Why I left the LDS Church (Warning: *LONG*)

[_mentalgymnast]

My concern is whether or not your initial post relied wholly on reliable sources or at times on less than reliable sources.

We don't know because you didn't say.

My initial post relied wholly on reliable sources.

Okee dokee. Was this one of them?

http://www.exmormon.org/Mormon/mormon262.htm

Orson Hyde's Wife, Marinda
Marinda Nancy Johnson, sister of Apostles Luke and Lyman Johnson, married Orson Hyde in 1834. A year before Hyde returned from Jerusalem in 1843, Marinda was sealed to Joseph Smith in April of 1842, though she lived with Orson until their divorce in 1870. Many suspect Joseph Smith was the actual father of Marinda's son Frank Henry who was born on 23 Jan 1845, for two reasons. First, because Marinda had been the polygamous wife of Smith since Apr 1842. Second, because Smith had sent her first husband, Orson Hyde, on a mission to Washington on April 4, 1844 "immediately" after a meeting with Joseph Smith (History of the Church, pg. 286). The gestation period for a human is on average 266 days (not 9 months), which would date the conception to early May 1844. Of course, 266 is an average date and the figures vary. To give you an idea of the range, only four percent of pregnancies are actually carried two weeks or more beyond the average time (Guttmacher, 1983). Frank Henry was born on January 23, 1845. Orson Hyde left for Washington April 4, 1844. The difference in these two dates is 294 days! That is almost a month longer than expected and is basically physiologically impossible, especially considering that Orson Hyde had not returned to Nauvoo until August 6, 1844.
(Andrew Jenson, Church Chronology, August 6, 1844) Marinda later divorced Orson Hyde and voiced her disgust of polygamy.

Why are you so hesitant to the point of absolute refusal to reveal the name of the anti-mormon book that was the "beginning of [your] odyssey" ?

Have you read the Godmakers? Would you consider this book to be a reliable anti-mormon book?

Regards,
MG

[_TAK]

Have you read the Godmakers? Would you consider this book to be a reliable anti-mormon book?

Regards,
MG

I have not read Godmakers.. identify three salient statements in the book about Mormonism that are false.

[_cinepro]

We all celebrate the Pioneers and their spirit and sacrifice, yet we hardly ever hear about the Mormon Battalion, even though they *walked*--not rode in covered wagons, but *walked*--nearly three times as far. This is because over half of them apostatized after returning home to Winter Quarters.

We hear all the time about the persecution the Mormons endured in Missouri. What we don't hear is that the Mormons traded, bought, and sold only among themselves. In addition, they constantly told their non-Mormon neighbors that the Lord would soon drive them, the wicked, from their farms and give it to the Mormons to build Zion. Mormons also voted as a bloc at the direction of Joseph Smith, which meant that any politician hoping to be elected had to bend over backwards to please the Mormons--the votes and opinions of politically divided Missourians didn't count. Not only that, but after the Danite skirmish at the election booth, the Mormons marched on the towns of Millport and Gallatin, caused the inhabitants to flee, pillaged all the livestock and household goods from the farms, and then burned both towns to the ground. The looted material was called "the spoils of the gentiles" and the Lord had, according to Smith, given it to the Mormons. To make matters worse, they opened fire on a state militia, wounded one young man, and then hacked his face almost to pieces. THAT last incident is what sparked the "extermination order."

-----[END MESSAGE]-----

Wow. That was quite a post Shades! Definitely interesting reading.

Do you remember your sources about the Mormon Battalion and the events in Missouri? I'd be curious to read up on those.

[_Dr. Shades]

Okee dokee. Was this one of them?

http://www.exmormon.org/Mormon/mormon262.htm

No. But the information contained therein seems solid enough; with what parts of it do you disagree?

Why are you so hesitant to the point of absolute refusal to reveal the name of the anti-mormon book that was the "beginning of [your] odyssey"?

Because the Mopologetic playbook demands that, upon receiving the name of the book, you derail the conversation so that the book is the focus and the original message becomes lost and/or forgotten. No matter how reliable the book is--even if it was written by God, endorsed by Jesus Christ, and notarized by the Holy Ghost--the book is unreliable, since any book that's not 100% grovelling praise toward Utah's wealthiest sect of Brighamite Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon lie. So no, I won't allow you to derail the thread by telling you the name of the book.

Besides, I didn't base my decision on one book. So the identity of the book I happened to read first is inconsequential.

Have you read the Godmakers?

No.

Would you consider this book to be a reliable anti-mormon book?

Not from what I've heard about it.

Do you remember your sources about the Mormon Battalion and the events in Missouri?

It's been years, but I'm pretty sure the stuff about the Mormon Battalion came from Wife No. 19 and the stuff about the events in Missouri came from The Reed Peck Manuscript. (Cue Mopologetic Playbook: Both those works are unreliable/debunked/false/anti-Mormon lies, etc.)

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Because the Mopologetic playbook demands that, upon receiving the name of the book, you derail the conversation so that the book is the focus and the original message becomes lost and/or forgotten. No matter how reliable the book is--even if it was written by God, endorsed by Jesus Christ, and notarized by the Holy Ghost--the book is unreliable, since any book that's not 100% grovelling praise toward Utah's wealthiest sect of Brighamite Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon lie. So no, I won't allow you to derail the thread by telling you the name of the book.

