I'm having some issues with Joseph Smith


Recommended Posts

I would find it very difficult to have to "settle" for a religion I am in because there is nothing better. I was so happy to find the church because I believe I have the truth and there is no need to search elsewhere.

When I joined the Church.. I was not "looking" for it.. but the truth of it I could not deny. I feel for people who leave the Church still searching.

Would it not be eaiser for everybody in the world.. for him to appear in sky for all to see.. and speak with a voice for all to hear.. and tell us what is the truth... then we shall know!

As my wife then says.. where is the FAITH in knowing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me what man thinks does not matter it is what God thinks. If D.&C.132 is a true revelation it would be what God thinks. The revelation if true clears Joseph Smith of the charge of adultury. One could get such a voice from heaven affirming the truth of that revelation and many would think the voice of the Devil or man. And for belief to happen one has to accept such an experience on faith.

If the voice said the revelation was false i doubt LDS would trust the voice. One has to once again trust the voice based on faith and not knowing the source. The Devil can say anything true, or false and how would we know if a voice claimed to be Jesus that it was Jesus? At this point all they could do is test the voice by what they consider previous revelation.(Acts 17:11)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through pretty much this entire thread, and it seems the only thing I can add that's unique is MY testimony of the power of prayer. I know that God hears and answers our prayers. Sometimes those answers come quickly and very directly, while other times the answer is simply not getting an answer at all. We are all seeking for understanding and a deeper knowledge of everything true... and that desire for truth is best applied through communication between us and our Heavenly Father. We have questions, and He has answers. A lot of times we, as humans, have this need for reasons as to why something is the way it is, while often we receive an answer to our prayers that doesn't include a reason, but a strong impression that something is true or right. Follow that feeling and you'll always get what's best for you.

Do not stop praying. Do not stop seeking for answers from the source of all answers. Prayer is a sacred and divine right, and we should use this precious gift daily....hourly....whenever we feel like speaking to God.

Through prayer, I've learned that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I've learned that the Book of Mormon is true. This life is short but important in the scope of eternity. Most important of all, Jesus Christ is our Savior and he suffered every physical and emotional pain that each of us will ever feel so that if we come to him he can make our burdens bearable, and repent of our sins to become perfect as he is. He died and was resurrected so that we too can be resurrected. This is His restored church, bearing His authority and guided under His direction. All of this knowledge is waiting and available to anyone who actively seeks it. I share these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale,

I can understand the issues you have with plural marriage. Many LDS have the same issue. And I agree that we sometimes need to determine the difference between Joseph's speculations and revelations. We also do this in the LDS Church. For instance, when asked on a television interview about Joseph's teachings about God having a father, Pres Hinckley demurred and stated that though something has been taught on that issue, we just don't have much information. In fact, while I disagree with his assessment, Blake Ostler also suggests a different reading for the King Follett discourse in volume II, of his books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Joeseph Smith had more than one wife. Did he have thirty wives that were already married to other men, no. Did he marry woman who weren't old enough to be woman, no. You have to believe that in those days polygamy wasn't illegal, and it was normal for a man to have more than one wife, but woman couldn't have more than one husband. Joseph was a righteous to his wives and they weren't fourteen years old, they weren't married to other men, and I'm sure he didn't have thirty.

If Joseph Smith had broken the rules that Heavenly Father set, he wouldn't have recieved those wonderful revelations that are the outline of our church. This mormon basher doesn't want you to walk with the light. And the Deciever's fallen angels feel that your confused and disheartened heart and they'll keep whispering in your ears to believe in these things.

There are many people who want to decieve us from our teachings. They want us to let go of the Iron Rod because they already have. I must caution you to stay off those anti-mormon websites, and take comfort in our Heavenly Father, that he'll make these things right in the end. For in the end all things shall be revealed to us.

I am curious if anas13 has read through this thread and if she still feels the same way. If you're interested in Mormon Polygamy history this link gives you a snippet of that history:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mormonpolygamy.htm

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggled with this for a little while myself. I asked my Bishop about it and he told me that Joseph married these women so he could care for them. Some the women were widows and needed support so Joseph took them under his care. Most of them did not live with him. After my Bishop told me this I did not worry about it anymore. He was just being a great Prophet and Priesthood holder.

