Are there any valid criticisms?

[jwhitlock]

It strikes me as a transparent attempt to paint "any" criticism of the LDS Church as similarly baseless and similarly absurd as the only criticism you're apparently interested in this thread.

And yet that very criticism was defended by enemies of the Church here on this board.

Perhaps it's more of an indication of the willingness of some people to justify anything negative about the Church as valid. We do know that those types are out there, don't we.

[Pahoran]

Your argument was clearly that the state of "anti-mormonism" is what causes them to tell stories that do not resemble the facts.

Schizophrenia is what caused Gino to tell a story that did not resemble the facts.

I did not refer to Gino telling a story that did not resemble the facts. You did not quote me as attributing to Gino a story that did not resemble the facts.

So I am going to ask you for the last time to please refrain from such fabrications.

I am not your husband (for which I am devoutly grateful) so I don't have to apologise to you for being right when you are obstinately and offensively wrong.

This derail has really gone on long enough, I think. If you want to pursue this further, you will be pleased to take it to another thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

And it had everything to do with why negative rationalizations about the Church to justify departure from the Church are dishonest. But evidently you were far too intent on playing some trite numbers game to take a look at the specifics I was posting about. Either that, or purposely ignoring them.

1. If you would never have introduced into the discussion the phrase "far too many" I would not have asked you to quantify your experiences.

2. When you mentioned the "list of reasons" in the post to which I responded, I did a search for "list of reasons" in a jwhitlock post and found nothing with a link. After you responded again about this "list of reasons" I read every one of your recent posts until I found it. In the post with the link to this list, you called this list "shallow rationalizations" so that's why I couldn't find it when I conducted my initial search.

3. That list was made by one critic.

In any case, you came down squarely on the side of those who were defending the list - and making the absurd claim that we can't know motivations unless the ex-Mormon lets us know what they are. As if anyone who is rationalizing leaving by attacking the Church is going to be honest in the first place, anyway.

1. Who defended DrW's list?

2. I never claimed that you can't know motivations. I simply wanted to know how you arrived at your conclusion that you did know the motivations of ex-mormons.

[cksalmon]

And yet that very criticism was defended by enemies of the Church here on this board.

Perhaps it's more of an indication of the willingness of some people to justify anything negative about the Church as valid. We do know that those types are out there, don't we.

Perhaps, indeed. I obviously don't disagree with you, j.

cks

[beastie]

I did not refer to Gino telling a story that did not resemble the facts. You did not quote me as attributing to Gino a story that did not resemble the facts.

So I am going to ask you for the last time to please refrain from such fabrications.

I am not your husband (for which I am devoutly grateful) so I don't have to apologise to you for being right when you are obstinately and offensively wrong.

This derail has really gone on long enough, I think. If you want to pursue this further, you will be pleased to take it to another thread.

First, I do not believe this can be reasonably construed as a derailment. One of your primary points is that the author of the piece you cite is being dishonest and maliciously exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point. If it can be demonstrated that you did the exact same thing it seems quite pertinent. You certainly do not believe you were dishonest, nor do you believe you were exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point.

Here is your statement in which you asserted that you shared the Gino story to demonstrate that anti-mormons tell stories that do not resemble the facts.

Pahoran:

As you perfectly well know, I did in fact refer to such an incident once to demonstrate how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.

Post 71 on this thread.

The “incident” in question was the murder of an entire family by a man suffering from schizophrenia. You referred to that incident to demonstrate “how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.”

(btw, that’s a pretty sad commentary on your view on marriage, but that’s another thread)

add on a preemptive edit: since no one on the thread in question had mentioned Gino, or likely even heard of Gino, the only way that this story could demonstrate "how the facts do not resemble the stories anti-Mormons tell" is if the facts did not resemble the story Gino told.)

[jwhitlock]

1. If you would never have introduced into the discussion the phrase "far too many" I would not have asked you to quantify your experiences.

And I explained quite clearly to you why it was a misdirection to try to play that game of quantifying. That you didn't want to accept it is irrelevant.

