299. Ko nozīmē kristība Tēva, Dēla un Svētā Gara vārdā?

:: e - POLEMIKA :: / Kas ir luterisms?

 Vai KLB Virsvalde labāka par Latvijas valdību?

Lapa  Lapa 3 no 8:  « Atpakaļ  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Tālāk »
e-autors Ziņa
#21 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 05:08

e-firziķa KLB Virsvaldes apkopojumā bija teikts:
Mūsu māsu baznīcā ELS, piemēram, pietiek ar Prezidenta rīkojumu, lai mācītājs tiktu atstādināts no amata, tai skaitā par baznīcas iekšējās kārtības noteikumu pārkāpumu, kurus pildīt katrs ELS mācītājs pirms ordinācijas apstiprina ar savu parakstu.

Paskaidrošu Tev, ka šādas lietas nenotiek bieži. Iespējams pēdējā bija 2006. gadā, kad tika atstādināts tāds macītājs Rolfs Proiss, īsumā cik saprotu par to, ka bija apgalvojis publiski un arī Sinodes laikā, ka ELS Sinodes pieņemtajā doktrinālajā dokumentā dažas frāzes ir nebibliskas. Tā kā apgalvojums par ieksējās kārtības noteikumu pārkāpumu, ir pilnīgi nevietā un iespējams pilnīgi nekorekts. Par to arī viņš tika atstādināts, pēc tam kad vairākkārt oficiāli tika lūgts atsaukt savus apgalvojumus.

Tomēr, kad R. Proisa draudze pieprasīja ELS administrācijai paskaidrojumu, kāpēc viņu mācītājs ir atstādināts, viņi divu nedēļu laikā to saņēma.

ATA Pārdaugavas (tagad Augšāmcelšanās) draudze arī izteica šādu pašu lūgumu, tik atbildes vēl joprojām nava kopš 6. aprīļa.

Lai parādītu cik nopietns dokuments tika uzrakstīts viena mācītāja dēļ (ELS tādu ir vairāki simti, bet KLB atstādina 3 no 10, un pilnīgs pofigs, ne čiku, ne grabu), te tas ir:

An Explanation of the Suspension of Rev. Rolf Preus

I would like to state that I share in the sadness over the dismissal of Pastor Preus from the clergy roster of our Evangelical Lutheran Synod. I say this even as I prayerfully felt compelled to make the very difficult decision to issue a suspension. He is a man with many talents and he also has a conscience that moves him to act according to his firm convictions.

Permit me to explain, however, the dilemma that I faced in this matter as the president of our church body. Our synod’s By-Laws state that each pastor who joins the synod makes “a declaration of unconditional subscription to the synod’s confessions and teachings” (Chapter II, Application for Membership, Paragraph 2). At our 2005 convention we passed a resolution on doctrine that included these important words: “Whereas, ‘The Public Ministry of the Word’ clearly and faithfully states the doctrine of the public ministry as drawn from Holy Scripture and as reflected in the Lutheran Confessions, therefore, A. Be it resolved, That the synod adopt ‘The Public Ministry of the Word’ as its official position concerning the Public Ministry of the Word…”

“Clarifying the Issues”
In a widely distributed (via web connections, etc.) paper written by Pastor Rolf Preus entitled “Clarifying the Issues,” certain statements were made that were equivalent to charging the synod with false doctrine. Specifically, I refer to these remarks by Pastor Preus that serve as examples of his charges:

I cannot accept the PCM document.

This failure to distinguish between what is divine and what is human confuses the Spirit with the flesh. This is why I cannot accept the PCM document. I will not permit it to be a standard for my teaching and I do not acknowledge it as having any authority over me whatsoever. It confuses what God says with what man says. It takes human inventions and calls them divine. What it says about the divine institution of a limited public use of the keys is unscriptural. When it talks about being “in” the office of divine institution to this or to that “extent” it is not presenting the biblical and confessional doctrine, but the “representative ministry” notion for which there isn’t any support in the Scriptures or the Lutheran Confessions. It falsely claims that a synod president by virtue of being a synod president is an incumbent of the pastoral office. It does not make a clear confession of our historic biblical and confessional teaching. …

[The PCM document] is devoted to the representative ministry model invented in the 20th Century, a model that breaks with the clear teaching of God’s Word and the pattern of sound words set forth in the Lutheran Confessions.