Code 310. Apologetic Response:

Bushman, Bushman

Message Ends.

[_beastie]

Besides, I didn't base my decision on one book. So the identity of the book I happened to read first is inconsequential.

Not only is the book inconsequential, but the detail is inconsequential. As I already explained to MG, one could remove any of those contested points and easily find ten more to replace it that are uncontested. Don't like the Hyde reference? Substitute Josephine or Helen Mar. MG is completely ignoring the forest for the trees.

[_Runtu]

Not only is the book inconsequential, but the detail is inconsequential. As I already explained to MG, one could remove any of those contested points and easily find ten more to replace it that are uncontested. Don't like the Hyde reference? Substitute Josephine or Helen Mar. MG is completely ignoring the forest for the trees.

I find it really interesting that the "aha!" moment is different for everyone. For me, it was finally admitting that I couldn't in good conscience justify Joseph Smith's behavior, particularly his deceptive and coercive practice of polygyny and polyandry, any longer. But the defining issue is different for everyone, and that's probably because, as you say, there are a hundred different problems with Mormon claims. Wipe one away (or at least play apologist and try to obscure it), and there are ten, fifty, or a hundred other issues to take its place.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Besides, I didn't base my decision on one book. So the identity of the book I happened to read first is inconsequential.

Not only is the book inconsequential, but the detail is inconsequential. As I already explained to MG, one could remove any of those contested points and easily find ten more to replace it that are uncontested. Don't like the Hyde reference? Substitute Josephine or Helen Mar. MG is completely ignoring the forest for the trees.

For MG and in the spirit of KA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TEkNQWpeeg

[_beastie]

For MG and in the spirit of KA.

Heh. Good find.

by the way, this Hyde controversy has to do with dating in Fawn Brodie's book. She dated Henry's birth has having occurred in 1845, but others insist it was 1846. I say it's inconsequential, other than as one tree in a huge forest.

Fawn Brodie is absolutely a reliable source, but it's possible she got the dating wrong in this case. However, her dating is taken seriously enough that Frank is often listed as a possible child of Joseph Smith, and apparently DNA testing was undertaken, although it appears incompleted.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

The fact that DNA testing is necessary for any of these polyandrous unions is problematic enough, aside the particulars of any one case.

[_Roger]

Shades:

Interesting story. Thanks for posting it. And it wasn't that long.

Danna wrote:

Nice response Dr S.

I can't find any report of Frank Henry's DNA testing - it is just recorded as incomplete.

Joseph and Marinda are an interesting story though, since she is a likely contributing cause of Joseph and Sidney's earlier tarring and feathering. I had some earnest young missionaries tell me how (shades of Elder Holland) Joseph's twins died after hypothermia suffered during the tarring and feathering of their father (therefore the church is true....). When I explained that the tarrers and featherers were actually disaffected members, the young lads looked so shocked I dropped the topic.

Marinda is somewhat of a special case, I really hope we can learn more about her.

This is interesting to me because a few months back I was in Ohio and on my way out of Kirtland I made the effort to visit the Johnson farm where the tarring and feathering took place. Ironically, a bus load of LDS was just leaving when I got there and as it turned out, I was the only person waiting to take the next tour. I actually wanted to just walk through on my own but the guy told me to wait and he would give me a tour.

He sat me down and started telling me something about what I could do when I got back home to recruit new members but before he got too far I told him I was not a church member. That seemed to really surprise him. I suppose they don't get many non-members taking tours of the Johnson farm 30 miles out of Kirtland.

In any event I told him I am interested in history and he accordingly gave me a "history-leaning" tour only laced with occasional testimony-bearing references (until we got to the upper room where revelations were given and the Bible was being worked over... this was obviously the testimony-bearing room, but I digress)

What struck me as very interesting indeed was story he gave me when we got to the room Joseph, Emma & the twins were using the night of the tarring and feathering. Those who know me, know that I am a Joseph Smith critic and do not think very highly of the man except that he was obviously an above-average con man. But I was being very pleasant and respectful, showing no signs of my inward skepticism, just being genuinely interested in the history of the place.

He told me, this is the room that J, E & the twins were using the night the mob came and tarred and feathered Joseph and Sidney. He told the same thing about the twins and the resulting hypothermia. I could not resist asking why they tarred and feathered them and the response was, and I quote:

"Well because they were preaching things the people around here didn't like."

I really wanted to ask the guy why the "mob" brought along a medical Dr. with the intention of castrating Joe, but I figured that might put a damper on our otherwise great relationship so I let it go with "they were preaching things the people around here didn't like."

It was an interesting feeling being in the place where all this history happened. I thoroughly enjoyed Kirtland as well as Nauvoo. I wish I would have had more time there.

But I agree with Danna, I would like to know more about Joseph's relationship with Nancy Marinda. It seems to have divided the rather large Johnson clan. This seems to have been one of Joseph's first attempts at extra-marital relationships and he later officially marries her.

What amazes me is how Joseph manages to keep any followers after something like that. Sure, he was tough enough physically to get up the next day and preach as though nothing had happened, but wouldn't people wonder why in heaven's name was our prophet tarred and feathered? And wouldn't they think it a bit odd that some of the Johnson family were involved? And wouldn't they start asking questions? Apparently... not so much.