2. When you mentioned the "list of reasons" in the post to which I responded, I did a search for "list of reasons" in a jwhitlock post and found nothing with a link. After you responded again about this "list of reasons" I read every one of your recent posts until I found it. In the post with the link to this list, you called this list "shallow rationalizations" so that's why I couldn't find it when I conducted my initial search.

Odd; others seemed quite willing to defend the list itself in that thread.

3. That list was made by one critic.

And defended by other critics.

1. Who defended DrW's list?

Re-read the thread. The list was a part of my reason for doubting the honesty of those who justify leaving the Church by attacking it. Others understood that; I can't help it if you're now telling us that you didn't notice it, even though it was a part of the discussion.

2. I never claimed that you can't know motivations. I simply wanted to know how you arrived at your conclusion that you did know the motivations of ex-mormons.

I explained how I arrived at it. You focused narrowly in on some kind of quantifying that was irrelevant. Re-read the thread. That's all I can suggest that you do, since I tend to quit repeating my reasons at some point.

[cksalmon]

CK,

The background to this is: an apparently intelligent fellow (a self-described PhD-qualified scientist) offered this criticism as his number one on a "top ten" list. There weren't any drum rolls or musical stings a la Letterman, so I can only presume that he meant it to be taken seriously. The other items on his "top ten" were a fairly standard anti-Mormon laundry list, of the type the Evangel would (wrongly) offer as valid criticisms. But this was the top of his list, and the only original item there.

Now, as a funny, that works. I only hope it was subtle enough to exclude the uninitiated, as I don't wish for them to share, unworthily, our moment here. Long-time denizens, behold and chuckle.

That's why I singled it out.

Okay. I get that.

And yes, if this is the very best a self-described PhD-qualified scientist can come up with, then it does raise the question: are there any valid criticisms?

I disagree. "If this is the very best a self-described PhD-qualified scientist can come up with," then it certainly calls into question the validity of the criticisms offered up by this "self-described PhD-qualified scientist." But, nothing more, nothing less.

A single, poor, invalid criticism has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there "any" valid criticisms. But, you know that, of course.

("In a debate, the tactic necessarily 'poisons the well of discourse' by predisposing people to regard anything a debater says with unreasonable suspicion."--Pahoran)

You appear here to be embracing the logical fallacy, rather than disavowing it.

Best.

cks

[Thinking]

Re-read the thread. The list was a part of my reason for doubting the honesty of those who justify leaving the Church by attacking it.

There were exactly five posts in that thread (before it was closed) after DrW posted his list. Which of the five defends his list? Only DrW.

Avatar4321

Im not concerned why you left. Id just like to see you come back and enjoy the blessings you could have.

jwhitlock

Sounds like you're trying to find rationalizations for leaving the Church. I doubt very much that you've posted your real reason here.

You see, your phrasing here only indicates you decided to buy into the anti-Mormon perspective on the Church and give it credibility in your life. Unfortunately for you, that's a poor choice of source material, since that perspective is fundamentally flawed.

Lest anyone think that I'm being too harsh, the fact that you gave a cheap shot the first place in your list indicates the fundamental problem with your reasoning. It's rather clear evidence that your real motivations for leaving the Church are something other than factual.

Avatar4321

Actually, its mostly quite sad that you seriously believe that and havent bothered to actually research the issues.

The Kinderhook plates? Seriously? I mean seriously?

TChild2

Both are equally respectable reasons. I always knew you were evil John. Pure evil, probably not, but mostly evil, definitely.

(referring to John's list not DrW's list)

DrW

Why would you think that I would not post my "real" reason(s) for leaving the Church?

Imagine that you were raised by parents who were Scientologists, and at some point you figured out that the Scientologist's core beliefs and worldview could absolutely not be supported by fact or logic. There were no Thetans. The Universe is not trillions of years old. Life on earth was not seeded into volcanoes, etc.

Would the fact that you were raised to believe in Scientologist's man made fiction, and now wanted to develop a worldview based on facts instead of fairytales, not be enough reason for you to leave Scientology (in spite of all of the family and peer social pressures to stay "faithful" to that modern revealed religion)?

Please be honest in your answer.

