News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders

[mormonpro]

This makes absolutely no sense. Either you are for abortion or you are not.

Youi cannot be pro-family and pro-abortion.

Is this truly how LDS defend their faith???

Eddie Mac

Mormons are very deceptive. You would expect nothing less from false prophets who have no real truth to defend. They tout the family openly while their secret-sacred book (The First Presidencies General Handbook of instructions) quietly allows birth control pills, (abortifacients), quietly pays for all legal medical procedures (remember abortions are legal) and quietly allows the same abortions legalized by Roe Vs. Wade. In the a-typical style of lucifer himself they are like whited sepulchers which appear beautiful to men on the outside but on the inside are full of the bodies of murdered childrens bones.

 

[dianaiad]

Am I? I think I’ve spent about 10 minutes, tops, replying to you in this thread. (Mormons seem to be so concerned about my time.)

Perhaps, then, you should spend more time researching and getting your time line straight; for instance:

I sure would like for you to show where, as there is no such thing. Perhaps you have forgotten that the people who printed the paper were Mormons.

Not at the time, Rebecca. There was this small matter of an assassination plot and an excommunication…

You can second guess all you like.

I’m not the one doing that, Rebecca. the historical facts are pretty clear.

The fact is, Joseph Smith was preaching a “gospel” of uniting church and state, with himself the head of this grand idea. He was hostile towards anyone who denied him his megalomania.

Yeah, you are.

Your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, you keep cherry picking historical facts to support your claim, and not including some rather important ones. For instance…claiming that the Expositor was written by faithful Mormons–when it was written by men who were excommunicant Mormons who admitted to plotting to assassinate Joseph, Hyrum and the city council; claiming that the Expositor was all (and only) about exposing Joseph’s polygamy and ignoring the invitation to violence against Mormons; assuming that the charge of treason was made because Joseph was guilty of treason–when every legal opinion given since that time about it admits that it was simply a ploy to keep him in jail; assuming that he would have been convicted, when treason was a capital offense, and thus, had he been so convicted there would have been no need of mob violence against him. Thus it seems rather clear that the folks AT THE TIME had no such confidence that he would have been convicted–especially since they were also aware that the charge was simply to keep him in jail–and keep him a target.

I know you don’t like the man, Rebecca. You no longer believe that he was a prophet–if you ever really did–and that’s fine. But it seems to me that you are trying awfully hard to justify your hatred here, being utterly unwilling to look at facts.

This isn’t about whether Joseph was a prophet. This is about whether his killing was justified and whether the mob was correct. You keep writing as if you thought it was. Frankly, I don’t care WHO was in that jail in Carthage; what happened there was obscene, and in no way the fault of the prisoner. I would be of that opinion whether it were Joseph who was the target, or a couple of priests, or anybody else.

It was wrong. It was unjustifiable. It was evil.

And it was stupid. I mean, really; COULD the mob have done any one thing more calculated to solidify the church and keep it going? You are a Catholic; you know the worth of martyrs.

And you justify and excuse it. THAT is what I have problems with.

 

[dianaiad]

This makes absolutely no sense. Either you are for abortion or you are not.

Youi cannot be pro-family and pro-abortion.

Is this truly how LDS defend their faith???

Eddie Mac

It isn’t that black and white, Eddie, and you know it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not at the time, Rebecca. There was this small matter of an assassination plot and an excommunication…

They considered themselves Mormons. They state this very clearly in the one Expositor paper that was printed. One of their points of contention is that they were excommunicated without being present, or even notified, of the court being held against them. Joseph Smith expelled them because they were against his polygamy, political ambitions which included the removal of the separation of church and state, and his heresy of multiple gods.

You choose to take the side of a megalomaniac. The others men saw JS for what he was. It is not my fault that you have been deceived and remain blind to this deception.

For instance…claiming that the Expositor was written by faithful Mormons–when it was written by men who were excommunicant Mormons who admitted to plotting to assassinate Joseph, Hyrum and the city council; claiming that the Expositor was all (and only) about exposing Joseph’s polygamy and ignoring the invitation to violence against Mormons;

You still have not shown this. A quote? They considered themselves faithful Mormons.They considered JS as the one who had apostatized. The person with the most power, JS, destroyed their press.

assuming that the charge of treason was made because Joseph was guilty of treason–when every legal opinion given since that time about it admits that it was simply a ploy to keep him in jail;

Every MORMON legal opinion. I assume you realize I don’t consider Mormons to be objective about anything regarding JS. He pretty much has a carte blanche with you folks.

assuming that he would have been convicted, when treason was a capital offense, and thus, had he been so convicted there would have been no need of mob violence against him. Thus it seems rather clear that the folks AT THE TIME had no such confidence that he would have been convicted–especially since they were also aware that the charge was simply to keep him in jail–and keep him a target.

Since when does mob rule have any logic behind it, whatsoever?

I know you don’t like the man, Rebecca. You no longer believe that he was a prophet–if you ever really did–and that’s fine. But it seems to me that you are trying awfully hard to justify your hatred here, being utterly unwilling to look at facts.

I am not justifying the hatred. I am not inline with your party line that he was a saint. He was not. He was a philandering conman.

This isn’t about whether Joseph was a prophet. This is about whether his killing was justified and whether the mob was correct. You keep writing as if you thought it was.

How many times do I have to tell you? I do not believe murder is justified, for any reason. This includes the murder of JS.

Frankly, I don’t care WHO was in that jail in Carthage; what happened there was obscene, and in no way the fault of the prisoner. I would be of that opinion whether it were Joseph who was the target, or a couple of priests, or anybody else.

It was wrong. It was unjustifiable. It was evil.

I agree. What I don’t agree with is that he was the wee lamb so innocent and white led to the slaughter. He was not. You also attempt to paint this black and white story, when the story is very complex. JS had a very direct hand in the building of the resentment against himself. Criminal and immoral actions that he painted as “religion”. It was a deception then. It is a deception now.

And it was stupid. I mean, really; COULD the mob have done any one thing more calculated to solidify the church and keep it going? You are a Catholic; you know the worth of martyrs.

And you justify and excuse it. THAT is what I have problems with.

JS was not a martyr. Martyrs are holy people who are pure before God. They die for the truth of Jesus Crucified. They are not adulterers who die as a result of their political ambitions and the desire to bed many women under a deceit they themselves name “plural marriage”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, let me put it this way. If you are watching a movie where the main character makes every mistake possible. He lies, he chases after the wives and daughters of other men, he teaches about multiple gods in the midst of die-hard Christians (who take their faith very seriously), he creates his own army and teaches that the US will become a theocracy under his rule (in the midst of patriotic Missourians)…and there at the end of the movie he is murdered. Are you really surprised the murder happened?

This is what I am telling you. No, murder is not justified, but when watching the whole movie from beginning to end, it is easy to describe what led up to that murder.
**
Describing what led to the murder does not mean I believe the murder is justified.**

 

[Eddie_Mac]

It isn’t that black and white, Eddie, and you know it.

It really is that black and white and you deny the truth and refuse to see it.

If you are pro-family, you would not kill, murder, part of your family. Get it?

Eddie Mac

 

[Catholic20064]

It really is that black and white and you deny the truth and refuse to see it.

If you are pro-family, you would not kill, murder, part of your family. Get it?

Eddie Mac

I agree, it really is that black and white. There is no possible compromise on this issue.

 

[dianaiad]

They considered themselves Mormons. They state this very clearly in the one Expositor paper that was printed. One of their points of contention is that they were excommunicated without being present, or even notified, of the court being held against them. Joseph Smith expelled them because they were against his polygamy, political ambitions which included the removal of the separation of church and state, and his heresy of multiple gods.

Ok, they considered themselves Mormons…so I suppose they were Mormons. What they were NOT is members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because they were excommunicated before they wrote the paper. You also, I note, have conveniently ignored the part about conspiring to assassinate Joseph, Hyrum and other members of the city council.

You choose to take the side of a megalomaniac. The others men saw JS for what he was. It is not my fault that you have been deceived and remain blind to this deception.

I ‘take the side’ of two things; one is a matter of opinion. You think he was a megalomaniac; I think he was a prophet. The OTHER thing is not a matter of opinion, but of justice and law. You are supporting the actions of Law, et al, in their assassination attempts and their calls for violence against their neighbors, AND you are justifying the actions of a mob of 200 men murdering two (as they thought) unarmed prisoners…and why do you think these actions are justified? Those murders, attempted murders, tortures and all that?

Because Joseph had more than one wife and you don’t like his religion–oh, and he and his city council dismantled a printing press (and offered to pay for the damages).

So…I may BE defending a megalomaniac…but Joseph Smith never killed anybody, nor planned to. YOU, on the other hand, choose to take the side of self confessed assassins and murderers, attempting to justify their actions because YOU don’t like Joseph’s religion.

Look, Rebecca.

I don’t care who was IN that cell in Carthage. The point is, there was no excuse nor justification for what happened there, and it was not the fault of the prisoners that they died. No fault at all.

But as I have written before, I will remember your fervent defense of the mob at Carthage the next time the MMM comes up.

You still have not shown this. A quote? They considered themselves faithful Mormons.They considered JS as the one who had apostatized. The person with the most power, JS, destroyed their press.

Actually, Law was excommunicated, (notice of which appeared in the Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pg. 511–April 1, 1844) and began to secretly meet with other disaffected and excommuncant Mormons, as a group called the 'Conspirators." Two young men joined them: Dennison L. Harris and Robert Scott–who overheard them plotting to assassinate Joseph and Hyrum, and promptly reported the same to Joseph.

It was after this that Law formed the “True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” made himself president , and then published the Expositor, on June 7, 1844.

Every MORMON legal opinion. I assume you realize I don’t consider Mormons to be objective about anything regarding JS. He pretty much has a carte blanche with you folks.

That’s pretty silly, Rebecca, since those same legal opinions also come down on the side of 'Joseph shouldn’t have broken the press…that was a violation of property rights."

Mind you, your cavalier dismissal of legal experts like Oaks, who was a state supreme court justice, university president and professor of law at the University of Chicago (and who was seriously considered for the US Supreme Court) simply because you don’t like his RELIGION says a great deal about your own biases.

 

[dianaiad]

(continued)
(regarding my point that the mob certainly didn’t think Joseph was going to be convicted, since they took the law into their own…guns…)

Since when does mob rule have any logic behind it, whatsoever?

But you keep coming up with things to justify it, Rebecca. You keep defending it; you are it’s modern day cheerleader. Rah! Rah! BOOM…take THAT, you polygamist you! Sis! BOOM! And THAT, you taker apart of printing presses! YAY, YAY, YAY…How DARE the man actually attempt to defend himself against a mob of 200 men shooting his brother and the room 'to doll rags!" why, it’s obviously ALL HIS FAULT! I mean, gee, if he had only…what, NOT shot back AFTER the mob killed his brother, then all would have been well, and Hyrum would have arisen, the bullet magically disappearing out of his head and back into the gun that fired it, and the mob would have quietly gone back into the righteous night from which it came?

Rebecca, reasons for this there always are, just as there were REASONS for the MMM. But unlike the MMM, the REASONS for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage, and for the murder of the people at Haun’s Mill, and the torture of Joseph (and the death of his son) did not include deaths at the hands of Mormons.

The reasons for the MMM did.

There is a very large difference between us, Rebecca. Even though I acknowledge reasons for both events; Carthage and the MMM, I condemn both; reasons are never justifications, any more than motives are justifications. One is as inexcusable as the other. You, however, will not admit that there were reasons for the MMM, and attempt to justify Carthage. You are letting your own biases embitter your views.

I am not justifying the hatred.

Yeah, you are.

I am not inline with your party line that he was a saint. He was not. He was a philandering conman.

…and you are justifying the death penalty at the hands of a mob as justification for his actions. Please look back at all my posts; I have never ONCE claimed that Joseph didn’t deserve his death because he was a saint or a prophet. I believe that he was a prophet, but that is actually irrelevant to my objection to what happened to him. Tell me, if it had been any other bigamist in that room, would you have considered the mob murder justified the way you do because it was Joseph Smith? If it had been anothe ‘con man,’ would you believe that the proper punishment for his crimes was death at the hands of a mob?

Something tells me that no, you wouldn’t. So…why do you think Joseph deserved it?

No, Rebecca, it’s not ME who is referring to Joseph’s claim to be a prophet. You are. I’m not claiming that Joseph was too good/saintly/whatever to have been treated this way. My claim is that NOBODY should be treated that way, and my quarrel is with those who think it was because they don’t like his religion.

How many times do I have to tell you? I do not believe murder is justified, for any reason. This includes the murder of JS.

At least one more time than you cheer for, justify and excuse the murderers, and at least one more time than you blame Joseph for his own murder. You are having some difficulty with that.

I agree. What I don’t agree with is that he was the wee lamb so innocent and white led to the slaughter. He was not. You also attempt to paint this black and white story, when the story is very complex. JS had a very direct hand in the building of the resentment against himself. Criminal and immoral actions that he painted as “religion”. It was a deception then. It is a deception now.

Like I said, you have to tell me that you do not believe murder is justified at least one more time than you attempt to justify it…or blame Joseph for it. You just don’t seem to be able to help yourself here…

JS was not a martyr. Martyrs are holy people who are pure before God. They die for the truth of Jesus Crucified. They are not adulterers who die as a result of their political ambitions and the desire to bed many women under a deceit they themselves name “plural marriage”.

A martyr is someone who is put to death because of his religious beliefs, or who suffers death rather than renounce his religious beliefs. Joseph Smith DID NOT HAVE TO GO TO CARTHAGE. He knew what would happen if he went, but he went anyway; he turned himself in. That makes him a martyr even in your sense of the word. However, what really makes him a martyr is that if the problem were only the printing press, or the fact that he had more than one wife, he wouldn’t have been in that situation; he was murdered because of his religion. YOU may not like that religion, but you cannot deny that it was his religion that was the reason he was killed.

Finally, there is no requirement that the Christian had to hold hamburger when walking into the lion’s den. Those people ran, they screamed, they hid–they tried to pull the animals away from their loved ones…Paul pulled many legal shenanigans in order to avoid his own death…and was pretty successful for quite awhile. Are you going to tell me that these people were not martyrs?

Didn’t think so.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, let me put it this way. If you are watching a movie where the main character makes every mistake possible. He lies, he chases after the wives and daughters of other men, he teaches about multiple gods in the midst of die-hard Christians (who take their faith very seriously), he creates his own army and teaches that the US will become a theocracy under his rule (in the midst of patriotic Missourians)…and there at the end of the movie he is murdered. Are you really surprised the murder happened?

This is what I am telling you. No, murder is not justified, but when watching the whole movie from beginning to end, it is easy to describe what led up to that murder.
**
Describing what led to the murder does not mean I believe the murder is justified.**

Claiming that it is Joseph’s fault DOES.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree, it really is that black and white. There is no possible compromise on this issue.

Ok…

Your wife is pregnant and there is no chance that if the baby is born now that it will live.

She has just been hit with a car and needs major surgery–but if it is done the fetus will die. If it is not done she will die.

What do you do?

Is it now all that black and white? One member of your family is about to die–one, or both. What do you choose to do?

 

[RebeccaJ]

You also, I note, have conveniently ignored the part about conspiring to assassinate Joseph, Hyrum and other members of the city council.

Third time: show that this was really happening. You haven’t.

I ‘take the side’ of two things; one is a matter of opinion. You think he was a megalomaniac; I think he was a prophet. The OTHER thing is not a matter of opinion, but of justice and law. You are supporting the actions of Law, et al, in their assassination attempts and their calls for violence against their neighbors, AND you are justifying the actions of a mob of 200 men murdering two (as they thought) unarmed prisoners…and why do you think these actions are justified? Those murders, attempted murders, tortures and all that?

Because Joseph had more than one wife and you don’t like his religion–oh, and he and his city council dismantled a printing press (and offered to pay for the damages).

News flash: BIGAMY was illegal.

So…I may BE defending a megalomaniac…but Joseph Smith never killed anybody, nor planned to. YOU, on the other hand, choose to take the side of self confessed assassins and murderers, attempting to justify their actions because YOU don’t like Joseph’s religion.

I take the side of neither.

Look, Rebecca.

I don’t care who was IN that cell in Carthage. The point is, there was no excuse nor justification for what happened there, and it was not the fault of the prisoners that they died. No fault at all.

But as I have written before, I will remember your fervent defense of the mob at Carthage the next time the MMM comes up.

You don’t “listen” to a word I type. Pointless discussion.

Actually, Law was excommunicated, (notice of which appeared in the Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pg. 511–April 1, 1844) and began to secretly meet with other disaffected and excommuncant Mormons, as a group called the 'Conspirators." Two young men joined them: Dennison L. Harris and Robert Scott–who overheard them plotting to assassinate Joseph and Hyrum, and promptly reported the same to Joseph.

Reported does not equal Law was there.

It was after this that Law formed the “True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” made himself president , and then published the Expositor, on June 7, 1844.

Why the hell not. This is the hallmark of Mormonism: fire up your own religion at will.

That’s pretty silly, Rebecca, since those same legal opinions also come down on the side of 'Joseph shouldn’t have broken the press…that was a violation of property rights."

Mind you, your cavalier dismissal of legal experts like Oaks, who was a state supreme court justice, university president and professor of law at the University of Chicago (and who was seriously considered for the US Supreme Court) simply because you don’t like his RELIGION says a great deal about your own biases.

Oaks I freely admit I have no admiration for whatsoever. I wouldn’t like him no matter his religion.

 

[Jerusha]

It happened 165 years ago. All the people involved are long since dead. He wasn’t Jesus. Isn’t it time to get over it??



I am reading Oaks right now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(continued)
(regarding my point that the mob certainly didn’t think Joseph was going to be convicted, since they took the law into their own…guns…)

You have something to back this up?

But you keep coming up with things to justify it, Rebecca. You keep defending it; you are it’s modern day cheerleader. Rah! Rah! BOOM…take THAT, you polygamist you! Sis! BOOM! And THAT, you taker apart of printing presses! YAY, YAY, YAY…How DARE the man actually attempt to defend himself against a mob of 200 men shooting his brother and the room 'to doll rags!" why, it’s obviously ALL HIS FAULT! I mean, gee, if he had only…what, NOT shot back AFTER the mob killed his brother, then all would have been well, and Hyrum would have arisen, the bullet magically disappearing out of his head and back into the gun that fired it, and the mob would have quietly gone back into the righteous night from which it came?

Rebecca, reasons for this there always are, just as there were REASONS for the MMM. But unlike the MMM, the REASONS for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage, and for the murder of the people at Haun’s Mill, and the torture of Joseph (and the death of his son) did not include deaths at the hands of Mormons.

The reasons for the MMM did.

There is a very large difference between us, Rebecca. Even though I acknowledge reasons for both events; Carthage and the MMM, I condemn both; reasons are never justifications, any more than motives are justifications. One is as inexcusable as the other. You, however, will not admit that there were reasons for the MMM, and attempt to justify Carthage. You are letting your own biases embitter your views.

blahblahblah…I’m really done talking about this as I can say the same thing over and over and you still insist on telling me what my POV is.

Good day.

 

[PaulDupre]

Ok…

Your wife is pregnant and there is no chance that if the baby is born now that it will live.

She has just been hit with a car and needs major surgery–but if it is done the fetus will die. If it is not done she will die.

What do you do?

Is it now all that black and white? One member of your family is about to die–one, or both. What do you choose to do?

You’ve betrayed your ignorance of the Catholic position. We condemn direct abortion - that is, a procedure whose purpose is to end the life of the fetus. A surgery whose purpose is to save the mother’s life, and which has no intent directed towards the fetus, but the stress of the surgery accidentally causes the mother to lose the fetus, is not a direct abortion, but rather, an unintended consequence of the life-saving procedure. The operation could very well be a success without harming the baby.

In a case like this, many Catholic mothers have chosen to give their lives for their babies.

 

[dianaiad]

Third time: show that this was really happening. You haven’t.

I GAVE you the cite. I gave you the names of the people who heard the plotting.

Oh.

Wait.

they were Mormons, or used to be Mormons, so of course nothing they say would be acceptable in your court of law.

Of course, that causes some problems with your blithe acceptance of everything that Wllm. LAW had to say…

News flash: BIGAMY was illegal.

But not a capital offense, last time I looked. Why do you think it is worthy of such?

I take the side of neither.{/quote]

Then why do you grab so willingly to every bit of justification you can FOR the murders, and completely ignore, dismiss or disparage any evidence or testimony against those who committed them?
RebeccaJ;5189499:

You don’t “listen” to a word I type. Pointless discussion.

Actually, I ‘listen’ very well. You type quite clearly, Rebecca. It’s just that you are writing more truthfully about your opinions than you think you are.

Reported does not equal Law was there.

Witnesses, named. William was not only there, he was LEADING THE MEETING.

Why the hell not. This is the hallmark of Mormonism: fire up your own religion at will.

(grin) You don’t concede points well, do you?

Oaks I freely admit I have no admiration for whatsoever. I wouldn’t like him no matter his religion.

And your reason behind this is…??? Did he do something to you?

The problem, of course, is that he IS a very respected attorney, judge and law professor. His work is cited in many, many other legal publications. His personality isn’t at issue here; his expertise as a legal historian IS, and that, m’friend, is solid platinum.

 

[dianaiad]

It happened 165 years ago. All the people involved are long since dead. He wasn’t Jesus. Isn’t it time to get over it??



I am reading Oaks right now.

I’ll ‘get over it’ as soon as you do, Jerusha.

As long as there are people out there who a: present Joseph’s death as justified, who approve of it, or who call it a shoot-out of a man attempting to escape (oh, yeah, I’ve heard that one too) or who dismiss it as you just did…

'get over it?"

M’goodness. Paul was killed nearly 2000 years ago, Everybody is long since dead. He wasn’t Jesus. Why don’t you get over it?

 

[dianaiad]

You have something to back this up?

common sense, Rebecca. If the mob thought he was going to be convicted of treason and hanged, there would have been no need to kill him.

blahblahblah…I’m really done talking about this as I can say the same thing over and over and you still insist on telling me what my POV is.

Good day.

That does seem to be the problem. You say the same thing over and over again, and it all comes out as a justification for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. I don’t have to tell you what your POV is. you keep telling ME.

 

[dianaiad]

You’ve betrayed your ignorance of the Catholic position. We condemn direct abortion - that is, a procedure whose purpose is to end the life of the fetus. A surgery whose purpose is to save the mother’s life, and which has no intent directed towards the fetus, but the stress of the surgery accidentally causes the mother to lose the fetus, is not a direct abortion, but rather, an unintended consequence of the life-saving procedure. The operation could very well be a success without harming the baby.

In a case like this, many Catholic mothers have chosen to give their lives for their babies.

I understand the Catholic position. I wrote my post to elicit this precise response explaining it.

Now here is my response to that; it is sophistry.

Those of us who face this issue with our eyes wide open don’t deceive ourselves;a medical procedure that must be done to save the life of the mother that would not have been necessary if the mother were not pregnant is an abortion. the life of the child is ended in order to save the life of the mother. It is a tragedy. It should only be done if there is no hope of survival for either if the life of the child is not ended.

there is no slight of language here; no 'medical procedure that will save the life of the mother is fine–even if one of the unfortunate side effects is the death of the fetus."

The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable in Catholic views…***but the procedure would not be necessary if it were not a pregnancy. ***

I prefer to see the situation head on and acknowledge the tragedy and the grief, not to hide behind tricksy verbiage in order to pharisee my way out of reality.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Most LDS know nothing about their organization’s history. It is hard to fault them for it, because their leaders try to hide the true history and instead present a whitewashed fantasy and call it history.

Note the number of LDS on this forum who didn’t know that Joseph Smith killed two men during the gun battle in which he died. The LDS leaders claim that he died as a martyr and went “like a lamb to the slaughter”. So far as I know, lambs do not carry sidearms nor do they shoot their attackers.

But they do taste fantastic with mint sauce:​

• [http://www.ehow.com/how_4864895_great-leg-of-lamb.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_4864895_great-leg-of-lamb.html)
• [http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4864895/1793MEDIUM_Full.jpg (http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4864895/1793MEDIUM_Full.jpg)

Note also the number of LDS on this forum who were unaware that Joseph Smith married many women who were already married to other men (after he sent those men away on missions).