of a made up book, regardless of whether we think he believes in the book or not? Is he a hypocrite? Maybe. We all are, in some way or another. I dont mean to come off as aggressive here, but seriously, the low-hanging fruit of ex-mormonism is to point at people and scream "He's not doing what he preaches!" is a little basic.
The real question is, is Givens being dishonest by willfully ignoring evidence contrary to facts? The more I read about the human mind, the more I am beginning to understand that is unanswerable by everyone including Givens himself.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, charges of priestcraft are about as valid as condemning someone for unwise use of a palantir or for planning to use the Ark of the Covenant to help the armies of Nazi Germany conquer the earth. But I find priestcraft a useful concept nonetheless - the idea that people claim some sort of special knowledge, setting themselves up like they are some kind of spiritual authority, and making money from it (which, of course, is exactly what one Joseph Smith Jr. did. Kind of ironic that).

Who is Terryl Givens that any of us should care what he thinks about the Book of Abraham? Why does he see himself as someone who ought to be going throughout the Church convincing us to stay in it? However small the profit may be, is it appropriate for him to profit from preaching to the rest of us to stay in the Church? You are correct that one key question is whether Givens is being willfully dishonest, but I would also ask - who does this guy think he is? Why is he promoting himself as a guy with the answers? Is it wise for people to give attention and grant influence to someone who comes along promoting their own ideas like he does? (And I actually feel the same way about John Dehlin).

I know there is no such thing as priestcraft - yet it is a useful construct for me to describe what troubles me about guys like Givens. While I find his intellectual dishonesty troubling, I am also no fan of someone who sets themselves up as a spiritual authority, especially when they use that authority to deceive people into staying in the Church. I for one am completely done with looking to other people to be my spiritual authority. But hey, I feel way better about Terryl Givens than I do Joel Osteen, so there’s that.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:27 am**

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:01 am Gee must be a lot of fun at parties.

I lost a lot of potential respect for Gee when he compared facts about the Book of Abraham to landmines that should not be shared with ordinary (not as smart as him) members of the church. He quotes Apostle BKP’s “the truth is not always useful” and reiterates Packer’s warning that for a scholar to tell unprepared members the whole truth should be considered a breaking of covenants for which he ”will be accountable.” Ugly stuff.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:28 am**

jfro18 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:53 am
Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:30 am Terryl and Fiona made a stop at my stake. I think I mentioned this recently on another thread. I began to get excited when Terryl gave the impression that he was going to hit some hard BoM issues head-on and then fell back into weak, generalized apologetics (e.g. if you understand that the BoM happened in Mesoamerica all of your questions evaporate) and a why-not-just-believe approach.
This reminds me of the Patrick Mason approach... basically saying 'Yeah I was lied to as well and I felt horrible about it, but do you really want to let go of those good feelings you've had in order to really find out more? It might have some awful history, but doesn't it make you feel good today?'

I know you are right in the thick of it right now jfro, but why is that argument not valid if it works for you? It obviously works well for the Givens, even to the point of making a living off of it, so why not use that to pursue your life's happiness, and provide something that other people desperately want? It worked for me, until it didnt anymore, but I sure used the heck out of that argument for a good 6 weeks!

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:29 am**

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:53 am The whole church is set up as one big priestcraft operation, one big MLM, one huge real estate conglomerate, with Mormons ripping each other off right, left and centre. It's always been that way, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. I'm just glad I'm not the one getting ripped off anymore.

I have to say, this is very, very true, and in my opinion goes a long ways toward explaining why the Church is so obsessed with money, and why it is so common for members to find ways to use it to enrich themselves (as the “ponderize” debacle so pointedly illustrated).

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:30 am**

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:24 am I for one am completely done with looking to other people to be my spiritual authority.

You have passed the test, Grasshopper.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:39 am**

Emower wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:28 am I know you are right in the thick of it right now jfro, but why is that argument not valid if it works for you? It obviously works well for the Givens, even to the point of making a living off of it, so why not use that to pursue your life's happiness, and provide something that other people desperately want? It worked for me, until it didnt anymore, but I sure used the heck out of that argument for a good 6 weeks!

So the reason it doesn't work for me is because it's not intellectually honest or just ethical.

Givens is basically making a living off selling a product, which in this case is keeping members renewing their membership in the church for 10% of their income. Instead of saying 'the church lied and here's why they lied and here are your options,' he says 'the church is not quite what it claimed to be, but do you really want to give up those feelings when you can still make it work by just reframing their truth claims?'