Please also explain why the mention of Christine Jonson's willingness to kill her children because of her literal belief in Mormon doctrine is a cheap shot. This happened in my community, and me and my family were directly affected by this tragedy. It happened. She testified to the facts before a judge. Why is the mention of this reason a cheap shot?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to go back and think through the logic of her decision again and then tell me precisely where it was flawed.

[Pahoran]

First, I do not believe this can be reasonably construed as a derailment. One of your primary points is that the author of the piece you cite is being dishonest and maliciously exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point. If it can be demonstrated that you did the exact same thing it seems quite pertinent.

The key word being that little "if"; and as it happens, it can't be, and you are wrong.

As you know, my point is that the prevalence of invalid criticisms against the Church calls into question the existence of valid ones.

My point regarding the exploitation of the tragedy is that he claimed to have been personally saddened by it when it happened, but the way that he uses it and the things that he says about it both tend to militate against that claim.

Neither of these apply to your ancient grudge against me; therefore your harping and nagging on this topic constitute a derailment of the thread.

And by the same token, your repeated accusations of "hypocrisy" are demonstrably false.

You may now stop repeating them.

Here is your statement in which you asserted that you shared the Gino story to demonstrate that anti-mormons tell stories that do not resemble the facts.

Pahoran:

Post 71 on this thread.

The â??incidentâ? in question was the murder of an entire family by a man suffering from schizophrenia. You referred to that incident to demonstrate â??how the facts do not resemble the stories that anti-Mormons tell.â?

(btw, thatâ??s a pretty sad commentary on your view on marriage, but thatâ??s another thread)

Actually it says nothing at all about my views on marriage; but hey--don't let the facts slow down your poison pen campaign; you never have before.

add on a preemptive edit: since no one on the thread in question had mentioned Gino, or likely even heard of Gino, the only way that this story could demonstrate "how the facts do not resemble the stories anti-Mormons tell" is if the facts did not resemble the story Gino told.)

That's false.

Just so you know, the facts failed to resemble the story his brother told.

My two-sentence hand-wave at the Manna case fails entirely to resemble DrW's slick, demagogical manipulation of the "Christine Jonsen" case.

As you perfectly well know.

And your continued nagging and harping about it fails entirely to address the purposes of this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

It's interesting that Dr.W seems to have avoided this thread altogether, but has tried to reassert this Christine Jonson thing in another thread: here.

[Pahoran]

It's interesting that Dr.W seems to have avoided this thread altogether, but has tried to reassert this Christine Jonson thing in another thread: here.

Well, let's be charitable about that. DrW seems to have been absent for a while, so he may not have gotten around to this thread. I've pointed it out to him, so maybe he will find it.

I, for one, can't wait to see what he has to say.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

Well, let's be charitable about that. DrW seems to have been absent for a while, so he may not have gotten around to this thread. I've pointed it out to him, so maybe he will find it.

I, for one, can't wait to see what he has to say.

Regards,

Pahoran

I pointed it out to him twice...once last night and once this morning.

[Pahoran]

Let's go down the rest of DrW's "top ten" list.

Bishop telling me that I should consider my interview with him as if I were standing before Jesus Christ

But did he?

And more importantly, what did he mean by that?

Did the bishop -- who is unavailable to defend himself -- actually mean to suggest that he was as important as Jesus Christ?

Or was he merely saying that DrW should tell the truth to the Lord's representative, in the spirit of Acts 5:1-10?

If the latter, I can see why DrW would so bitterly resent it.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented glass looking, polyandry, adultery, drinking, lying, swindling, and sexual predation of young teenage girls.

This is listed as one item, but it is in fact seven. Let's look at them in turn:

Joseph Smithâ??s documented glass looking

Joseph is identified as "the glass looker" on a hand-written court document. There is no explanation of what was meant by this notation, nor any description of his activities; the "documentation" is very thin indeed. Since Joseph mentioned working for Josiah Stowell in his own official history, this is a rather trivial criticism.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented polyandry.