Of Joseph's 33 wives, only four were widows. With the exception of Emma, there is little evidence that Joseph took care of any of his additional wives, physically, emotionally or financially.

Your bishop is correct that Joseph did not live with any of his wives with one exception, and it certainly was not traditional.

Unbeknownst to Emma, Joseph had married the Partridge sisters, two young women who were living with the Smiths to help Emma take care of the mansion. So, technically, they did live with him while they were married, although certainly not in the traditional manner. And most importantly, not with Emma's knowledge.

In fact, when Emma was finally told about Joseph's polygamy, she tried very hard to accept it, and offered these same Partridge sisters as, what she thought were, his first (or earliest) wives. Thus, Joseph was married to them in a sort of sham ceremony given he was already their husband.

According to Tippets and Avery, there is evidence that Emma heard Joseph and one of the sisters behind a locked bedroom door. This was something she could not accept, and so she had the sisters leave her house. Thus, they no longer lived with Joseph.

Having said all of this, Joseph and his wives all firmly believed their marriages/sealings were commanded of God, and that they would be acknowledged in the Celestial Kingdom. To Joseph, these familial and marital connections were extremely important to him in an eternal sense.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAIRS already did the research after reviewing a book concerning this subject: The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives - FARMS Review

Hi Hemi,

This is Todd Compton's rebuttal to the FARMS Review you've posted. I think it is important to provide it to any readers who are interested as it brings more perspective to those parts of Compton's research where the FARMs reviewers disagree.

However, I don't believe there are any major disagreements among Mormon historians about Joseph's wives, even though there used to be. I've read so many books, reviews, essays, etc., I don't think there is much disagreement at all any more. Perhaps someone here knows of some, and, I hope, will post them.

The following is an excerpt from Todd Compton's response, which is, admittedly, a long one, though I can see why. These are comments he made about Helen Mar Kimball, one of the more controversial stories in the larger picture of Josephy's marriages/sealings. I offer them as an example of Compton's thorough and honest approach to a difficult topic. Elphaba

Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney

Were there sexual relations in the marriage of Joseph Smith and his youngest wife, Helen Mar Whitney, fourteen at the time of her marriage to Smith? First of all, some preliminary points. Anderson and Faulring hint that I should have referred to her as "nearly fifteen." (p. 79.) This kind of terminology might be understandable if she had been a week or so away from fifteen, but she was three months away. But even if she had been a week away, she would have still been fourteen till the date of her birthday. Anderson and Faulring are not facing up to the truth here.

Then Anderson and Faulring suggest that Helen was "approaching eligibility." Here, they should have included documentation to support the idea that marriage at fourteen was "approaching eligibility."

Actually, marriages even two years later, at the age of sixteen, occurred occasionally but infrequently in Helen Mar's culture. If we take a random sample of the marriage ages of the women in my book who married before they were sealed to Joseph Smith, we have the following: Lucinda Pendleton, 18. Zina Huntington, 20. Presendia Huntington, 16. Agnes Coolbrith, 27. Patty Bartlett, 17. Sylvia Sessions, 19. Mary Rollins, 17. Marinda Johnson, 18, Elizabeth Davis, 20, Sarah Kingsley, 19, Delcena Johnson, 22, Martha McBride, 21, Ruth Vose, 33, Elvira Cowles, 29, Fanny Young, 18.

Thus, girls marrying at fourteen, even fifteen, was very much out of the ordinary. Sixteen was comparatively rare, but not unheard of. So Helen was quite far from usual ages of eligibility, seventeen or eighteen.[40]

Now we approach the question of sexuality in the marriage of Helen Mar and Joseph Smith. Anderson and Faulring represent that I take the position that there were sexual relations between Helen Mar and Smith. Compton "writes as though it is likely that Helen's sealing to Joseph Smith included marital relations." (p. 80). Compton "leaves it open to assume this was a sexual adjustment." (p. 80) Having typecast me into the Brodie sexualist camp, Anderson and Faulring then strongly take the position that it is a virtual certainty that there was no sexuality in this marriage ["there is every reason not to assume a sexual dimension", 80] and lambast my purported "sexual" position for the rest of that section.

