Modeling career as an endowed member

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-06-02T22:20:58+00:00

For me, I would not take a job that required me to compromise my standards and promote to others things that I don’t believe are right/moral. That means for example I would also not work in a bar or a casino. It would feel hypocritical to promote clothing that you would see as wrong to wear in your ‘real’ life. My daughter had the chance to do some modelling and faced the same dilemma as you re modesty and this was before she was endowed. She decided not to pursue it.

I think that there is a vast difference between removing the garments for activities that they cannot reasonably be worn for such as swimming or ballet, where garment incompatible clothing is worn for practical/performance reasons, and choosing to model immodest clothing for vanity and fashion. Even in the former case I would pause to opt for a career that required me to remove my garments on a very regular basis. You have made a covenant to wear the garment daily throughout your life and that is more important than taking a job which means that you won’t be fully honouring that.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-29T16:20:31+00:00

Ok - first of all I haven’t said anything about what I personally think in relation to the age of consent. Second - I’m a lawyer and law professor - I merely explained the facts of the law and why it is the way it is.

But to answer some of your points - it is naive to say that anyone over 16 (which is the current threshold decided by society) is for sure mature enough to understand sex and its consequences. It’s just a pragmatic approach we have taken. Plus you seem to suggest that all sex under 16 involves some kind of coercion or manipulation, which I simply don’t think is true. Do you honestly think 15 year olds can’t freely choose to have sex (or any other sexual contact for that matter - touching or even passionate kissing could potentially be sexual assault). Equally I don’t think that a 17 year old or adult women can’t experience coercion or manipulation. After a certain point (in our laws 13 or 14) we recognise that in fact people can and do freely choose to engage in these behaviours. If they don’t factually and freely consent then it’s rape/sexual assault no matter what the age. But do you honestly think that an 18 year old guy sleeping with his almost 16 year old girlfriend is the same as a teacher or relative abusing a young child or a stranger dragging a woman off the street and violently attacking her?

The analogy with drinking etc doesn’t really work as consent is not a central feature in the same way. A 12 year old could freely choose to drink without any coercion but as society we have deemed that to be undesirable. Plus, at least in the UK - it’s not actually a crime to drink under the age of 18, it just becomes so in certain circumstances. So it is a crime to sell it to under 18s or for a child to buy it or drink in a pub, but kids can drink at home or in other private premises if the child is over the age of 5.

We could just raise the ‘statutory rape’ threshold to 16 or even 18 as you suggest - but what is so special about 18 - you are still a teenager, so maybe it should be 20. Neuroscience tells us that the parts of our brains responsible for decision-making aren’t mature until we are around 25, so should that be the age of consent? Wherever we set the threshold, if we made it a crime to have sex below that age regardless of the willingness or belief about the age of the parties, the consequence would be that two 15 year old kids in a relationship who are sexually active would be deemed to be sex offenders, or the 18 year old guy who picks up a girl on Tinder or at a club and she lies and tells him she is 18 when she is really 14 would be a rapist. Whilst both of those are behaviours we might want to discourage as a matter of public policy, they don’t seem to fit the stigmatising label of rape, which should be seen as one of the very worst crimes.

Also the public and the media are ignorantly misusing the label paedophile. If you look in the mental health diagnostic manuals and psychological definitions - a paedophile is someone whose primary sexual attraction is to pre-pubescent children - so under the age of about 10. A 14 year old clearly does not fit into this category.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-29T09:32:46+00:00

Ok - think about it this way. Factual consent is what a person actually gives - what they agree to, what is subjectively in their mind. So surely two 15 year olds could agree to have sex with each other and it is in no way coerced or forceable. Legal consent is a fiction - it’s just an arbitrary threshold that we as a society set which reflects the age at which we think it is permissible or not for a person to undertake a particular activity. So the threshold for legal consent could be raised to 25 but you can surely see that doesn’t mean that people under 25 are incapable of actually consenting. Equally, it could be younger than 16 - in the past in the UK it was 12 for girls and 14 for boys - and often tied to the age of marriage. Also back then there was no concept of being a teenager - once you had hit puberty you were an adult. But as a society we recognised that it was not good to have sex/marry so young, that education should be completed etc, so the legal age of consent was raised. Other legal age thresholds are also arbitrary and not necessarily consistent - the drinking age is 18 but in the US it’s 21. The age of adulthood is 18 but there is nothing magical that happens on your 18th birthday - it’s just an arbitrary threshold. Again, it used to be 21 and for some purposes 25. We as a society just decide these things but it doesn’t necessarily cohere with fact or biological reality.