I have underlined particular words in the above citations to have you better understand why I felt the need to ask him to retract what he had written. Pastor Preus’ paper was inflammatory and caused many in the synod to assume he was making the charge of false doctrine. It seemed reasonable to expect him to retract what he had written.

On January 19, 2006, a meeting was held with Pastor Rolf Preus to help me as president of the synod determine if a charge of false doctrine had been made by him against our Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Also in attendance at the meeting at Gloria Dei in Cold Spring, MN, were Vice President Obenberger, Secretary Craig Ferkenstad, Rev. Joseph Abrahamson and Rev. Shawn Stafford.

Pastor Preus stated that it was not his intention to charge false doctrine against the synod. But he also repeated his charge that the synod’s adopted statement on the public ministry, “The Public Ministry of the Word,” was not in keeping with sound doctrine, and was unscriptural and unconfessional. Furthermore, he reiterated a remark made in his paper that the adopted statement “had no authority over him whatsoever.”

When asked if he would be willing to retract his paper, “Clarifying the Issues” (December 6, 2005), in order to give the assurance that he was not accusing the synod of false doctrine, he stated that he would not be willing to do so. The plea was made to Pastor Preus that, for the sake of unity in the synod, he should be willing to retract this particular paper. Vice President Obenberger added that he felt the president’s request of Pastor Preus to retract his paper was a reasonable one. He offered that Pastor Preus could do so even with the understanding that his questions and concerns about the adopted document could remain while seeking in a brotherly way to have his questions answered. But Pastor Preus replied that for him to remove or retract his paper would be to go against his conscience. Even to this day, the president has expressed a willingness to lift the suspension of Pastor Preus if and when he retracts his “Clarifying the Issues” paper.

At the close of the meeting, the president informed Pastor Preus that a suspension from membership was likely but that a little more time would be granted in order for him to reconsider his reply to the request made by both the president and vice president. No such retraction was forthcoming.

The suspension
As a result, I regretfully had to inform the members of our synod that as of February 1, 2006, Pastor Rolf D. Preus was suspended from the clergy roster of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

For a synod to be a confessional Lutheran church body, “walking together” (as the word synod means) in professing and adhering to the truth, charges of false doctrine must be taken seriously. This is especially true when the synod has desired to resolve a controversy by officially adopting a doctrinal statement expressing faithfully what Scripture says on a subject.

Some have questions and concerns about the adopted statement, “The Public Ministry of the Word.” That is entirely appropriate. But it is a different matter publicly to berate and to denounce what the synod has adopted by labeling it “unscriptural,” “unconfessional,” “not in keeping with sound doctrine,” and to state boldly that the adopted document has no authority over a pastor in so far as he is a voluntary member of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. To make such a charge is “sowing seeds of discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:19).

The suspension of Pastor Preus did not occur in a vacuum. An enclosed timetable of correspondence can be found at the end of this written explanation. Please observe how the president felt the need to follow up on the verbal exchange that occurred at the 2005 convention. The president suggested to Pastor Preus that the same six-month period of time granted congregations to register an objection would also serve as sufficient time to ascertain whether or not Pastor Preus was in actuality charging the synod with false doctrine. In an effort to be charitable and to clear the air, the president in November sent an email notice that stated: “It is my understanding as president that there is no charge of false doctrine on the table against our synod by Pastor Preus.” Only one month later Pastor Preus issued his “Clarifying the Issues” paper where he essentially raised the charge of false doctrine against the synod’s adopted document on the doctrine of the public ministry.

Authority of the synod president
Does the president of the synod have the authority to issue a suspension if and when he deems the situation necessary to do so? There are certain primary, foundational sentences from the Bylaws and Guidelines that establish the obligation of the president, together with the elected boards and committees under his supervision, to supervise the doctrine and practice of the members of synod. [The Handbook of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod consists of the Constitution, the Bylaws and the Guidelines of our synod.]