Anderson and Faulring's treatment leaves me taken aback, for I nowhere say that Helen Mar and Joseph had sexual relations. The most important passages from my book in this respect are as follows:

Interestingly, Joseph's youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball, was the daughter of another loyal apostle, Heber C. Kimball, so that marriage may also be considered dynastic, not motivated solely by sexual interest. (In Sacred Loneliness, 12) Some conclude that Helen Mar Kimball, who married Smith when she was fourteen, did not have marital relations with him. This is possible, as there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexuality until they were older. But the evidence for Helen Mar is entirely ambiguous, in my view. (In Sacred Loneliness, 14) Orson Whitney wrote, "Soon after the revelation [to Vilate] was given, a golden link was forged whereby the house of Heber and Joseph were indissolubly and forever joined. Helen Mar. . . was given to the Prophet in the holy bonds of celestial marriage." This marriage, like that of Smith to Sarah Whitney, looks to be almost purely dynastic, as Whitney's language ("golden link" "the houses of Heber and Joseph") shows. (In Sacred Loneliness, 497)

My position, actually, is that there is no evidence, pro or con, for sexual relations. You cannot prove that there were sexual relations; you cannot prove that there were no sexual relations. Notice that I do not simply say "ambiguous"; I say "entirely ambiguous."

But, the reader may ask, what is my best guess? I remember talking with my publisher Gary Bergera on the phone once during the editorial process and I restated the cautious "no evidence either way" position. But Gary pressed: "But what do you think? What is your best guess?" And I answered that my best guess was that there were no sexual relations, based on parallels from some marriages to underage women in Utah polygamy.

A careful reader, I believe, would have understood that this was the way I was leaning from the quotes above. First of all, while not removing the idea of sexual/spiritual attraction altogether, I assert that the Helen Mar marriage was primarily ("almost purely") dynastic, mostly motivated by the desire of Heber Kimball and Joseph Smith to link their families. This removes me from the Brodie sexualist camp.

Second, I provide evidence for the possibility that there were no sexual relations by drawing the parallels from Utah polygamy. See In Sacred Loneliness, p. 638, section "marrying underage women," which gathers three sources showing deferred sexual relations in the cases of underage women marrying older men.

So, if I was not hinting that there was a "sexual adjustment" after the Helen Mar / Joseph Smith marriage, what was I suggesting? My view, based on Helen's short 1881 reminiscence, is that she married Joseph thinking the marriage would be "for eternity alone," linking the houses of Heber and Joseph. In my reconstruction, she may have understood that she would be free to date in her peer group and marry someone else for time.

I think Helen Mar had already become interested in Horace Whitney, the brother of her best friend, Sarah Ann Whitney. So when she came to understand that the marriage included time (therefore she would be allowed no dating, no marriage to Horace), she was understandably devastated, as she was not in love with Joseph Smith. If I were to isolate one event that may have triggered this realization, it is when Joseph and Heber Kimball would not let her attend a dance at the Mansion House. (In Sacred Loneliness, 502.) I emphasize how this event might have triggered Helen's realization that the marriage to Joseph included time. [41]

Anderson and Faulring, I believe, misinterpret Helen's statement that "The step I now am taking's for eternity alone." (p. 80, In Sacred Loneliness, 499). The poem clearly shows that this was her original understanding, but she later had to abandon it. (See the section of the poem at In Sacred Loneliness, 500.)

This is a painful story. I tend to think that dynastic marriages, arranged by male parents (Helen's mother clearly opposed the marriage), without authentic courtship, are always a mistake, and adversely affect the young woman involved; and I also think that plural marriages to young teens are unwise, and have set an example that has had unfortunate consequences even in contemporary Utah, as recent events in fundamentalist polygamist groups in Utah show. [42] Nevertheless, in the issue under discussion, sexuality in the Helen Mar marriage, though I do not see proof on either side, I lean toward the non-sexuality interpretation, as Anderson and Faulring do. (Though they seem to regard it completely certain.)

