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

[_Danna]

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.

[_Nightlion]

Your mission stories got nothing on mine. I was betrayed by both of my mission presidents. I was betrayed big time by three bishops of my home ward and two stake presidents. These were friends that I admired.

I was cast out headlong by strangers in a strange land, Provo, Utah, :-( after I returned to a stake where previously attempts were made on my life!

By comparison it sounds like Jesus had it easy.

Interesting you should say so. Regardless how you meant it.
The dynamic is quite different, he being God Almighty, and me just little ol' nothin'. All offense on his side is much greater because he is much greater. But I have learned fascinating insights of Christ's life like what was meant by his visage was so marred, more than any man, and lots of subtle things only great persecution makes you realize. Marvelous stuff. Why he waited.
It is intimate knowledge that he wanted someone to know. You would think that there could be another way.

[_justdreamin]

edit

[_mentalgymnast]

Shades: So, with great fear and trepidation, I went out and bought my first anti-Mormon book.

MG: What was it?

Shades: I know how that game is played. No, I'm not going to let you derail the thread. The specific anti-Mormon book I happened to read first is of no consequence.

MG:
What reliable source did you read this in?
What reliable source did you read this in?
What reliable source did you read this in?

Shades: Is there such a thing as a source critical of Mormonism that you consider reliable?

MG: But he shouldn't be given a free pass in regards to anything that he said or did of which he had full knowledge and understanding in regards to that thing which he said or thing that he did being strictly/black and white wrong... with a capital W.

Shades: I have no idea what any of that means. Care to re-word in English?

Four question, four passes. Some information is reliable and some is not. You're listing all the reasons that caused your apostasy. My concern is how much of the information that you read was actually reliable. Some is, some isn't. That's all.

Do you consider ALL sources critical of the church reliable? I don't see what giving the title of your first anti-mormon book that you read would have to do with de-railing the thread. That was not my objective. I guess we're left to wonder if it was any one of a number of books that have been published that may be less than trustworthy in all the particulars contained therein.

In regards to your last question, if Joseph Smith knew in particular instances that what he was saying or doing was Wrong (no doubt about it, just plain wrong), he should be taken to task. If he didn't know what he was saying or doing was wrong (or in his mind and/or heart of hearts he believed that he was doing what was right), then he should be cut some slack. The problem is, we have a history that is rather muddled and murky in some respects (information and implication sometimes coming through second hand or third hand sources) and it is difficult to always make an accurate judgement call.

Although some attempt to do so.

Regards,
MG

[_Gadianton Plumber]

MG: Why in the world did you latch on those three issues and ignore the other ones? Are you "arguing for 18 wives instead of 33"?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: Why in the world did you latch on those three issues and ignore the other ones? Are you "arguing for 18 wives instead of 33"?

See my original response to Shades on this thread (pg. 1). There were three items that Shades listed that led to his apostasy that I had not read or heard of before and are fairly strong accusations towards Joseph Smith and BY. All the rest of his "stuff" was not new to me. I was asking him to verify his source materials for these particular items. Some source material may be trustworthy and some may not be.

Regards,
MG

[_Gadianton Plumber]

MG: Why in the world did you latch on those three issues and ignore the other ones? Are you "arguing for 18 wives instead of 33"?

See my original response to Shades on this thread (pg. 1). There were three items that Shades listed that led to his apostasy that I had not read or heard of before and are fairly strong accusations towards Joseph Smith and BY. All the rest of his "stuff" was not new to me. I was asking him to verify his source materials for these particular items. Some source material may be trustworthy and some may not be.

Regards,
MG

So then you have found satisfactory answers to all the others points? I think you should tell Shades what they are, especially about our friend Zelph.

You also seem to be implying that we cannot draw firm conclusions due to the questionable and murky nature of the source material. Have you refrained from drawing conclusions in similarly murky areas? Do you therefore doubt that the Melky priesthood was restored? Is the FV similarly discarded for lack of clarity? How about roughly half the DC that arises from similar sources? Do you reject the veracity of the translation of the Kinderhook Plates, since Clayton wrote it down and also reject everything else he and other scribes wrote? The whole Nauvoo period is murky in this way, isn't it?

[_mentalgymnast]

So then you have found satisfactory answers to all the others points? I think you should tell Shades what they are, especially about our friend Zelph.

You also seem to be implying that we cannot draw firm conclusions due to the questionable and murky nature of the source material. Have you refrained from drawing conclusions in similarly murky areas? Do you therefore doubt that the Melky priesthood was restored? Is the FV similarly discarded for lack of clarity? How about roughly half the DC that arises from similar sources? Do you reject the veracity of the translation of the Kinderhook Plates, since Clayton wrote it down and also reject everything else he and other scribes wrote? The whole Nauvoo period is murky in this way, isn't it?

You're the guy from John Larsen's podcast, right? I've listened to most of those and have enjoyed them a bunch. Thanks for your participation on that podcast, if indeed I'm pegging the right person.

I'm still waiting for information from Shades on his source material regarding the three "unfamiliars" that I extracted from his list. Going anywhere else is going to derail this thread even more than I've already done.

Shades seems to be somewhat sensitive to that happening. We should respect that.

He didn't mention the first anti-mormon book he picked up and read. I'm simply curious as to whether or not it was "Godmakers" (Decker and Co.) or something a bit less inflammatory. Reading Godmakers as a first anti-mormon book would, at least with some folks, send them spinning out of control without ever recovering their equilibrium. I'm not sure why he's not willing to name the book? He simply states that it is of little or no consequence/value to do so.

Maybe it is.

If he retrieved the three "unfamiliars" that I referred to from Godmakers, for example, I'd be less than impressed with his source material.

FAIR rips it apart.

http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

He didn't mention the first anti-mormon book he picked up and read. I'm simply curious as to whether or not it was "Godmakers" (Decker and Co.) or something a bit less inflammatory. Reading Godmakers as a first anti-mormon book would, at least with some folks, send them spinning out of control without ever recovering their equilibrium. I'm not sure why he's not willing to name the book? He simply states that it is of little or no consequence/value to do so.

Maybe it is.

I thought the Godmakers was a movie. Was it also a book?

You realize, of course, that Deseret Book has the most testimony destroying material ever assembed, right? One doesn't have to go to the Tanners or Decker. One only need enter Deseret Book.

[_mentalgymnast]

He didn't mention the first anti-mormon book he picked up and read. I'm simply curious as to whether or not it was "Godmakers" (Decker and Co.) or something a bit less inflammatory. Reading Godmakers as a first anti-mormon book would, at least with some folks, send them spinning out of control without ever recovering their equilibrium. I'm not sure why he's not willing to name the book? He simply states that it is of little or no consequence/value to do so.

Maybe it is.

I thought the Godmakers was a movie. Was it also a book?

http://www.amazon.com/God-Makers-Ed-Dec ... 0890814023

http://www.amazon.com/God-Makers-Shocki ... t_ep_dpt_1

Also check out page reference links in the FAIR article I linked to.

Regards,
MG