Again, the documentation is rather poor. There is insufficient evidence to show that any of those women had concurrent marital relationships with Joseph and anyone else. This "polyandry" accusation actually lumps together at least two classes of relationships: (1) women who married Joseph after their existing marriages ended, and (2) women to whom Joseph was sealed as a religious ceremony only, but who remained exclusively married to their own husbands. There are no proven cases of Joseph being in any actively polyandrous relationships.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented adultery.

There is no "documented adultery." This accusation is a documented falsehood.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented drinking.

The Word of Wisdom was not initially given as a commandment; most of the first generation of Saints continued to drink for some years after it was received. This is a big "so what" -- unless DrW tells us that he gives credence to the various tall tales of Joseph delivering drunken soliloquies for the entertainment of the tourists. Those stories are at least entertaining.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented lying.

I am unaware of even one documented example of Joseph lying. It is true that he -- for good reason -- chose to conceal the practice of plural marriage from a public that was always eager to express its intolerance for non-traditional marriage practices with "powder and ball." On some occasions he may have sailed rather close to the wind, and I really can't blame him for that.

And besides, why should DrW, of all people, get worked up about that, of all sins? Is he really in a position to cast the first stone when it comes to questions of personal veracity?

Joseph Smithâ??s documented swindling.

There is no "documented swindling." This accusation is a documented falsehood.

Joseph Smithâ??s documented sexual predation of young teenage girls.

Ditto. DrW is prepared to assert documentation for rather a lot of things that are not documented at all. If there is one safe fact about Joseph's marital practices, it is that he always acted as a religious believer carrying out his beliefs. That is the only parsimonious explanation for his actions, and therefore the one that DrW -- given his professed principles -- should accept.

Kolob

So what?

Jaredites crossing the ocean in unpowered semi-submersibles.

And again, so what? I have read DrW's long exposition on the subject; his assumptions are such as to ensure that the voyage turns out to be impossible. And yet ancient people did in fact cross the oceans.

Book of Abraham from funerary papyri

See above (post no. 83). To reiterate: The Church has never -- not once -- identified any given papyrus as the source for the Book of Abraham. The claim that J.S. Pap. XI and X are the source for that book is an opinion only, and one that is not unanimously held among those who are working with the papyri, or even by a majority of them.

Kinderhook Plates

Yes, this is a popular old chestnut. A group of people came up with a clever trick to put one over on Joseph Smith. He seemed initially impressed with the artefacts, and may have given a preliminary opinion about their contents, but rather quickly lost interest and had nothing more to do with them. He specifically requested that the artefacts be independently authenticated before he would undertake to translate them. In short, the plot failed. Given his ideological preferences, I can understand why DrW would so bitterly resent that fact; but how does it turn out to be a criticism of the Church?

Book of Mormon

This is a criticism? All I can say to that is, "Oh."

BKP â??some truths are not usefulâ? and â??the mantle precedes the intellectâ?

Both of which are perfectly true, and entirely valid in their context, even if misquoted, as they are here. To teachers with a curriculum to follow, not all truths are equally useful; that is a rather indisputable fact. That statement is frequently misrepresented as some kind of Grand Inquisitor trampling on academic freedom, but of course it is nothing of the sort.

But that is undoubtedly how DrW is trying to misrepresent it.

Multiple incompatible versions of Joseph Smithâ??s â??First Visionâ?

I have seen eight different accounts of Joseph's First Vision. They were given at different times to different audiences. They are, of course not identical, since Joseph did not simply make up a story and then memorise it. However, they are also not incompatible. A careful reading of them all shows just the sorts of minor circumstantial discrepancies that honest reminiscences invariably show; but the key features remain stable. Again, the most parsimonious explanation is that they are faithfully reporting an actual experience.

These were the last nine of DrW's top ten. They represented, he averred, the reasons why "millions left the Church."

This is pure partisan propaganda, and I have no doubt that he knows it.

And they are pretty poor, after all. Which brings us back to the question with which I opened this thread. Poor as they are, these are clearly the best DrW could come up with. And so I ask: if this is the best a self-proclaimed PhD qualified scientist could come up with, are there any valid criticisms?

Regards,

Pahoran

[beastie]

That's false.

Just so you know, the facts failed to resemble the story his brother told.