As I was writing this response, I talked about my book with a conservative friend of mine, the wife of a bishop, and more conservative than her husband I think, and the subject of the Helen Mar chapter came up. Did that chapter bother you, I asked? No, she said, because there was no sexuality involved.

So once again, in this case, I took a moderate, even conservative position. We are left to wonder why Anderson and Faulring portrayed me as pushing the most extreme sexual interpretation possible in this volatile topic of Joseph Smith's youngest wife. It is almost as if they wished I had written an anti-Mormon, a neo-Brodie book, so they attacked the book they wished I had written. I believe that here again, Anderson and Faulring misread the point of view of a moderate, who tries to look at both valid "positive" and valid "problematic" evidence and make a synthesis. So they leapt to the judgment that portrayed me as a Brodie disciple or an anti-Mormon and attacked my supposed thesis on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious if anas13 has read through this thread and if she still feels the same way. If you're interested in Mormon Polygamy history this link gives you a snippet of that history:

Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?

M.

Hi Maureen,

Anas13's post is, to put it bluntly, full of errors about Joseph's polygamy that are sometimes given in Church venues with little discussion. I know my mother believed the same as Anas.

However, I do think subsequent posters have corrected most of the errors. Unfortunately, it is such a complicated topic it's very hard to get an accurate and comprehensive picture. I believe I've read most of the scholarly and historical treatments, but still feel there is much more to learn.

I also second your link as a wonderful source for accurate information about the subject.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Maureen,

Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

Just wondering if you changed the URL in Maureen's post to read "Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?".. for a reason?

I know that Signature Books is a highly recognized Publisher of Anti Mormon Literature and Books.

I guess if one wants the truth about the Mormons... the ANTI MORMON Publisher will do the trick quite nicely. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me what man thinks does not matter it is what God thinks. If D.&C.132 is a true revelation it would be what God thinks. The revelation if true clears Joseph Smith of the charge of adultury. One could get such a voice from heaven affirming the truth of that revelation and many would think the voice of the Devil or man. And for belief to happen one has to accept such an experience on faith.

If the voice said the revelation was false i doubt LDS would trust the voice. One has to once again trust the voice based on faith and not knowing the source. The Devil can say anything true, or false and how would we know if a voice claimed to be Jesus that it was Jesus? At this point all they could do is test the voice by what they consider previous revelation.(Acts 17:11)

IF the Devil wrote the bible.. then Acts 17:11 wouldn't apply either! Way too many IF'S for me.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Signature Books is a highly recognized Publisher of Anti Mormon Literature and Books.

You know, eh? Why, because you only approve of history you like to read, that's easy to read. Just because it makes you think, doesn't mean it's anti. If you know, list two anti-mormon books that Signature Books publishes.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, eh? Why, because you only approve of history you like to read, that's easy to read. Just because it makes you think, doesn't mean it's anti. If you know, list two anti-mormon books that Signature Books publishes.

M.

Here's their entire library--if they are anti, it should be easy to prove:

Alphabetical List of Titles -- Signature Books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's their entire library--if they are anti, it should be easy to prove:

Alphabetical List of Titles -- Signature Books

Not only do they have a great selection, they have a purpose:

Signature Books was founded in 1980 (incorporated the next year) to promote the study of Mormonism and related issues pertaining to the Rocky Mountain area. As we began applying our vision to the particulars of editorial decisions over the next few years, a few genres emerged that have become our forte: biography, documentary reference (including the complete diaries of significant Mormon figures), personal essay, regional history, fiction (of local interest), and humor (mostly editorial cartoons). For the past twenty years we have released about one new title each month, or about 4,000 pages annually, which we accomplish through a full-time staff of six people.