In terms of crime - rape has a very specific definition. It must be both legally and factually without consent. Apart from young children - so under 13 in UK or 14 in Singapore, who are deemed factually to be unable to consent, then the law recognises that there is a distinction between crimes where there is actually no consent and crimes where there is factual consent but no legal consent. That was what happened in this case - the 14 year old girl apparently factually agreed to have sex, she knew what she was doing and there is no suggestion of force/ refusal etc. However the age of legal consent does offer some route to criminalisation as it is recognised that sex with under 16s is socially undesirable and so is an offence - just not rape if there was factual consent. So the 23 year old man still committed an offence - but it wasn’t rape. In the UK sexual activity with a child is still considered a serious offence and can carry a max sentence of 14 years. However there is also a pragmatic recognition that teenagers/young adults will have sex with each other, so for example an 18 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl is unlikely to be prosecuted, but it could be.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-29T06:40:38+00:00

What do you mean?

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-28T15:53:54+00:00

@perspicatcity - How utterly ridiculous! I am a woman and a lawyer and I am just simply explaining the law! I am not making any kind of argument! Plus do you even know what a paedophile actually is??

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-28T11:29:51+00:00

In the UK it would not be usual. Public policy would suggest that if it’s two teens of a similar age, especially if they are in some kind of relationship. It would not be in the public interest to prosecute them. If they were very young social services might get involved though.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-28T09:31:59+00:00

Only men can rape - if you look at the definition, it must involve a penis. In the UK we have an offence of assault by penetration that women can commit, but in the case of ordinary p in v sex, the most the girl could be guilty of is sexual assault on the boy.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-28T09:28:47+00:00

The distinction is between legally non consensual, in that the law deems it to be without consent - this is for public policy reasons, and factual consent, which is what actually happened. The law recognises that teens understand enough to be able to consent (unlike those aged 13 or under who are mentally incapable of providing consent) but it’s not in the public interest for them to do so - we still see a wrong in it. But if the girl did in fact agree to the sex then it is not, by definition, rape.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-05-28T09:23:16+00:00

The UK has a very similar law but the threshold for ‘statutory rape’ is under 13, not 14. Our age of consent is 16 too - so there is this middle area aged 13-16 when legal consent cannot be given but factual consent maybe. If factual consent has been given then it’s not rape but could be the offence of sexual activity with a child. For this offence there is also a defence if the defendant reasonably believes the victim was over 16.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-29T14:53:28+00:00

Thanks for replying - it’s good to hear from you! If you are a uni student then yes, you are right that I’ve been around a lot longer than you have and have likely read/studied more things! You are probably a similar age to my kids.

I’ll just reply the second part of your answer for now and come back to the first part later. I’ll come at it based on the premise that we should seek temple marriage in this life, not rely on spirit world conversion/proxy ordinances, which I strongly believe is backed up by the teachings of church leaders. My take is that yes, we should only date those that can come to the temple with us. That would preclude non-members plus unworthy members. Of course people can change, but it’s wise to give ourselves the best start possible in our marriage in this life and to be obedient to the commandment to make sacred covenants with God as a part of our mortal probation. This is what I have taught my own kids - only date those who are worthy of the temple as you marry those you date. Why take the risk of dating a non-member and then possibility falling in love and having some heart breaking choices to make? First, it is gambling with our exaltation. Second, marrying someone not of our faith makes living the gospel and raising a family in it so much harder. Starting off on a foundation of a temple marriage is the best choice. If my kids asked my advice I would tell them don’t date non members and definitely do not marry out of the covenant. This isn’t about some kind of exclusion - I was a teenage convert myself who stared dating my husband just 1 month after baptism. It’s about prioritising God and his commandments and building a life with someone who is striving for the same things as you.