My two-sentence hand-wave at the Manna case fails entirely to resemble DrW's slick, demagogical manipulation of the "Christine Jonsen" case.

As you perfectly well know.

And your continued nagging and harping about it fails entirely to address the purposes of this thread.

The purpose of this thread is clear â?? to condemn a critic for the same behavior you have also engaged in, yourself. Now that your past behavior has been brought up, youâ??ve been busy trying to rationalize what you did, while continuing to condemn Dr. W.

Why would I â??perfectly well knowâ? that you were talking about his brother/? You did not make such a clarification on the thread in question, and, in fact, repeatedly referred to Gino as the apostate in question. There is nothing in either your comments nor in the newspaper clippings to indicate the brother was an apostate of the church, either. And it certainly doesnâ??t make sense to talk about the brother when the topic of the thread is whether or not apostates who blame the church for breaking up their marriages are telling the truth.

Itâ??s important to note that the context of the discussion was whether or not apostates who blame the church for breaking up their marriages could ever be telling the truth. Pahoran maintained that any apostate who made such a claim was lying. I questioned whether or not Pahoran could possibly possess enough background information on enough cases to make such an extreme generalization.

To which pahoran responded:

I guess you really think you got me that time, don't you?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when apostates decide to malign the Church by falsely accusing it of breaking up their marriages, they do not usually confine their slanders to confidential disclosures that I would only learn if I were the close personal confidant of each one of them. Rather, they tend to broadcast these accusations quite promiscuously. Ed Decker is a rather well-known case in point--he made this accusation almost as promiscuously as he lived his personal life. However, his much-maligned ex-wife reports that her bishop kept encouraging her to forgive him and stick by him through all his string of affairs, and even after he fell away from the Church. Which not only refutes Ed, but it has added credibility (not that it needs it--Ed has negative credibility, which means that his disagreeing with any assertion adds weight to the claim that it is true) because it is consistent with the clear, unequivocal and emphatic policy of the Church.

But I do not rest my categorical statement upon that case alone. I know of many others. One occurred in my own family. Another occurred in a family I home-taught. Still another happened in a matter where I sat on the disciplinary council. One rather notorious case happened when I lived in Australia, wherein the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it. In that particular case, the bishop in question did in fact finally advise the wife to leave her increasingly abusive husband, but she didn't move quickly enough.

Once again, note: the discussion is clearly about whether or not apostateâ??s stories about what broke up their marriages â??resemble the factsâ?. Pahoran clearly identified the apostate in question â?? the husband. Of course, his â??waveâ? neglected some very important information about the apostate husband â?? to wit, his mental illness.

In fact, I just reread the Z thread again to make sure I had not missed something important â?? like Pahoran referring to the brother as the apostate in question. Iâ??m confident I didnâ??t miss anything. Pahoran is rewriting history. Read post 164 in particular, on the last page of the thread. Pahoranâ??s comments make it abundantly clear he was talking about the husband, not the brother.

Pahoran exploited the case of a mentally ill man murdering his family in order to demonstrate that apostates canâ??t be trusted to tell the truth about whether or not the church broke up their marriage.

In regards to the primary point:

As you know, my point is that the prevalence of invalid criticisms against the Church calls into question the existence of valid ones.

This is a patently silly assertion that barely deserves attention. The presence of invalid criticisms (and they are judged invalid by a highly subjective process) do not call into question the existence of valid ones.

[jwhitlock]

And they are pretty poor, after all. Which brings us back to the question with which I opened this thread. Poor as they are, these are clearly the best DrW could come up with. And so I ask: if this is the best a self-proclaimed PhD qualified scientist could come up with, are there any valid criticisms?

To step back into the fray, these aren't reasons. They're rationalizations, based on him - for whatever bizarre reason - accepting anti-Mormon sources as authoritative. Based on the foundation of his first "reason", they certainly don't present any logical sense for leaving, so we must look elsewhere for why he left, which is something he's not being open about.

[cksalmon]

To step back into the fray, these aren't reasons. They're rationalizations, based on him - for whatever bizarre reason - accepting anti-Mormon sources as authoritative. Based on the foundation of his first "reason", they certainly don't present any logical sense for leaving, so we must look elsewhere for why he left, which is something he's not being open about.