Quoted in the Deseret News on our third anniversary, George Smith explained the purpose of Signature Books: "As a team, we are committed to expanding the scope of Mormon history," he said, "as well as enhancing the opportunities for expression by scholars and writers within the local community." Thinking about it recently, we have decided that this remains our intent today. (See other News Stories about Signature Books and Its Authors.)

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not classify Signature books as anti-Mormon. I would classify them as willing to publish controversial literature, and sometimes books that are not favorable to LDS belief. But that does not make them anti-Mormon.

As much as I disagree with some writings of Quinn, Vogel or Metcalfe, they are not anti-Mormon. They just vigorously question some of our standard beliefs, which in many ways can be a good thing.

Sandra Tanner's bookstore, OTOH, does sell many anti-Mormon books. These are books that seek to destroy the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Joeseph Smith had more than one wife. Did he have thirty wives that were already married to other men, no. Did he marry woman who weren't old enough to be woman, no. You have to believe that in those days polygamy wasn't illegal, and it was normal for a man to have more than one wife, but woman couldn't have more than one husband. Joseph was a righteous to his wives and they weren't fourteen years old, they weren't married to other men, and I'm sure he didn't have thirty.

If Joseph Smith had broken the rules that Heavenly Father set, he wouldn't have recieved those wonderful revelations that are the outline of our church. This mormon basher doesn't want you to walk with the light. And the Deciever's fallen angels feel that your confused and disheartened heart and they'll keep whispering in your ears to believe in these things.

There are many people who want to decieve us from our teachings. They want us to let go of the Iron Rod because they already have. I must caution you to stay off those anti-mormon websites, and take comfort in our Heavenly Father, that he'll make these things right in the end. For in the end all things shall be revealed to us.

I remember when I was a member hearing the saying that the first step to apostacy was researching the church history. I always found that puzzling. I think if you want to know about Joseph Smith's wives then you should go to the LDS.Org website, (Not anti Mormon) then go under the family search engine. Type in Joseph Smith 1805, He and several of His wives and His wives husbands all come up on the site. I could and accept polygamy the way it was taught. That their was not enough men for the amount of women. I could understand that HF would want a priesthood member in the household. BUT what I can't understand is why Joseph Smith would Marry women that were already Married? Makes no sense. Absoluetly none. Also, If you look at Herber C kimball, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young it looks as if they shared some wives. This clearly goes against D&C 132. If I remember right D&C 132 supports pural marriage and states that a man could have a lot of wives BUT that a woman could not be married to more then one man OR she would be committing adultry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not classify Signature books as anti-Mormon. I would classify them as willing to publish controversial literature, and sometimes books that are not favorable to LDS belief. But that does not make them anti-Mormon.

As much as I disagree with some writings of Quinn, Vogel or Metcalfe, they are not anti-Mormon. They just vigorously question some of our standard beliefs, which in many ways can be a good thing.

Sandra Tanner's bookstore, OTOH, does sell many anti-Mormon books. These are books that seek to destroy the Church.

I read an article once.. from Daniel Peterson and he expressed many things about Signature Books. :eek: I have not followed up on my own. I do have a tendency to rely on the expertise of those at BYU.

I still find it interesting that someone else would change the URL though so that Signature Books was hidden. And really.. that was my point. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not sure. I could say that he was sealed only to them and the marriages were never consumated, because that seems to be the answer I get from a lot of LDS members. But then I was also told that what I was taught for the reason of polygamy was invalid and incorrect. I was taught that it was so that the women that didn't have husbands would have a member of the priesthood in their home. I was told the "real" reason for polygamy was to raise up the righteous seed. Ok so then if the marriages were never consumated then how can you raise up the righteous seed? He was married to women that were already married according to the lds website and journals from some these women. Yes I know the lds church says that their journals aren't considered doctrine. But the church presses upon it's members how important it is to keep an accurate journal. I think Joseph Smith was taking advantage of his position and clearly going against his own revealation. What is your answer to that question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well either a bunch of women lied about being married to him or he has lied. I have read that talk to and he goes on about how people were trying to accuse him of things. The lds family search engine is either saying that the prophet lied by keeping all his wives listed as well as their other husbands or he really was married to several women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not sure. I could say that he was sealed only to them and the marriages were never consumated, because that seems to be the answer I get from a lot of LDS members. But then I was also told that what I was taught for the reason of polygamy was invalid and incorrect. I was taught that it was so that the women that didn't have husbands would have a member of the priesthood in their home. I was told the "real" reason for polygamy was to raise up the righteous seed. Ok so then if the marriages were never consumated then how can you raise up the righteous seed? He was married to women that were already married according to the lds website and journals from some these women. Yes I know the lds church says that their journals aren't considered doctrine. But the church presses upon it's members how important it is to keep an accurate journal. I think Joseph Smith was taking advantage of his position and clearly going against his own revealation. What is your answer to that question?