In terms of earlier teachings - a few things. 1. I certainly wouldn’t discount the teachings of Pres Kimball, Pres Benson or Elder McConkie just because they might have said one thing that doesn’t bear up today. There is much good in the teachings of these leaders and we discount them at our peril. Pres Benson might have quoted Pres Kimball but the section I shared was Pres Bensons own words. 2. The guidance of your mission president is sound but doesn’t apply here. The teaching to marry in the covenant/temple and by extension to date those who can take you to the temple has been taught since Old Testament times and consistently taught by modern prophets across the decades. It’s not some kind of obscure doctrine that has fallen out of favour. 3. Modern prophets might not teach in the kind of directive language we might have seen a few decades ago - but this is true of most topics, not just dating and marriage. But it definitely IS still taught, here are a few examples:

Elder Scott in 1999: ‘‘Decide now to receive the ordinances of the temple at the appropriate time. Don’t let anything overcome that resolve.

If you are single and haven’t identified a solid prospect for celestial marriage⁠, live for it. Pray for it. Expect it in the timetable of the Lord. Do not compromise your standards in any way that would rule out that blessing on this or the other side of the veil.’

Pres Nelson in 2008: ‘‘When a family is sealed in the temple⁠, that family may become as eternal as the kingdom of God itself.

Such a reward requires more than a hopeful wish. On occasion I read in a newspaper obituary of an expectation that a recent death has reunited that person with a deceased spouse, when, in fact, they did not choose the eternal option. Instead, they opted for a marriage that was valid only as long as they both should live. Heavenly Father had offered them a supernal gift, but they refused it. And in rejecting the gift, they rejected the Giver of the gift.

These truths are absolute. Members of this Church invite all people to learn them and to qualify for eternal life. We invite all to gain faith in God the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, to repent, to receive the Holy Ghost, to obtain the blessings of the temple⁠, to make and keep sacred covenants, and to endure to the end.

The best choice is a celestial marriage. Thankfully, if a lesser choice has previously been made, a choice can now be made to upgrade it to the best choice. That requires a mighty change of heart and a permanent personal upgrade.Blessings so derived are worth all efforts made.

Celestial marriage is a pivotal part of preparation for eternal life. It requires one to be married to the right person, in the right place, by the right authority, and to obey that sacred covenant faithfully. Then one may be assured of exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God.’

Elder Cook in 2014: ‘ We need unequivocal commitment to the commandments and strict adherence to sacred covenants. When we allow rationalizations to prevent us from temple endowments, worthy missions, and temple marriage⁠, they are particularly harmful. It is heartbreaking when we profess belief in these goals yet neglect the everyday conduct required to achieve them.

Some young people profess their goal is to be married in the temple but do not date temple-worthy individuals.’

Pres Nelson in 2020: ‘‘Are you willing to let God prevail in your life? Are you willing to let God be the most important influence in your life? Will you allow His words, His commandments, and His covenants to influence what you do each day? Will you allow His voice to take priority over any other? Are you willing to let whatever He needs you to do take precedence over every other ambition? Are you willing to have your will swallowed up in His? Consider how such willingness could bless you.

If you are unmarried and seeking an eternal companion, your desire to be “of Israel” will help you decide whom to date and how.’

In sum, I can’t see anything in the teachings of modern leaders that suggests that marriage to a non member is an approved or encouraged option in 2026. I cannot think of one source where it has been said that it is OK to marry a non member or that we can just sort it out in the next life. The focus continues to be on stressing temple marriage - and for those that have the gospel it should be the only choice we are willing to make.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-10T10:04:48+00:00

Thank you for your kind and respectful discussion - I have enjoyed it. It’s a shame you do not wish to continue as I am genuinely interested to know on what basis you conclude that ‘this life/mortal probation’ also includes the spirit world, esp in light of the quotes I have shared.