Handbook 6-C, Bylaws, Chapter III, Activities
“The synod shall through its elected boards and committees under the supervision and coordination of the president… c) be watchful concerning unity of doctrine (Ephesians 4;3-16; 1 Corinthians 1:10) by studying doctrinal questions which are in special need of study and discussion, trying the spirits (1 John 4:1), and warning against encroaching sets, as well as against errors and unchristian trends (1 Timothy 4:16), in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. . . i) exercise supervision over the synod’s institutions and the work of i

#22 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 05:10

i) exercise supervision over the synod’s institutions and the work of its pastors and the practice of its members (cf. paragraph c above).”

Handbook, Guidelines, 10-A
Guidelines for the Synod’s relationship to Its Executive Officers
Article I: the Office of the President
B. 2. “He shall supervise the activities of the boards and committees of the synod so that the goals and objectives adopted by the synod in convention are achieved insofar as practicable. He shall NOT be advisory to a commission on an appeal.”

Handbook, Guidelines, 22-A
Guidelines for Synodical Discipline and Appeals
Article I: General Cases
F. “In special and urgent cases where no resolution is reached, the president shall exercise the power of suspension from synodical membership. He shall report his action to the convention.”

Another guideline in this same section implies the right of the president, in special cases, to enact disciplinary action (e.g., suspension). It is letter A. under the heading "Article V: Guidelines for Appeals to the Synod":

Handbook, Guidelines, 22-B
Guidelines for Synodical Discipline and Appeals
Article V: Guidelines for Appeals to the Synod
“A. Any individual member of the synod who has undergone disciplinary action by a congregation, or a circuit visitor, or a synodical board or the synod's president shall have the right to appeal to the synod.”

Furthermore, it is important to be reminded once again of a basic requirement listed for members of our ELS clergy at the time of acceptance into our synod:

Handbook 6-C, Bylaws, Chapter II, Application for Membership, Paragraph 2
“An individual wishing to join the synod shall make application to the president. The application shall be accompanied by a declaration of unconditional subscription to the synod’s confessions and teachings, and to its constitution and bylaws.”

Were the proper steps followed?
There is another question that has arisen and deserves a thorough answer. Should not the president have followed the specific steps of our “Guidelines for Synodical Discipline and Appeals, Article I: General Cases” (Handbook, Guidelines of Synodical Discipline, 22-A)? In other words, why were not letters A through E followed before invoking the emergency clause in letter F?

The introduction to this section reveals that the procedure for appeal presumes the circumstance of a charge of false doctrine or other neglect or abuse of office leveled against a pastor, teacher, or congregation. Thus paragraphs A – E lay out a procedure that protects the accused by ensuring that charges must be properly presented and adequately supported through due process. This section primarily addresses pastor—congregation disputes.

As with all the Bylaws or Guidelines, this section also must be understood in the context of Scripture, which requires that any charge would have to be substantiated by two or more witnesses (Deut 19:15). It is assumed that the first purpose and task of the visitor, who has original jurisdiction, is to judge whether sufficient and legitimate evidence exists to support the charge raised. Paragraph D, which calls for the appointing of a review committee, is charged again with the responsibility of carefully establishing the legitimacy of the charge: “The committee shall investigate the charges and decisions…” The implication is that in the absence of sufficient and unimpeachable witnesses or evidence, the charge will die for lack of support and the case must be closed with no judgment against the accused.

It is self evident that where one has admitted the charge, no further investigation or efforts at establishing witnesses and evidence is necessary. Such is the case with Pastor Preus. A complaint from some quarters is that no charge of false doctrine or wicked life or negligence of duty has been raised against Pastor Preus. But that misses the point. Pastor Preus has himself, by his own words and publications, confessed that he is in violation of the requirements of membership set forth in the bylaws (Chapter II). In particular, Pastor Preus publicly and repeatedly has declared that our synod’s adopted statement on the Ministry is contrary to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not in keeping with sound doctrine. There is no further need for witnesses and presentation of evidence.