Now, I could be wrong, j, and I am willing to be taught regarding this matter, but I thought the point of this thread was to interrogate whether or not there were "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church. I was not under the impression that we were hoping, in this thread, to discover why this so-called DrW left the LDS Church. It is likely, of course, that I have misapprehended the pertinent data. So that I may be taught and discover for myself, I only ask you to inform me, as I am in obvious need of your tutelage, how it is that the discussion has turned 'round to its present course, as in your reply above.

I confess my ignorance on these matters and I hope you will do me the good turn of enlightenment.

Appreciatively,

cks

[jwhitlock]

Now, I could be wrong, j, and I am willing to be taught regarding this matter, but I thought the point of this thread was to interrogate whether or not there were "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church. I was not under the impression that we were hoping, in this thread, to discover why this so-called DrW left the LDS Church. It is likely, of course, that I have misapprehended the pertinent data. So that I may be taught and discover for myself, I only ask you to inform me, as I am in obvious need of your tutelage, how it is that the discussion has turned 'round to its present course, as in your reply above.

I confess my ignorance on these matters and I hope you will do me the good turn of enlightenment.

Appreciatively,

cks

Nice facetiousness, ck.

Perhaps, to boil down my comments for you, there is a difference between "valid criticisms" and "rationalizations". As in, they aren't the same.

DrW's list was the latter.

[cksalmon]

Nice facetiousness, ck.

Perhaps, to boil down my comments for you, there is a difference between "valid criticisms" and "rationalizations". As in, they aren't the same.

DrW's list was the latter.

I fear that you haven't answered my question, j. In all honesty, I don't perceive in your response at all an answer to the question I asked. My question was, again, How is it that we have come, per your learned interpretation, to the question of why "DrW" left the church, when Pahoran, it seems, to my possibly darkened and sluggish mind, asked if there were "any valid criticisms" of the LDS Church?

I confess that I do not see any necessary connection between the two. While I am happy to grant your distinction, I find it to be an answer to a question I did not ask. Given that, you might, charitably, understand my confusion at this point.

cks

[Pahoran]

The purpose of this thread is clear â?? to condemn a critic for the same behavior you have also engaged in, yourself.

That is an assertion you cannot plausibly claim to have a good faith belief in.

I am the thread originator. The purpose of the thread is what I said it was at the outset.

I have told you several times that I find your spiteful and ancient vendetta to be off-topic. Kindly refrain from raising it in this thread. In fact, please remove yourself from this thread. Entirely.

If you insist on your obsessive vendetta, then raise it elsewhere. But it is not wanted on this thread.

Is that at last clear to you?

[DrW]

This post is a response to an invitation (or should I say taunt) from Pahoren to â??defendâ? myself on this thread regarding my listing of the Christine Jonson incident as one of the (many) reasons I no longer believe in the teachings of the Mormon Church.

First of all a short recap: a few days ago, I posted 10 of my reasons for leaving the Church on a thread started by John W. entitled something like â??My Top Ten Reasons for Leaving the Churchâ?.

While folks were happy to accept Johnâ??s (somewhat humorous and lighthearted) reasons for leaving, they were apparently offended at my stated factual (and not so humorous) reasons. I was immediately accused of being â??dishonestâ?. Shortly after I asked for an explanation of this unwarranted charge, the thread was closed. On another thread, ttribe again accused me of dishonesty, and of course Pahoran started this thread, again claiming I was dishonest.

The immediate ad-hominem attacks for stating personal beliefs based on documented evidence were entirely unwarranted and unjustified. It is disingenuous and even silly to claim that another individual is being dishonest in stating a viewpoint or belief. When folks like ttribe, Pahoren and others behave in this way, it serves to reinforce the view held by many in the non-Mormon and ex-Mormon community of Mormon apologists as immediately resorting to ad hominem attack when they feel threatened by the facts.