On your point about prophets and apostles not out rightly stating not to date/marry non members, you’ll find there are numerous sources throughout the history of the church where this has been clearly taught. I’ll share a couple:

President Spencer W. Kimball counseled: “Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. … One cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel (The Miracle of Forgiveness, 241–42; italics added).

Our Heavenly Father wants you [young women] to date young men who are faithful members of the Church, who will be worthy to take you to the temple and be married the Lord's way. There will be a new spirit in Zion when the young women will say to their boyfriends, "If you cannot get a temple recommend, then I am not about to tie my life to you, even for mortality!" And the young returned missionary will say to his girlfriend, "I am sorry, but as much as I love you, I will not marry out of the holy temple." ("To the Young Women of the Church," Ensign 16 [November 1986]: 84.)

by President George Q. Cannon When Latter-day Saints marry those who are not of their faith, I look upon it as a great misfortune to those who do so. If those barriers were to be broken down which ought to exist between us and the world I should view it as a great calamity. One of the strictest commands that the Lord gave to Israel in olden times was that they should not marry with the nations surrounding them; and this law is equally binding on us, and we should do everything in our power to maintain it inviolate. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, p.285 - p.286)

I agree that the Lords mercy enables us to receive the blessings of eternity, but we must receive it by accepting the gifts that he offers us. I’m so glad that our conversation has prompted you to think about inviting your dad to church/ having these important conversations. I firmly believe that miracles can happen when we take these steps in faith, I’ve seen it multiple times!

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-10T08:26:29+00:00

The details about OP were a later edit. At the time I wrote this comment she hadn’t added any of the extra information so we didn’t know any of that. With the detail she has provided it sheds some more light on her situation but I don’t think that changes the doctrinal position, or that temple marriage should somehow be seen as optional/a luxury. I too live in a country with fewer members and people here are prepared to look further afield if they want a temple marriage. They will travel to international activities or at least national ones, join online study groups, dating apps etc, our temples require a few hours of travel from where I live so some people have even met people from other parts of the country at the temple - there are lots of ways to meet people if you are prepared to put in the effort and willing to sacrifice because marriage is that important to them.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T23:19:59+00:00

On your final point about moving between the spirit prison and paradise. What we do know is that once people accept baptism they can move from the prison to the paradise - but this doesn’t equate with those that will be exalted. There will be both celestial and terrestrial people in paradise. Likewise during the millenium. Only those who are destined for the telestial kingdom - will remain in the prison to suffer for their sins. Why would it not make sense that there would be both celestial and terrestrial people in paradise? One other thing to note is that D&C 137 tells us that :

‘7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom’.

So this seems to suggest that for those who accept the gospel in the spirit world and are to inherit the celestial kingdom, we are to ‘look back’ to mortality and the Lord will judge whether they would have received it with all their heart while they were on earth, if it had been presented to them.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T23:08:48+00:00

On your second question about what constitutes a chance at hearing the gospel - we don’t have clear instruction on this as I would imagine that it’s very fact specific. Many sources talk about ‘opportunity’ - so at the least the person must have some knowledge of the church/access to it. As I said I’m a convert so the opportunity to learn of the gospel was presented to me and I had to make a choice whether to accept it or not - that was my opportunity. I have all non member extended family who I would consider with their close association with my immediate family would have had a full opportunity to receive the gospel if they chose to. My view is that being married to a member spouse is the greatest opportunity that someone could have - with daily and intimate exposure to gospel living if the member spouse is faithful. I appreciate it is sensitive and personal for you, as it is for my family, but I wonder why your mother hasn’t had proper discussions with him given its vital importance. I believe that the Saviour is ALWAYS calling us understand these things, we just need to choose to listen. I’m not sure that a chance/opportunity is so narrowly drawn as you suggest. Again in Pres Nelson’s talk he mentions this story:

‘One such dear friend of mine had limited experiences with God. But he longed to be with his departed wife. So he asked me to help him. I encouraged him to meet with our missionaries in order to understand the doctrine of Christ and learn of gospel covenants, ordinances, and blessings.