In the Preus case the articles preceding F were not applicable for a number of reasons. First, as was noted earlier, this case did not arise from the vantage point of the local congregation but involved a pastor’s public remarks toward an officially adopted doctrinal statement of our synod. Second, Pastor Preus himself served as the visitor for Circuit #8. Therefore, it was impossible to employ the assistance of the circuit visitor in this case. The procedure relying on the jurisdiction of the visitor was rendered inapplicable by the very nature of the case. Third and most important, this case required no investigation of evidence or witnesses to any charges. Pastor Preus himself admitted he stood in opposition to and violation of the standards of membership in synod. “An individual wishing to join the synod shall make application to the president. The application shall be accompanied by a declaration of unconditional subscription to the synod’s confessions and teachings, and to its constitution and bylaws.” (Bylaws, Chapter II)


Pastor Preus, a synod visitor, obligated by his office to represent the synod president and to encourage the synod’s goals and programs upon the congregations and pastors of his circuit, instead set about berating the decisions of the synod and discouraging pastors and congregations from accepting and fulfilling the resolution of the synod. From this, it ought to be evident to all that this case was correctly judged as urgent and without any other avenue for resolution, especially because it involved an elected visitor of the synod.

The scriptural support for the PCM document
Please allow me to restate the scriptural testimony on which our synod’s doctrinal confession, “The Public Ministry of the Word”, is based. We can look at passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:5 & 28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:8-10 and 1 Timothy 5:17. We also can consult Ephesians 4:11–12.

The 1 Corinthian verses (12:5 & 28) show that God has indicated teachers as one of the offices he has given to the church. The Greek term (DIDASKALOUS) used here appears wider than the expression “pastors,” especially when considered with other terms in close proximity, e.g., helpers and leaders. The terms here indicate different offices given by God with their respective responsibilities.

The passage from Philippians (1:1) shows that presbyters and deacons are addressed in similar fashion as being the recipients of Paul’s letter. This indicates strongly that the deacons also were spiritual helpers for the Philippian church.

In I Timothy 3:8 we find reference made of deacons who were to be tested or examined in order to serve. This testing appears to have been of a spiritual nature (vv. 9 & 10) in light of the duties they were called to perform.

The 1 Timothy 5:17 reference ascribes double honor to those laboring in connection with Word and teaching, while showing at the same time that there are other elders with different responsibilities, all part of the one public ministry of the church. Martin Chemnitz, the chief author of the Formula of Concord, states: “And in 1 Timothy [5]:17 [Paul] mentions two kinds of presbyters, of whom some labored in preaching and teaching, while others had been placed in charge of ecclesiastical discipline. . . This about completes the list of ranks into which we read that the ecclesiastical ministry was divided at the time of the apostles” (Chemnitz, Examen Part 2, p. 684).

The adopted statement says with certainty that God allows offices that have a limited public use of the Means of Grace. There are indications in Scripture of other offices of public ministry existing than simply that of the office of overseer/bishop/presbyter. These offices (deacons, teachers, evangelists, etc.) included certain spiritual duties that involved public ministry (e.g., using the Word to minister to souls on behalf of the church; 1 Timothy 3:8f).

Ephesians 4 includes a list of offices not confined only to the pastoral office: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…” Chemnitz gives this interpretation of the Ephesians passage regarding the forms, or ranks, of the public ministry where he describes “pastors as those placed over a certain flock, as Peter shows (I Peter 5:2-3) and who not only taught but administered the sacraments and had the oversight over their hearers.” Chemnitz goes on to describe the teachers as “teachers, to whom the chief governance or oversight of the church was not entrusted but who only set the doctrine before the people in a simple manner, such as catechists were later: thus Paul (Rom. 2:20) speaks of ‘a teacher of children,’ and the word ‘teach’ is expressly used in this sense in Hebrews 5:12” (Chemnitz, Examen, Part 2, p. 684). It is also worthy of note that the Ephesians citation lists “evangelists” as a separate office/form, even if one were to call into question the separate terms of “pastors” and “teachers.” Clearly not only the pastoral office is mentioned.

In light of the foregoing, our synod’s adopted doctrinal statement on the public ministry rightfully rejects the teaching that “only those qualified to carry out a full use of the keys are in the public ministry” (Antithesis #8). Our synod’s statement definitely upholds the presiding office of oversight that we call pastor (I Peter 5:1,2), but it

#23 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 05:12

Our synod’s statement definitely upholds the presiding office of oversight that we call pastor (I Peter 5:1,2), but it rejects the teaching that “the Public Ministry is limited to any one divinely fixed form, that is limited to the pastoral office to the exclusion of other teachers of the Word” (Antithesis #9).