I mean I get *why* it works because when we first encounter this info we deparately want to make it work, so if we can find some rope to hang on, we will grab it and hold it tight.

But I feel like the Givens are using this 'prestige' to effectively keep people believing in something they are softly admitting isn't what it claimed to be, and in the case of the Book of Abraham are using apologetics that are flat out indefensible.

I'm rambling a bit, but I suppose it's like a doctor who knows a patient who has no chance telling them they're going to be OK. By giving them false hope (or in this case a false reason to continue paying tithing, garments, etc), they are being dishonest even if in the end it makes the patient feel better until things come crashing down. I just feel like making money that way isn't right even if it can help people by allowing them to ignore or deflect the truth away.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:44 am**

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:24 am You are correct that one key question is whether Givens is being willfully dishonest, but I would also ask - who does this guy think he is? Why is he promoting himself as a guy with the answers? Is it wise for people to give attention and grant influence to someone who comes along promoting their own ideas like he does?

I haven't read much from Givens lately, so I dont know exactly what kinds of stuff he is preaching lately, except what has been discussed here on this thread. But I speculate, and it is just speculation that who he thinks he is relates to another comment you made earlier:

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:11 am He hawks a kinder, gentler version of Mormonism that doesn’t really exist and does nothing to change the reality of what the Church is really like. But what he does do is provide intellectually dishonest rationalizations that keep some members in it, and for that he is useful to the Church.

If Teryl has any similar thought processes to the rest of us, he is likely stuck in the pattern of thinking that he can make a difference and perhaps be part of a cohort that creates a kinder, gentler version of mormonism that doesnt exist, right now. But if you get enough Givens in the church, maybe that kind of gospel can be created. I am not willing to be a casualty in that war, you are not either. Thats fine. Is that kindler gentler version being created through intellectual dishonesty? Maybe, but considering the source material it is not really that surprising that intellectual dishonesty might be employed.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:52 am**

jfro18 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:39 am So the reason it doesn't work for me is because it's not intellectually honest or just ethical.

I get why we/I/everyone feel that way, but like I said up the thread, I dont think we can judge that, and I dont think Givens is even able to assess the level of his honesty. We see the conflict between the channeling argument and what is actually written and said, but we assume that Givens can see the same thing in the same way and that is a bad assumption.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:39 am I just feel like making money that way isn't right even if it can help people by allowing them to ignore or deflect the truth away.

I guess where I am at is that truth is no longer binary for me. I think a lot of what we assume to be the truth is actually relative moral frameworks created by our subconscious.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:10 am**

Emower wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:52 am I guess where I am at is that truth is no longer binary for me. I think a lot of what we assume to be the truth is actually relative moral frameworks created by our subconscious.

This part I agree with 100% - i think truth as a term is meaningless because everything is filtered through our minds and then assessed as reliable/nonreliable/etc not based on actual "facts," but what we determine truth to be.

And you're right - it's possible that Givens truly believes that this all works and has no ulterior motive in sustaining his career. I honestly don't know that. I had a discussion recently about the Renlunds as they gave that worldwide youth devotional and then recently Dale gave another talk to CES instructions effectively threatening them to not show any doubt or contradiction, and a response was that he's a super nice and awesome guy.

Dale Renlund might be a super awesome and nice guy - I dont know him, but his actions with regards to erasing doubts by telling students not to research or think for themselves is really bad, and i think anyone outside of true believers would agree with it.

But until you're out of that mindset, you can make that work in a faith promoting way.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:44 am**

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 8:01 am
Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:19 am
Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:45 am ...but look at the hatchet job Gee does on the BOA volume in the JS papers project:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -stumbles/.
This is fascinating to me. They're fighting over the differences between the Keebler Elf and the Lucky Charms Leprechaun when maybe they should be putting more energy into the question of whether snack-based fairies even exist.

Anything the editors say about Egyptian language, papyri, or characters is beyond their skill and training. It is regretable that although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts several faithful Egyptologists among its membership, the editors deliberately chose not to involve them in any serious way.
Doesn't Gee realize that is how the church approaches everything? That it's exactly how apologetics work, his included?
I should have pasted this in a few weeks ago, with the comments that were eventually deleted. Even though they have still included some Dan Vogel comments that are supporting Hauglid/Jensen. It's quite the crapshow. What's fascinating to me is the minutiae mistakes that Gee is focused on in the BOA volume, and he says the whole thing is suspect as a result. Uh, BOM anyone? So with all the mistakes in that book, is the whole thing suspect? Unbelievable. Gee must be a lot of fun at parties.