Letâ??s look at the facts. The Christine Jonson incident did occur, just as I described it, in my community, only a few miles from my home. As many here have acknowledged, it was a horrendous act. In the face of all of the sanctions against murder, and the sure knowledge that she would not make it to the celestial kingdom, Christine Jonson was willing to sacrifice herself to insure that her younger than eight year old sons would make it to the celestial kingdom.

There is no more objective evidence for the CK than there is for the Islamic seven heavens or virgins and rivers of honey awaiting martyrs in Paradise.

The acts of Christine Jonson were based on unfounded beliefs and were analogous to those of radical Islamists who are willing to sacrifice innocents to show their obedience to Allah and thus secure a place for themselves in Islamic Paradise. In both cases, innocents died because of actions taken based on upon unfounded beliefs of irrational thinkers.

It makes not one iota of difference if Christine Jonson was depressed or distraught; the fact that the Church taught her that her children would go to the celestial kingdom if they died before the age of eight years was a necessary and sufficient reason for her to murder them, this according to her own testimony before a judge.

Again, given Christine Jonson unfounded believes about the CK, beliefs that are doctrine of the Mormon Church, her actions were those of a self-sacrificing land loving mother who wanted only the best for her children.

Why would anyone claim that it to be dishonest of me to list this incident as having an impact on my decision to leave the church? As a reason for finally throwing in the towel, the Christine Jonson murders were no less valid than the Mark Hoffman affair, the Prop 8 fiasco, or any of the other scandals over the years that have reflected the irrationality of certain core Mormon beliefs. The fact that Hoffman and Prop 8 resulted directly in members leaving the Church has been well documented.

It is clear from comments on another thread regarding this incident that some folks here can appreciate the implications of the Christine Jonson tragedy as related to the unfounded beliefs of the Mormon Church, and some cannot.

Those who claim that the Church teachings could not have been a prime or proximal cause of this tragedy point out doctrinal sanctions against murder. Islamic apologists do the same for suicide bombers.

Pahoran, your point by point analysis and attempted refutations of my other reasons as to why I left the Church is typical of the response on this board to the inconvenient truths of secular Mormon history. Every one of my assertions has been documented by qualified academic historians. Evidence written by the hand of one victim herself (Helen Mar Kimball) exposes Joseph Smithâ??s sexual predation of a minor, for example. Documentation for all of the reasons I listed is available for anyone who wishes to review it.

Your choosing not to accept or believe the factual secular version of Mormon history in the face of overwhelming documented supporting evidence reflects a mindset similar to that of individuals who, upon learing of the work of Galileo, still refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos because the Catholic Church claimed that such beliefs were sin and would condemn one to purgatory.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, given Christine Jonson unfounded believes about the CK, beliefs that are doctrine of the Mormon Church, her actions were those of a self-sacrificing land loving mother who wanted only the best for her children.

No her actions were not of "a self-sacrificing land loving mother who wanted only the best for her children. "

This is a BS line I suggest you stop it.

Your choosing not to accept or believe the factual secular version of Mormon history in the face of overwhelming documented supporting evidence reflects a mindset similar to that of individuals who, upon learing of the work of Galileo, still refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos because the Catholic Church claimed that such beliefs were sin and would condemn one to purgatory.

Nice! Let turn this around it is just as factual when I do it to you.

DrW is choosing not to accept or believe the factual secular version of Mormon history in the face of overwhelming documented supporting evidence reflects a mindset similar to that of individuals who, upon learing of the work of Galileo, still refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos because the Catholic Church claimed that such beliefs were sin and would condemn one to purgatory.

I might aswell just say that if DrW doesn't accept Jesus you will be damned. How does that further this discussion?

You know what your post reminds me of DrW, Al Gores inconvient truth. Good luck with that.

[Black Moclips]

I would say that LDS teachings to not "LEAD" someone to kill their underage children. The church teaches that we should live, learn, repent, and endure to the end. Anyone nominally familiar with the church knows this. I'm surprised anyone would make that claim (if they have).

However, the loop hole regarding the death of underage children still remains. We view it as a way to feel good should something horrible happen to our little kids. Its a safety net. But that said, someone can still use the idea and doctrine to make a horrible choice.