If you think about the Life of Joseph.. he has mingled with many messengers from God.. and has the Lord speaking with him a lot.

The Lord instructs him about Polygamy. He tells a few people about it.. those that are close.. and gets the same reaction from them.. that he felt. How could this be? He was in love with Emma. That was the last thing on Earth that he wanted to do... was to hurt her. But he had a commandment to follow. When he told Brigham Young.. Brigham had said that he was watching a funeral procession.. and envied the man who was dead that he did not have to deal with this new commandment of plural marriage.

Because of the pursecution.. Joseph knew he could not announce this commandment to everyone. It was only told to a few... And if accosted by someone concerning it.. he would deny it. How many times did Joseph run and hide for his life? So rather than admit to polygamy.. and be killed for it... he often told others that we did not practice it.

Concerning women that were all ready married: Joseph felt he had the authority to "loose" those marriages here on earth when the woman no longer wanted to be married to her husband. In many cases... he sealed himself to women.. to bind his family with theirs. ie. Sister Kimball who was 14. Her father was an Apostle.. and by sealing himself to this child.. it bound the Kimballs' and the Smiths' together. No he did not consumate the marriage.

It was not until Joseph was dead.. and Brigham had crossed the plains and settled in Salt Lake City.. that the rest of the Church was told about Polygamy on a full scale. They were away from everyone and could practice their religion as they may. However.. in time.. the US Government caught up with them and in the end.. put a stop to it by threat and force.

God has never given a reason for Polygamy... so any reason given is only speculation on our part. I mean we can come up with some real good ideas.. Righteous Seed.. Abrahamic test.. Set themselves apart.. etc.

I mean.. if you look at the Reorganized Church.. they branched off because they did not believe in Polygamy. Where are they today in compairison to the LDS Church?

So really it boils down to one thing. God commanded it... and man did whatever he could to comply with that commandment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering if you changed the URL in Maureen's post to read "Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?".. for a reason?

Is your question obtuse for a reason? I cannot edit Maureen's posts.

I know that Signature Books is a highly recognized Publisher of Anti Mormon Literature and Books.

No, you don't know that. The only way you could know that is if you were to read some of the books Signature publishes.

Additionally, you would have to read them with an objective eye, which, I acknowledge, would probably be extremely difficult for you, or anyone else, including me. But I assure you, I try very hard, and it is not uncommon for me to disagree with an author. That does not mean Signature is "anti-Mormon."

Signature Books is a great resource for any person, member or non, who is interested in the real history of the Church, not the white-washed version you learn in Sunday School. And before you judge me an anti-Mormon for saying that, there is a reason the Church cannot teach these often difficult stories about the Church's history--it does not yet have the proper venue. And it may never have it.

But there is nothing wrong with the Church not focusing on its history, as the Church does not see that as its purpose.

Therefore, if someone wants the real version of the Church's history, which is rich, dark, horrific, heartbreaking, and ultimate astonishing and inspiring, Signature Books is a good place to find this information.

Your simplistic pigeonholing, us vs. them, 'anti-Mormon. vs. Mormon, is always going to have errors, as things are never this black and white.

Demonizing Signature Books is not the answer. Reading some of its books would be a good start. If you'd like some recommendations, visit my profile. You'll find I'm not the anti-Mormon your post seems to imply I am.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share