Excellent comments here. I wonder if Gee's response is just 'sour grapes.' Especially when I look at the what you call the "minutiae mistakes."

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:54 pm**

Emower wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:52 am
I guess where I am at is that truth is no longer binary for me. I think a lot of what we assume to be the truth is actually relative moral frameworks created by our subconscious.

This part I agree with 100% - i think truth as a term is meaningless because everything is filtered through our minds and then assessed as reliable/nonreliable/etc not based on actual "facts," but what we determine truth to be.

I feel the need to disagree with this. If the word "truth" isn't meaningful, then science itself would be a hopeless venture, but we can see with our own eyes that it's not so. Science, if nothing else, has a really great track record of pinning down what reality is really like at least to a useful degree of approximation. Newton's physics still work amazingly well for most purposes, until you get really fast or come into the vicinity of a really massive star; then Einstein's work better.

I take "truth" to be faithful and reliable descriptions about reality, of the way the world really is. Our actual theories are always approximations of the truth, models as it were of the real thing, always subject to being falsified by evidence and logic, and to refinement or outright replacement when better models come along. The fact that science provides a basis for evaluating those models against the real world, and that logic provides a basis for evaluating those models based on their internal consistency, is what makes the pursuit of truth -- of descriptions that faithfully describe reality -- a hopeful pursuit.

And for me personally, a belief that an uncompromising respect for truth is one of the highest virtues is what made my continued allegiance to the LDS Church untenable.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:38 pm**

Keewon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:54 pm
Emower wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:52 am
I guess where I am at is that truth is no longer binary for me. I think a lot of what we assume to be the truth is actually relative moral frameworks created by our subconscious.

This part I agree with 100% - i think truth as a term is meaningless because everything is filtered through our minds and then assessed as reliable/nonreliable/etc not based on actual "facts," but what we determine truth to be.
I feel the need to disagree with this. If the word "truth" isn't meaningful, then science itself would be a hopeless venture, but we can see with our own eyes that it's not so. Science, if nothing else, has a really great track record of pinning down what reality is really like at least to a useful degree of approximation. Newton's physics still work amazingly well for most purposes, until you get really fast or come into the vicinity of a really massive star; then Einstein's work better.

I take "truth" to be faithful and reliable descriptions about reality, of the way the world really is. Our actual theories are always approximations of the truth, models as it were of the real thing, always subject to being falsified by evidence and logic, and to refinement or outright replacement when better models come along. The fact that science provides a basis for evaluating those models against the real world, and that logic provides a basis for evaluating those models based on their internal consistency, is what makes the pursuit of truth -- of descriptions that faithfully describe reality -- a hopeful pursuit.

And for me personally, a belief that an uncompromising respect for truth is one of the highest virtues is what made my continued allegiance to the LDS Church untenable.

The problem comes when we start trying to apply the word "truth" to things like whether Givens has it right or not. And, harking back to my scientific education, its not science unless it is falsifiable. Now I will support the argument all day long that the book of Abraham as Joseph described it is falsifiable. But Givens' state of mind, whether he understands that falsifiable nature of the book, and the utility of the approach he takes and offers to others is no longer the domain of "truth."

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:41 pm**

Keewon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:54 pm I feel the need to disagree with this. If the word "truth" isn't meaningful, then science itself would be a hopeless venture, but we can see with our own eyes that it's not so. Science, if nothing else, has a really great track record of pinning down what reality is really like at least to a useful degree of approximation. Newton's physics still work amazingly well for most purposes, until you get really fast or come into the vicinity of a really massive star; then Einstein's work better.

What I'm saying is that truth isn't meaningful to the individual anymore because truth has changed from facts to feelings.

And maybe I'm super jaded from working with political people over the last 7 years and then church stuff, but "truth" is a squishy word to people now.

I believe 100% that truth and facts matter and that they have to matter, but I do not believe that they do as we see with Givens here being willing to forgo the truth in order to keep people from shattering their illusions about Mormonism.

It reminds me of the "Was Joseph Smith a fraud or a pious fraud" argument? The believe that Joseph knew he was full of it, but thought he was helping people so it was a pious fraud, vs just being a fraud designed to make $$, sex, and power.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:07 pm**

This is a great thread. All of the responses are very interesting.