Responsibility of the synod president

The president has been entrusted with the responsibility of overseeing the doctrine and practice in the synod. Can he refuse to suspend a pastor who not only repeatedly charges the synod with adopting a doctrinal statement that he claims is flawed and unscriptural and not in accord with sound doctrine, but who contends that the adopted statement has “no authority over him whatsoever?” For the sake of all who want to contend for the biblical truth that we confess as a synod and who also want to live in peace and harmony, the unsubstantiated public charges and/or insinuations of false doctrine must be removed.

The East Grand Forks Congregation’s Board of Directors’ Request of Pastor Preus
On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, an email message was sent to my office from the River Heights Lutheran Church Board of Directors. The email reads as follows:

The Board of Directors for River Heights Lutheran Church would like to make a few comments in response to the letter Rolf Preus sent out to the Pastors in the ELS.

We supported Pastor Preus in the debate over the PCM document leading up to the Synod Convention last summer. After the convention, we were glad to have the debate and controversy behind us so we could move on.

Much of our frustration is due to the fact that we had no knowledge of the Dec.6 paper being written, or that it was being posted on the church’s website, especially after he told us that he would be quiet on the issue. He assured us many times that he would never allow this issue to effect the congregation. We have asked him repeatedly to retract the Dec.6 paper for the good of the congregation and synod. When the Synod Officers met with Pastor Preus and asked him to retract the Dec.6 paper, we thought that was a very reasonable request.

We love being part of the ELS and want to cooperate with our synod and not be a source of controversy. We want unity, not division.

RHLC Board of Directors

Let us pray that God blesses our synod with true unity of doctrine based only and always on the pure Word of God. At the heart and center of that Word is the message we eagerly proclaim through God’s institution of the Public Ministry. That message is stated so well in the words of Paul, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst” (1 Timothy 1:15).

John A. Moldstad, president of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod
February 15, 2006

Outline of communications between President Moldstad and Pastor Rolf Preus:

June 23 (Thursday), 2005—Suspension and striking of “three minutes”.

June 25, 2005—Memo from Pres. M. indicating that time would be needed to determine if false doctrine charged.

July 20, 2005—Letter from Pres. M. indicates that the question pertaining to false doctrine still needed to be answered.

July 25, 2005—Rev. Preus responded that there is no basis for asking him the question, since the three minutes were to be removed from the record and that it is Pres. M. who should repent of his actions.

August 6, 2005—Pres. M. suggests waiting until after “Response to Circuit 8” and suggests the six month period of time as allowed congregations.

August 13, 2005—A brief letter was received from Rev. Preus indicating he would be willing to meet after September 21.

September 21, 2005—PCM met in Apple Valley and approved answer to Circuit 8.

October 15, 2005—Pres. M. sent out the “Response to Circuit 8.”

November 10, 2005—Pres. M., in consultation with VP Obenberger, decided to send out an email that would simply state no false doctrine charge appeared to be on the table vs. the synod by Rev. Preus.

November 15, 2005—Email memo sent to all the pastors reflecting the gist of the above.

December 6, 2005—Rev. Preus sent “Clarification…” to ELSministry listserv, Lutherquest, and posted on website (Christforus.org).

December 14, 2005—Pres. M. sent another memo stating that he is no longer sure that Rev. Preus is not charging the synod with false doctrine.

December 21, 2005—Pres. M. suggests to Rev. Preus a January meeting in Cold Spring, MN, with two representatives each.

December 21, 2005—Rev. Preus agreed to meeting.

December 22, 2005—Pres. M. emailed and clarified the purpose of the meeting.

December 23, 2005—Rev. Preus agreed to meet on January 19 at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Cold Spring, MN.

December 29, 2005—Pres. M. confirms the meeting date.

January 19, 2006—See minutes of the meeting at Cold Spring taken by our synod’s secretary.

January 26, 2006—Pres. M. called Rev. Preus to inform him that he would be suspended as of the date of February 1, 2005.