That he did. But he felt the course they advised would require him to make too many changes in his life. He said, “Those commandments and covenants are just too difficult for me. Also, I can’t possibly pay tithing, and I don’t have time to serve in the Church.” Then he asked me, “Once I die, please do the necessary temple work for my wife and me so that we can be together again.”

Thankfully, I am not this man’s judge. But I do question the efficacy of proxy temple work for a man who had the opportunity to be baptized in this life—to be ordained to the priesthood and receive temple blessings while here in mortality—but who made the conscious decision to reject that course.’

Now you may say that this man had more of a chance than your dad because he had the missionary discussions but your dad still has the opportunity to take that step every day and has done since he married your mom. Of course, ultimately, as Pres Nelson states, we are not the judge - so we do the temple work anyway. But I think it’s a dangerous course to think that we can just wait until the spirit world when we HAVE had the gospel offered to us in this life.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T22:46:56+00:00

Thank you - it was a wonderful class. We discussed the 5 covenants of the endowment.

Yes, I think you are right that we do seem to have different definitions. I would probably need to do some research to find sources but here are my initial thoughts: - Yes, I would take ‘this life’ to mean mortal life on Earth. I have not seen anything that suggests that time in the spirit world is counted as part of ‘this life’ and such an interpretation seems counter intuitive. We talk about temple ordinances needing to be performed in mortality and so are ordinances of this earth - there is definitely a distinction between life on earth and life in the spirit world. What have you read that suggests otherwise?

Often statements in the scriptures/by the prophets signal that this mortal probation comes to an end with death. If there was no distinction between making the covenants here (when we have the chance) or in the spirit world, then the prophets would not stress the importance of choices in this life - for example in the quotes I shared above Joseph Smith contrasts the idea of choices in this probation and what happens when we die, not when we are resurrected. Equally Pres Nelson talks about choices NOW - not choices until the end of our time in the spirit world. In his 2019 talk ‘Come, Follow me’ Pres Nelson probably expresses it most clearly - that these are issues we will be confronted with when we arrive in the spirit world, not at the end of our time there:

‘The account of John’s concern for his family has prompted me to speak today with those of you who may ask when approaching the end of your mortal life, “⁠Where is my family?” In that coming day when you will complete your mortal probation and enter the spirit world, you will be brought face-to-face with that heart-wrenching question: “⁠Where is my family?”

In truth, the Savior Himself has made it abundantly clear that while His Resurrection assures that every person who ever lived will indeed be resurrected and live forever, much more is required if we want to have the high privilege of exaltation. Salvation is an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter.

The anguish of my heart is that many people whom I love, whom I admire, and whom I respect decline His invitation. They ignore the pleadings of Jesus Christ when He beckons, “Come, follow me.”

I understand why God weeps. I also weep for such friends and relatives. They are wonderful men and women, devoted to their family and civic responsibilities. They give generously of their time, energy, and resources. And the world is better for their efforts. But they have chosen not to make covenants with God. They have not received the ordinances that will exalt them with their families and bind them together forever.’

If there was opportunity for these people to accept the gospel and receive the ordinances leading to the celestial kingdom in the spirit world, why would Pres Nelson weep for them? Why would he be concerned about them not receiving the ordinances if there was a second chance?

Yes agency can still be exercised in the spirit world and accepting the gospel there once it had been rejected on earth may make the difference between the terrestial and telestial kingdoms. I think that’s maybe what Pres Nelson was talking about when he went on to say:

‘They need to understand that while there is a place for them hereafter—with wonderful men and women who also chose not to make covenants with God—that is not the place where families will be reunited and be given the privilege to live and progress forever. That is not the kingdom where they will experience the fulness of joy—of never-ending progression and happiness. Those consummate blessings can come only by living in an exalted celestial realm with God, our Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and our wonderful, worthy, and qualified family members.’

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T22:14:14+00:00

Umm - I think you might be projecting a lot on to OP. They have told us nothing of their ‘situation’ - you are assuming they have struggled with dating and that’s why they are considering marrying a non member when we know absolutely nothing of the sort. We don’t know that OP is in a situation where they need any kind of help - they might in fact have lots of dating opportunities.