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:06 pm**

This reminds me of a developing police case based on forensics and also how the church and it's defenders react to arising facts.

Police:
Were you at the Browns home on Monday morning?

Suspect:
No, I was no where near the Browns home.

Police:
We found a footprint that matches your shoe perfectly near a window at the Browns home.

Suspect:
Well, maybe I was near the Browns home but I never went IN the Browns home.

Police:
We found your finger print inside the Browns home on a knife that had blood on it.

Suspect:
Well I was in the Browns home but I didn't kill anybody.

Police:
We found your blood DNA mixed with Mrs. Brown's blood DNA on the knife that killed Mrs. Brown and you have a cut on your hand.

Suspect:
Well, I killed Mrs. Brown but it was in self defense. She came at me with that knife because she didn't like me and we struggled and then she fell on the knife while we both had ahold of it. I had received permission to be in the house from Mr. Brown to return a borrowed tool.

Police:
It's unfortunate that Mr. Brown died last year under suspicious circumstances and can't corroborate your statement. Mrs. Brown was stabbed twice in the back you know.

Suspect:
She really scared the hell out of me. I feared for my life. Once she was down I had to make sure she was no longer a threat.
As far as Mr. Brown goes, there's nothing saying he didn't give me permission to be in the house returning that tool.

Police:
We have a letter written by Mr. Brown to Mrs. Brown before his death stating that he really disliked you hanging around their property all the time and ogling Mrs. Brown.

Suspect:
Like I said before, I don't know why Mrs. Brown came at me with that knife. I only knew that I had to defend myself. That's all I was thinking. Maybe I should have knocked before I went in to drop off that tool but that doesn't give her the right to kill me does it? I was just trying to do the right thing and return a borrowed tool. The cut on my hand is actually a defensive wound. That woman was a terror. You guys would have done the same thing.....

So to me at this point we begin to wonder where the truth is. Is it possible or likely that Mrs. Brown actually attacked the suspect who was innocently returning a tool in a stupid way?? What was really going through his mind at the time of the conflict? Does he really believe what he's telling the cops or is he just making crap up as the forensics change?

The reason this resonates for me is because when some of the troubling issues came up regarding the church. They did the same thing as our suspect. They said, "No way was Joseph Smith a treasure Hunter or money digger. No way was he a glass looker.....

But when the proof is offered they change their story and begin to mitigate just as our suspect did. Always changing the story by making excuses. Always defending Joseph no matter what.

Is it because their lives and their prestige depend upon it? Is it because they lose everything if they are proven wrong?

Or is it because they believe from the very bottom of their hearts that Joseph was everything he said he was? After all, that's what their fathers told them. Would their fathers lie? Would their fathers intentionally say false things in the name of Christ?
Is it possible that Joseph lied to their fathers? Or did Joseph really believe his own stories?

Hmmmm........

Posted: **Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:44 pm**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:40 am In a recent Reddit AMA Terryl Givens announced that he is "writing of a book that would do for the PGP what By the Hand of Mormon did for that scripture."
https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaint ... ivens_ama/

Givens says,
"Abraham's teachings and writings on the creation, the priesthood, and the resurrection were adopted and integrated by the Egyptians into derivative writings in their own sacred burial texts discussing immortality and the afterlife, which were adapted and corrupted over time resulting in a version of the Book of Breathings that Joseph obtained. Then Joseph translated it to extract the original truths in Abraham's gospel teachings that influenced the Egyptian writings."

I'm tempted to read the book to see if Givens gives any evidence for this unlikely statement.-- Deacon

Here's an interesting observation that Givens makes:
Many who stay do so because they are intellectually incurious and not apt to be troubled by new developments or discoveries. And many who leave do so because they are intellectually curious, but not intellectually open enough to reformulations of faith paradigms. So we may be losing the moderate middle?

"Intellectually incurious." A very nice way of saying most TBM's don't care if the BOA is true or not.--Deacon

It sounds like he's saying wall-jello is now the standard for doctrinal exegesis and that you should just be open to going along with whatever flavor they're tossing out today, curious sure, but more importantly, intellectually submissive.

Intellectually incurious, intellectually submissive. Seems like another way of giving up one's agency, to an organization that pretends to be god.

NOM

Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring

Re: Terryl Givens steps into the BoA ring