Runtu wrote:There was an actual Eli Johnson, but he wasn't one of the brothers. Joseph Smith mentions him (and Edward and John Johnson, Jr.) as participating in the attack. Simonds Ryder, who was one of the leaders of the attack, said that they were motivated by Joseph's attempting to take their property away from them. That's a whole other debate, but it suggests that Joseph's sexual impropriety was not a motivation.
This is very interesting. I'd be interesting in reading more about this.
It's entirely possible, even probable, that there were different motivations for different people in that mob. People with one grievance might well be expected to leverage people with another grievance to build the "critical mass" needed to go out and act on it, ie: form the mob.
What's really interesting about this is that there is quite literally nothing about the "Joseph was tarred and feathered for sexual impropriety with Nancy Johnson" claim that seems obviously out of place with Joseph's earlier (with Fanny) and later (with dozens of other women) escapades.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:This is very interesting. I'd be interesting in reading more about this.
It's entirely possible, even probable, that there were different motivations for different people in that mob. People with one grievance might well be expected to leverage people with another grievance to build the "critical mass" needed to go out and act on it, ie: form the mob.
What's really interesting about this is that there is quite literally nothing about the "Joseph was tarred and feathered for sexual impropriety with Nancy Johnson" claim that seems obviously out of place with Joseph's earlier (with Fanny) and later (with dozens of other women) escapades.
No doubt. That Joseph was accused of impropriety with a young girl as early as 1827 in Pennsylvania makes it not entirely implausible that the same kind of thing was happening in 1832 in Ohio.
Runtu wrote:That Joseph was accused of impropriety with a young girl as early as 1827 in Pennsylvania makes it not entirely implausible that the same kind of thing was happening in 1832 in Ohio.
So this was "pre-Fanny"? Do you have more information on this? This is the first I've heard.
If that's the case, then it shows a pattern on Joseph's part. As members, we are led to believe that Joseph was very faithful to Emma before all of the polygamy stuff started.
If he was cheating on Emma before Fanny, and with Fanny, he just happened to get caught, that also justifies a lot.
Also, in regards to Fanny, do we know anything about her child that she was supposedly pregnant with when leaving Emma and Joseph's? We know she was remarried later. What happened to that child?
Runtu wrote:It seems rather odd for someone who can't manage to stay active in the LDS church to lecture someone who was not looking to "find a way out" and who fought against that way out all the way.
These cheap, self-righteous attributions of motive don't help your cause.
Of course, we all understand that 'why me" isn't here to help us, but to help him/herself hang on in Mormonism. That being the case, it is no wonder that why me can't afford to really think about where a former Mormon is or seek real understanding--to do so would completely undermine his/her reason for participating here.
This is not exactly true. I am not here to help me hang on to Mormonism. I am here to share my opinions about the LDS church. I can understand where a former Mormon is and seek understanding.
But I just think that you guys jumped the gun. The LDS church has not been proven false. The witnesses to the Book of Mormon have not been debunked. Nothing has changed much except the contant moaning about polygamy which seems to be in vogue when it comes to leaving the LDS church. And how Joseph Smith was not perfect.
But the LDS church has not been proven false.
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
Runtu wrote: Amen to that. Figuring out the reality behind the church was easily the most painful experience of my life, even worse than losing two brothers in an accident. If why me thinks we just wanted out, then, by all means he can go f*** himself.
I don't think that you just wanted out. But I do think that you jumped the gun a bit. What is he reality behind the church? I see the GAs and leaders of the church made up of believing men and women. I don't see them as cheats and scoundrels. So what is the reality of the LDS church?
And who says that you figured it all out correctly?
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
Kishkumen wrote:What a stunning solipsism. You imagine that we did not have a powerful witness simply because we left? How would you begin to know? Do you imagine erroneously that everyone with a powerful witness will stick with it no matter what?
Yup, I would guess that most of us who have been in the church have had what we considered powerful witnesses. I know I did. But why me seems to be projecting here. Maybe he's the one who wants out.
And then many of you who did receive that powerful witness cast it aside by equating it to a warm fuzzy. One of the reasons why leaving the church can be painful is because of that witness. Now if a person never received such a witness, it is much easier. A person who has received a powerful witness needs a good dose of rationalization when they leave.
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
why me wrote:And then many of you who did receive that powerful witness cast it aside by equating it to a warm fuzzy. One of the reasons why leaving the church can be painful is because of that witness. Now if a person never received such a witness, it is much easier. A person who has received a powerful witness needs a good dose of rationalization when they leave.
One substantive difference between our two approaches to this topic is that I have experienced leaving the LDS Church, whereas you merely pontificate about it without that hands on experience. You really have no clue what I think about that witness, how I now contextualize it in my life, and how I dealt with it on the way out. Blather on all you like in generalizing terms, but you haven't struck anywhere close to my experience.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
why me wrote:I don't think that you just wanted out. But I do think that you jumped the gun a bit. What is he reality behind the church? I see the GAs and leaders of the church made up of believing men and women. I don't see them as cheats and scoundrels. So what is the reality of the LDS church?
And who says that you figured it all out correctly?
I have never said that I "know" I have figured out Mormonism correctly, but certainly all the evidence so far points that way. The reality behind the church appears to be a manmade organization and set of beliefs that is now devoutly believed by lay and leadership alike.