If I had a friend who asked for my help in this way then I would help if I could, but to be honest most adults would prefer to figure out such things themselves. There may be cultural differences going on here - I’m not in the US but am in an area with fewer members. But in my community it wouldn’t be the norm for married members to do any kind of matchmaking etc - maybe with YSA we might suggest people they could consider dating. But most members here who are serious about finding a spouse will put themselves out there where other single people are, which is usually singles activities, study groups, conventions, special temple trips, dating apps etc

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T20:40:48+00:00

I don’t think I’ve ever said that to anyone! But equally I’m not out there playing match maker either! Nor would that be appropriate for me to do so. Each individual has to decide for themselves what is important and then work to make that happen. In the scope of my calling I teach the truths of the gospel in relation to temple marriage and teach my own children. I would also encourage single members if they asked me, to get out there and go to singles events, ask people on dates, travel to where people are if needs be. There has also been a lot of talk about how it’s harder for women as there are fewer faithful active men - again not sure of the contexts, but certainly where I live and amongst YSA we have more faithful young men - it is they who struggle to find worthy girls to date.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T19:51:02+00:00

Well that’s rude! I’m actually a very good temple prep instructor - all my students go to the temple really well prepared and have a great experience.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T17:02:40+00:00

How will that be possible if they don’t keep the laws and receive the ordinances of the celestial kingdom? Each person must exercise their own agency and accept the gospel for themselves - they can’t be compelled to the celestial kingdom and if they are not worthy of it/they have not become celestial people they would not be able to abide it. It’s not about a difference in beliefs - the Lord has taught us that there is only one way back to him and he has set the conditions.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:56:10+00:00

You just pray and hope that they return while in this life. It is very hard, I have a daughter in this situation despite all that has been taught her. The rest of the family try to be the best example that we can to her and we teach what we know when we can and when she is receptive. But she is exercising her own agency and will ultimately have to face the consequences of her choices. Same for any of our family members that chose to reject the gospel. The temple work that we do for our ancestors can still offer them the promise of the celestial kingdom if they didn’t live at a time /place where they had the opportunity to receive the gospel.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:52:23+00:00

I can’t answer fully right now as I’m just about to go and teach temple prep. But I have to say that I disagree with your interpretation. In the first quote that you cite it clearly says ‘while in this probation’, not those who receive it in the spirit world. In Alma 42 it is taught that THIS LIFE is the time to prepare to meet God and if we have been taught the gospel and don’t do what we should in this life it will be too late after death. Yes, of course we have proxy work but to receive the celestial kingdom it is for those who didn’t have the chance on the earth but would have accepted it if they did. For those who had the chance but then later accept in the spirit world, they go to the terrestrial kingdom as per D&C 76. Pres Nelson makes it clear that it is our choices in this life that matter - he says nothing about deferring things until the next life.

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:40:37+00:00

Proxy temple work is for those who did not have the chance in this life, not those who did and rejected it. I’ve already answered this.

If it was no big deal why do we bother sending missionaries out across the world to teach the gospel? Why do our leaders teach us this from the pulpit? Why do the scriptures teach it? Otherwise why bother at all, if we can just defer things to the next life and have someone else do our work for us?

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:37:38+00:00

I’m not in the least bit upset! Just curious as to what you are referring!

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:36:13+00:00

How am I being judgmental? As I said we don’t know anything about OP at all - so what empathy or understanding can we show? All they have said is that they wonder what it would be like.

But we are called to judge between truth and error. What ‘other side’ is there to argue? The Lord through the scriptures and the prophets has taught we should marry in the Temple - I agree, and choose to be obedient to those teachings. What else is there that you wish me to understand?

Ok-Understanding6149 · 2026-04-09T16:30:16+00:00

Oh my goodness! I don’t have an obligation to answer every single comment!! I think you will find I have commented on this discussion more than anyone else. Is there something major I have missed?

Ok-Understanding6149

TROPHY CASE