January 26, 2006—The suspension notice was sent out via email to all ELS pastors around 11:45 a.m. This was followed by a hard copy mailed to the same. RHLC Chairman Dan Schmidt received a faxed copy on this day.

January 29, 2006—River Heights Lutheran Church held a special voters’ meeting. Three motions were passed: 1) To grant Pastor Preus a two week paid leave of absence (10-9); 2) To ask a synod representative to explain the suspension of Rev. Preus; 3) To inform the synod that the congregation does not agree with the PCM document (13-4).

January 31, 2006—Rev. Preus and 15 voters sent an email to my office entitled “Plea from Pastor Preus.”

February 1, 2006—The suspension of Rev. Preus went into effect.

#24 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 11:27   Laboja gviclo

Situācija, draugi, protams, ir ļoti bēdīga, traģiska un postoša. Iespējams, daudzi no tās vispār neatgūsies.

Nu ūdens ir izliets. Realitāte ir tāda, kāda tā ir. Nav iespējams balstīties uz ideāliem un paļauties uz cilvēkiem.

Bet šis grēka radītais posts un ciešanas, pierāda, ka grēks un sātans vēl joprojām ir dzīvi un darbīgi.

Tas mums liek meklēt piedošanu, dziedināšanu un Kunga palīdzību... cerams.

Ar cieņu,

Esi nomodā par sevi un mācību!
#25 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 16:35   Laboja jean


Es gan gribētu ticēt, ka viss vēl ir labojams. Kaut cilvēciski pilnīgi neiespējami...
Ja vien visi kopā nāktu Dieva priekšā un lūgtu piedošanu katrs par saviem pāridarījumiem vienam pret otru, tad Kristus piedošana un žēlastība pārklātu un apklātu to visu.
Tomēr, ja draudžu locekļi nespēs pateikt saviem mācītājiem: jūs esat runājuši daudz, tagad jums ir pienācis brīdis paklusēt - mēs paši sakārtosim radušos situāciju; tad atstājot visu tikai mācītāju rokās, baidos, ka nekas nemainīsies, jo fobijas vienam pret otru ir radušās milzīgas gan vienā, gan otrā pusē...
Iespējams, ka mācītājiem pat būtu vajadzīga šokterapija, piemēram, ka draudzes uz vienu svētdienu samainās ar mācītājiem: Ilārs kalpo Pārdaugavas draudzē, bet Aigars Ķekavas draudzē. Jo altāra sadraudzība ir arī kanceles sadraudzība.
Atzīstos, ka bieži dzīvoju ar "rozā brillēm" . Ceru, ka piedosi un sapratīsi..

#26 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 18:38


Lai atrastu izlīgumu, tad, pirmkārt, abām pusēm to ir jāvēlas, un, otrkārt, jānodefinē, ko tās saprot ar "izlīgumu."

Atceros "Skrūvšņores vēstuļu" ironiju par to, ka ieejot baznīcā puisis satika tos, kurus vismazāk būtu vēlējās satikt. Bet tieši viņi tur bija.

Ar cieņu,

Esi nomodā par sevi un mācību!
#27 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 19:36   Laboja Roberto

gviclo, man domāt jean ar "izlīgumu" saprot sekojošu stilu: tu esi e-āksts, ne e-pavests

simul iustus et peccator
#28 Nosūtīts: 19.11.2008 21:05

Esi nomodā par sevi un mācību!
#29 Nosūtīts: 20.11.2008 20:37

Situācija ir nonākusi pie sava neizbēgamā risinājuma, jo
represējušā puse - BP ,tāpat kā visu gadu vēl nevēlas, bet otra puse vairs nevēlas.
Galu galā pietiek visu laiku palikt kāda notikuma ēnā.
Laiks doties uz priekšu!

#30 Nosūtīts: 20.11.2008 21:05   Laboja gviclo

Esi nomodā par sevi un mācību!
Lapa  Lapa 3 no 8:  « Atpakaļ  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Tālāk »
...bet es teikšu tā:
Krāsas izvēle 

» e-baznīcēns  » Parole 
Vienīgi e-baznīcēni te var rakstīt. Vispirms precīzi ieraksti savu e-vārdu & paroli vai REĢISTRĒJIES.