Did this woman want her kids to go to the CK? Apparently yes.

Will her kids go to the CK according to LDS doctrine? Yes.

I disagree with her reasons for doing it and motivation, as sick and depressed as she probably was.

However, mission accomplished.

[Deborah]

Your choosing not to accept or believe the factual secular version of Mormon history in the face of overwhelming documented supporting evidence reflects a mindset similar to that of individuals who, upon learing of the work of Galileo, still refused to believe that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos because the Catholic Church claimed that such beliefs were sin and would condemn one to purgatory.

The point is that this "overwhelming" evidence you keep citing doesn't exist except in the minds of those who promote it. How can there be overwhelming evidence when there is little documentation of what actually took place at the time. What you and your ilk have done is taken bits and pieces of information and extrapolated that into an outrageous caricature of a man that is not supported by those who knew him best and followed him through great trials and in some cases even death. There is a plethora of testimony and documentation on the greatness and integrity of Joseph Smith both by those who were members of the church and many outside of the church who met him.

[John Williams]

The point is that this "overwhelming" evidence you keep citing doesn't exist except in the minds of those who promote it. How can there be overwhelming evidence when there is little documentation of what actually took place at the time. What you and your ilk have done is taken bits and pieces of information and extrapolated that into an outrageous caricature of a man that is not supported by those who knew him best and followed him through great trials and in some cases even death. There is a plethora of testimony and documentation on the greatness and integrity of Joseph Smith both by those who were members of the church and many outside of the church who met him.

Both sides seem equally guilty of creating caricatures of Joseph Smith. Some critics make him out to be a complete scoundrel, a lustful man with no conscience. Some members create a Joseph Smith that is nearly "god-like," in fact a recent Ensign used those exact words.

Joseph Smith was a human like the rest of us: complex, contradictory, and real. He wasn't a demon or a demigod. While his "greatness and integrity" are debatable, his humanity is not.

[DrW]

Both sides seem equally guilty of creating caricatures of Joseph Smith. Some critics make him out to be a complete scoundrel, a lustful man with no conscience. Some members create a Joseph Smith that is nearly "god-like," in fact a recent Ensign used those exact words.

Joseph Smith was a human like the rest of us: complex, contradictory, and real. He wasn't a demon or a demigod. While his "greatness and integrity" are debatable, his humanity is not.

Deborah and John W.;

The fact that Joseph Smith was indeed a "conplex, contradictory" individual does not excuse his actions. He exhibited many characteristics seen in the complex and contradictory FLDS "prophets" and leaders of today, at least one of whom has gone to prison for such behavior.

In light of the indictments and or convictions of FLDS leaders, what do you think are the chances that Joseph Smith would have been sent to prison today based on the evidence shown below from Church Archives?

Reference and note regarding Joseph Smiths polyandry and sexual predation of a minor.

The May 1887 edition of an official Church periodical, "The Historical Record" (volume VI) includes an article written by President Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson (Assistant Church Historian), documenting the plural marriages of Joseph Smith. This article lists twenty-seven plural wives who were sealed to Joseph during the last three years of his life. This list includes Josephâ??s polyandrous unions (marriages to other menâ??s wives),

as well as his numerous sealings to teenage girls

. A search of the Family History Archives on lds.org yields ancestral files for many of Josephâ??s polygamous wives. Two of the ancestral files from the Family History Archives are those of Helen Mar Kimball and Zina Diantha Huntington. One need only look at the dates to determine that

Helen was married to Joseph Smith at the age of 14

. Zina was already married to Henry Jacobs at the time of her sealing to Joseph Smith. Zinaâ??s journal makes it clear that she and Henry were living together as husband and wife when

Joseph secretly took her as his own plural wife

. The extant diaries, autobiographical sketches, journals, and correspondences, of some of Josephâ??s polygamous wives, further demonstrate the undeniable fact that there was a sexual dimension to their relationship with the Prophet.

Warren Jeffs is serving 10 years in a Utah in prison (convicted on two counts of being an accomplice to rape) for the same behaviors described in the above paragraph.

Fortunately for society, most of us are not as "contradictory and complex" and Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs.