It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:02 pm
Posts: 5934
just me wrote:
She must have been very beautiful.


Let's see, emigrates from England after converting to the religion. A whooping three weeks passe by and she and her parents suddenly "apostatize" But a faithful sister remains?

I believe a picture of Martha and her sister could settle this whole matter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6547
mentalgymnast wrote:
in 1833...the Deckers joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All though I have no proof of it I think Lorenzo Dow Young may have been the missionary in the case, which may explain the tremendous friendship that lasted between these two men. The records do show that Dow was doing missionary work in New York State at that time.
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~timbaloo/IsaacDecker/pages/Wayne.htm

BTW, click on the link I just provided and you'll get some more interesting "bits of history" as it relates to the family relationships between the Deckers and the Youngs...also Joseph Smith. Going to page two brings out some really cool historical tidbits.
...
I'm not with you on this at all. You'll have to go into a bit more detail in order to convince me that there is anything to be concerned about here.

I had linked to the same material about Isaac Decker on a different website and was going off of that same account so I'm glad you also found it informative.

The main thing that bothered me was how, at a time of need, Isaac Decker sold all to help the church and Joseph Smith during the Kirtland Anti-Bank collapse to his destitution. He exhibited faith of an uncompromising nature and was let down. The narrative then suggests that the reason Harriet left him to then marry Lorenzo had to do with 1 - his potentially diminished faith in the church, and 2 - Harriet's feelings about her husband being foolish to lose everything during the Kirtland Safety Society failure. The author also implies polygamy was involved and may have lent to Isaac's dissatisfaction with the church.

Quote:
You are correct, however, in mentioning that there isn't anything provocative or salacious when we look at existing information available in regards to Brigham Young's first four plural wives.

I disagree. Marrying the 15 year old sister of one's first polygamous wife, while the two sister's mother married your brother after leaving her husband is fairly provocative in itself without having the details recorded about how it happened or what was said.

_________________
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.
~ Soren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:06 am 
RockSlider wrote:
just me wrote:
She must have been very beautiful.


Let's see, emigrates from England after converting to the religion. A whooping three weeks passe by and she and her parents suddenly "apostatize" But a faithful sister remains?


Two faithful sisters. Mary and Elizabeth.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6547
mentalgymnast wrote:
RockSlider wrote:
Let's see, emigrates from England after converting to the religion. A whooping three weeks passe by and she and her parents suddenly "apostatize" But a faithful sister remains?


Two faithful sisters. Mary and Elizabeth.

Regards,
MG

Mary was married when they arrived. Two single sisters, Martha who apostatized and Liz who married Parley P. Pratt as a polygamous wife a year after claiming her sister was a liar in order to debunk Martha's claim BY had asked her to marry him polygamously. Remember that to the world at large, and to whom the affidavit's were all aimed, the question was fairly binary: were the saints practicing polygamy or not? The rest, as you say, was color.

_________________
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.
~ Soren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:03 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
mentalgymnast wrote:
If the color, assuming that color was added, had been absent from the affidavit(s), things might have gone differently with public reaction and later mob violence, etc.


Surely you jest. Do you honestly think color could change the response to the idea of rampant adultery within a group that is led by a man few trusted anyway? Polygamy was (and is) an assault on the sensibilities of society. An abomination, to quote the Book of Mormon. Things would never have gone "differently", since the principal cause of the response was not in question.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:16 pm 
honorentheos wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
in 1833...the Deckers joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All though I have no proof of it I think Lorenzo Dow Young may have been the missionary in the case, which may explain the tremendous friendship that lasted between these two men. The records do show that Dow was doing missionary work in New York State at that time.
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~timbaloo/IsaacDecker/pages/Wayne.htm

BTW, click on the link I just provided and you'll get some more interesting "bits of history" as it relates to the family relationships between the Deckers and the Youngs...also Joseph Smith. Going to page two brings out some really cool historical tidbits.
...
I'm not with you on this at all. You'll have to go into a bit more detail in order to convince me that there is anything to be concerned about here.

I had linked to the same material about Isaac Decker on a different website and was going off of that same account so I'm glad you also found it informative.

The main thing that bothered me was how, at a time of need, Isaac Decker sold all to help the church and Joseph Smith during the Kirtland Anti-Bank collapse to his destitution. He exhibited faith of an uncompromising nature and was let down. The narrative then suggests that the reason Harriet left him to then marry Lorenzo had to do with 1 - his potentially diminished faith in the church, and 2 - Harriet's feelings about her husband being foolish to lose everything during the Kirtland Safety Society failure. The author also implies polygamy was involved and may have lent to Isaac's dissatisfaction with the church.

Quote:
You are correct, however, in mentioning that there isn't anything provocative or salacious when we look at existing information available in regards to Brigham Young's first four plural wives.

I disagree. Marrying the 15 year old sister of one's first polygamous wife, while the two sister's mother married your brother after leaving her husband is fairly provocative in itself without having the details recorded about how it happened or what was said.


There isn't anything here that I factually disagree with.

Today is Pioneer Day here in Utah. We celebrated the day through our theme in Sacrament Meeting and then spent the day with family celebrating the holiday. The High Councilman gave a nice talk on the early pioneers. He shared a quote from Brigham Young that believe it or not I found quite applicable to the subject at hand.

Quote:
"I do not wish men to understand I had anything to do with our being moved here [Salt Lake City], that was the providence of the Almighty; it was the power of God that wrought out salvation for this people, I never could have devised such a plan." (Journal of Discourses 4:41)


I suppose that when all is said and done, this is either true...or not. God brought the saints out west, or He didn't. Brigham's trek with the saints out to the west ultimately resulted in what we are today as a church. None of the other offshoots of the early restoration survived to become an international movement with the scope and influence that the church has for good.

In my mind I look at the pushing and shoving that went on with the saints back east and have to wonder whether the church would be what it is today without having settled in the Great Basin region where they were free to grow and thrive and colonize in the wilderness of the United States. For that to happen, they somehow had to literally get booted out west from the east.

Personally, I think that Joseph wanted to keep polygamy under the radar because he wanted to see the Nauvoo Temple finished and the saints become endowed and receive/make similar covenants to those we participate in today. Covenants which can lead to exaltation in the kingdom of God. As Harmony said, the population at large would not have been too awfully excited if they knew that some members of the church were practicing plural marriage. Joseph may have very well known that if the persecutors came down on the church too soon it would prohibit members receiving their endowments. He was walking a fine line indeed.

So he tried to keep plural marriage secret.

John C. Bennett comes along and well, you know the rest of the story.

Net result? The saints did get their endowments and the persecutors drove the saints out of Nauvoo. Under Brigham Young's leadership they ended up out west and again, you know the rest of the story.

What has transpired wouldn't have transpired if the events in the past hadn't moved things along to where they are now. A vibrant church which makes extraordinary claims having to do with salvation and exaltation of the human family.

Martha Brotherton and other persecutors sped things up to the point where the saints barely had the time to do what needed to be done in the Nauvoo Temple before they were literally pushed out to the west. But, they had their endowments and promises from God. And that was what Joseph wanted for them from the get go.

So everything worked out, and the church thrives. Except for a bunch of nit pickin' folks on the periphery doing their darndest to out do John C. Bennett and the other early persecutors who at their time also thought that the whole LDS movement was just a bunch of hokum.

I think that they and the modern day persecutors have been proven wrong.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:53 am 
honorentheos wrote:
Mary was married when they arrived. Two single sisters, Martha who apostatized and Liz who married Parley P. Pratt as a polygamous wife a year after claiming her sister was a liar in order to debunk Martha's claim BY had asked her to marry him polygamously. Remember that to the world at large, and to whom the affidavit's were all aimed, the question was fairly binary: were the saints practicing polygamy or not? The rest, as you say, was color.


I think you'd have to admit though that the antagonistic persecutions that John C. Bennett and others initiated quickened the rate at which persecution forced the saints out of Nauvoo with their temple blessings intact (see my previous post) and on their way west. If Martha Brotherton and John C. Bennett and others hadn't written the "colorful" accounts of Nauvoo polygamy, the timing of the severe persecution would likely have been different. Of course we don't know the particulars of those differences and how they may or may not have had an effect on what came next, but things would have been different in some respects.

In a cosmic sense, you could say that these persecutors played an important part in the future progress of the church. I think that the same could be said of today's persecutors. They have played and will continue to play a part in the future progress of the church. Maybe not quite the part that they're hoping, but a part nonetheless.

But time will tell, right?

When all is said and done, I think we can at least agree that Martha Brotherton played an important part in the events that transpired in the Nauvoo period of church history.

Regards,
MG


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:03 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:05 am
Posts: 1484
mentalgymnast wrote:
When all is said and done, I think we can at least agree that Martha Brotherton played an important part in the events that transpired in the Nauvoo period of church history.

I disagree. Martha Brotherton was a peripheral figure at best in the Nauvoo period. You keep suggesting that Brotherton's 1842 affidavit was a major factor in the persecution that forced the Saints to leave Nauvoo (in 1846). It wasn't. The Saints would have found themselves at odds with their neighbors with or without Brotherton.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:06 pm
Posts: 16339
Location: Northern Virginia
Nevo wrote:
I disagree. Martha Brotherton was a peripheral figure at best in the Nauvoo period. You keep suggesting that Brotherton's 1842 affidavit was a major factor in the persecution that forced the Saints to leave Nauvoo (in 1846). It wasn't. The Saints would have found themselves at odds with their neighbors with or without Brotherton.


Agreed. Plural marriage was one of the issues the neighbors had, but I don't believe it was the main concern at all.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:19 pm
Posts: 9589
Nevo wrote:
I disagree. Martha Brotherton was a peripheral figure at best in the Nauvoo period. You keep suggesting that Brotherton's 1842 affidavit was a major factor in the persecution that forced the Saints to leave Nauvoo (in 1846). It wasn't. The Saints would have found themselves at odds with their neighbors with or without Brotherton.


She didn't help matters much. I think that she was aware just what she was doing and that she was also willingly used by the apostates for their own purposes.

_________________
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:19 pm
Posts: 9589
Runtu wrote:

Agreed. Plural marriage was one of the issues the neighbors had, but I don't believe it was the main concern at all.


Any issue that could be used to harm the saints was important. And certainly polygamy would have been a strong issue for the nonmormons to have them burned out. Or should we say a good excuse for such an event.

_________________
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:54 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Nevo wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
When all is said and done, I think we can at least agree that Martha Brotherton played an important part in the events that transpired in the Nauvoo period of church history.

I disagree. Martha Brotherton was a peripheral figure at best in the Nauvoo period. You keep suggesting that Brotherton's 1842 affidavit was a major factor in the persecution that forced the Saints to leave Nauvoo (in 1846). It wasn't. The Saints would have found themselves at odds with their neighbors with or without Brotherton.


I don't know if I've expressed this lately, but I really really like you. I think you're #2 on my All Time Favorite Apologist List (Dan always has the #1 slot).

You will now be forever damned, but I promise to bring a lawn chair to the party in Hell for you.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:19 pm
Posts: 9589
harmony wrote:

I don't know if I've expressed this lately, but I really really like you. I think you're #2 on my All Time Favorite Apologist List (Dan always has the #1 slot).

You will now be forever damned, but I promise to bring a lawn chair to the party in Hell for you.



I suppose that we could say the same for blacks and indians. No matter what they did, they would have been persecuted anyway and at odds with their neighbors. Diversity was not a strong frontier trait.

_________________
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:46 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
why me wrote:
I suppose that we could say the same for blacks and indians. No matter what they did, they would have been persecuted anyway and at odds with their neighbors. Diversity was not a strong frontier trait.


No, we couldn't. The Mormons were the same ethnic background and same racial group as their surrounding neighbors. They were no more diverse than their neighbors; some of them just thought they were entitled to walk outside their marriage vows with impunity.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:17 pm
Posts: 6547
Runtu wrote:
Nevo wrote:
I disagree. Martha Brotherton was a peripheral figure at best in the Nauvoo period. You keep suggesting that Brotherton's 1842 affidavit was a major factor in the persecution that forced the Saints to leave Nauvoo (in 1846). It wasn't. The Saints would have found themselves at odds with their neighbors with or without Brotherton.


Agreed. Plural marriage was one of the issues the neighbors had, but I don't believe it was the main concern at all.

I agree more with Nevo's comment - Martha B.'s affidavit was less significant than MG suggests. But I think in the grand scheme of things, plural marriage was critical to the events that led to Joseph's death. Where I think MG is most off, though, is by focusing on the effect plural marriage had on non-Mormon's. I think it's impact was greatest on the saints, and especially those saints who would have followed Joseph through every other trial but this one.

But I agree, the Nauvoo charter, the Mormon block vote, Joseph Smith's militant attitude and grande standing all played a role as well. Maybe a greater role with non-Mormons as Runtu said.

In a way, I think we still see this today. Most of us who are former LDS are probably more likely to see Joseph Smith's polygamy as a critical issue that forced us to inspect the church's foundation in a manner we might not have otherwise. But for many never-mo's, it seems to be just one more item on a list of incredulous circumstances that surrounded the man. Maybe not. But that's become my sense over my limited years on the boards.

ETA - It's interesting that the claimed assassination attempt on Gov. Boggs is rarely if ever mentioned in modern conversation about Joseph Smith's troubles. But it also seems to have played a role. Honesly, I wonder how most of us would feel if there were a small, clannish group living among us who were rumored to have a hit squad of "Danites"?

_________________
Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced.
~ Soren Kierkegaard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:19 pm
Posts: 9589
harmony wrote:
why me wrote:
I suppose that we could say the same for blacks and indians. No matter what they did, they would have been persecuted anyway and at odds with their neighbors. Diversity was not a strong frontier trait.


No, we couldn't. The Mormons were the same ethnic background and same racial group as their surrounding neighbors. They were no more diverse than their neighbors; some of them just thought they were entitled to walk outside their marriage vows with impunity.


Mormons were different as catholics were different in frontier america. Catholics were also frowned upon by the protestants. But the Mormons were written up in the newspapers quite often and the press was hardly ever positive. Prejudice was ripe. How the Mormons were treated by the protestants was not that much different from how small protestant sects were treated in europe at that time and in previous years.

_________________
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
why me wrote:

Mormons were different as catholics were different in frontier america. Catholics were also frowned upon by the protestants. But the Mormons were written up in the newspapers quite often and the press was hardly ever positive. Prejudice was ripe. How the Mormons were treated by the protestants was not that much different from how small protestant sects were treated in europe at that time and in previous years.


Mormons were actually very well received in Illinois, until Joseph ____ the bed.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:01 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
why me wrote:
How the Mormons were treated by the protestants was not that much different from how small protestant sects were treated in europe at that time and in previous years.


I'm not aware of slavery or war/genocide against small Protestant sects in Europe at that time. Please advise.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:17 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5350
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
When Bennett's brothel was shut down, he and the Fosters had it in for Joseph Smith...


This is not what happened and of course Mental is completely wrong here, (as usual).

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 13431
Thanks, Grindael, for resurrecting this thread. It's certainly an interesting take into the mind not of a mental gymnast, but a denialist.

MG,

You doubt BY proposed to Martha Brotherton. Why did he quietly seal himself to her after her death; what was his motivation?

Also, did you ever get around to reading that book?

- Doc

_________________
I have Mental Gymnast on ignore until he makes amends with Grindael, and both Grindael and IHAQ start posting again. I will not allow a troll to drive off two great board members without taking a stand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Martha Brotherton
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:53 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6652
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thanks, Grindael, for resurrecting this thread. It's certainly an interesting take into the mind not of a mental gymnast, but a denialist.

MG,

You doubt BY proposed to Martha Brotherton. Why did he quietly seal himself to her after her death; what was his motivation?

Also, did you ever get around to reading that book?

- Doc


Ah, thanks for resurrecting this thread. This is the one I was thinking of.

A quote from pg.3 of the thread from WhyMe is where I will leave it. I really don't want to keep beating a dead horse.

Quote:
MG,

People usually go by the source that confirms their bias interpretation of events. In this thread you put a monkey wrench into the belief system that the critics have had about the Brotherton story. And you did a good job. But in the end, her story continues to come up on exmo boards and context is not important. What is important is that the story as painted by Bennet and modern day critics paints the LDS church in the negative to lead people out of the church or to convince people not to join. They will not consider your take on it at all because it does not confirm their biasness about Joseph Smith.


Martha Brotherton was a dupe. Plain and simple.

If others want to continue down this road, go for it. I said all I had to say in this old thread.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bret Ripley, candygal, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot] and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group