by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010

Poll

Help answer this question below.

TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".

Here's how this incident is reported in the official Church Education System "Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants: Church History" curriculum that used for teaching children ages eight through eleven:

"One winter night a group of men who believed Ezra Booth’s letters got drunk and attacked the homes of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in Hiram, Ohio. Joseph had been up late caring for his adopted son, who had the measles, and had just fallen asleep when the angry mob broke into the house. The men dragged Joseph outside, swearing and threatening to kill him. They choked him, tore off his clothes, and tried to push a paddle of hot tar and a bottle of acid into his mouth. The bottle of acid broke, chipping one of Joseph’s teeth and causing him to speak with a whistle for the rest of his life. The men in the mob also dragged Sidney Rigdon from his home. When Joseph saw Sidney lying on the ground, he thought Sidney was dead. The mob decided not to kill Joseph, but they scratched him severely, spread hot tar all over his body, and covered him with feathers.

When Joseph finally got home, Emma saw him and fainted, because she thought the tar covering Joseph was blood. Joseph’s friends helped him clean off the tar, a long and painful process. Sidney Rigdon had been knocked unconscious from the severe cuts and bruises to his head, and he was delirious for several days. Following this terrible experience, the baby that Joseph had been caring for that night caught a severe cold and died.

The next day was Sunday, and Joseph went at the usual time to worship with the Saints. The group of people he preached to included some members of the mob who had covered him with tar and feathers the night before. Even with his skin scraped and sore, Joseph preached as usual and never mentioned the violence of the night before."
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0c0ba41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

True - 33.33% (2 votes) 33.33%

False - 66.67% (4 votes) 66.67%

Embed

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 10 helpful answers below.

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
voted: False

Asker's Pick

Selected by the asker, Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here. (What's this?)

Asker's Pick

On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
Here's how this incident was documented by Joseph Smith in "The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints":

“On the 24th of March, the twins [whom he and Emma had adopted] before mentioned, which had been sick of the measles for some time, caused us to be broken of our rest in taking care of them, especially my wife. In the evening I told her she had better retire to rest with one of the children, and I would watch with the sicker child. In the night she told me I had better lied down on the trundle bed, and I did so, and was soon after awakened by her screaming murder, when I found myself going out of the door, in the hands of about a dozen men . . .

“They then seized me by the throat and held on till I lost my breath. After I came to, as they passed along with me, about thirty rods from the house, I saw Elder Rigdon stretched out on the ground, whither they had dragged him by his heels. I supposed he was dead. I began to plead with them, saying, ‘You will have mercy and spare my life, I hope.’ . . .

“They ran back and fetched the bucket of tar, when one exclaimed, with an oath, ‘Let us tar up his mouth;’ and they tried to force the tar-paddle into my mouth; I twisted my head around, so that they could not . . . They then tried to force a vial into my mouth, and broke it in my teeth. All my clothes were torn off me except my shirt collar; and one man fell on me and scratched my body with his nails like a mad cat . . .

“They then left me, and I attempted to rise, but fell again; I pulled the tar away from my lips, so that I could breathe more freely, and after a while I began to recover, and raised myself up, whereupon I saw two lights. I made my way towards one of them, and found it was Father Johnson’s. When I came to the door I was naked, and the tar made me look as if I were covered with blood, and when my wife saw me she thought I was all crushed to pieces, and fainted. . . .

“My friends spent the night in scraping and removing the tar, and washing and cleansing my body; so that by morning I was ready to be clothed again. This being the Sabbath morning, the people assembled for meeting at the usual hour of worship, and among them came also the mobbers . . . With my flesh all scarified and defaced, I preached to the congregation as usual, and in the afternoon of the same day baptized three individuals. . . .

“During the mobbing one of the twins contracted a severe cold, continued to grow worse until Friday, and then died.”
http://www.historyofmormonism.com/mormon-history/two-church-centers/tcc-1832/joseph-and-sidney-tarred
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
voted: False

Asker's Pick

Selected by the asker, Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here. (What's this?)

Asker's Pick

On Answerbag, the member who originally submits a question can identify the answers that he or she finds most valuable. "Asker's Pick" answers show you which answers best addressed the question on the original submitter's mind.
And finally here's how the incident has been deconstructed using the full body of Historical evidence available to us today by a Mormon Studies Scholar:

"Most Mormons believe that Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in February 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob" inspired by the devil.

To the contrary, they were tarred not by an "anti-Mormon mob," but by their own followers, for two primary reasons.

First was their plan to have all of their church members sign over all of their assets and properties to the "United Order" communal experiment. Some members saw this as Smith and

Rigdon's scheme to fleece them, and rightly so; the financial disaster that was the United Order, which culminated in the Kirtland Bank scandal, caused many Mormons to lose their life savings, and about half of all church members abandoned the faith over the incident, including most of the original twelve apostles.

The proof that it was his own church members who did the tarring was Smith's own statement that he recognized the perpetrators in church the morning after the incident, primarily one Symonds Rider and the sons of John Johnson. Smith, Emma, and Rigdon had been boarding with the Johnson family 35 miles from Kirtland at Hiram, Ohio. They weren't subjecting themselves to the communal lifestyle that they demanded of their followers at Kirtland.

Second, it was alleged that Smith made a pass at Johnson's 15 year-old daughter, Nancy Marinda, and that was her brothers' motivation for attacking Smith. "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" supports this idea, but in his "In Sacred Loneliness" Todd Compton doubts it for lack of convincing evidence. It's likely true that Smith made the pass at Marinda for five reasons:

1. Joseph Smith had already taught his "plural marriage" concept in his 1831 "revelation" commanding a group of married men to "take ye wives from among the Lamanites" in 1831 (the tarring occurred in February 1832). This indicates that he had extra-marital relations on his mind during that period.

2. Joseph Smith eventually "plural married" Marinda in April of 1842, after sending her husband, Orson Hyde, on a mission. (Marinda later said she thought Smith was the father of her son, Frank.) Thus, it is likely that Smith had his eye on Marinda since he had met the 15-year-old girl at Hiram in 1831, and that his 1842 "plural marriage" to her was his formalization of a long-existing desire for her (as it was also in the documented cases of Mary Rollins and Sarah Ann Whitney). The essence of Smith's "spiritual wifery" concept was that people knew each other in the "pre-existence," and that part of their earthly mission was to find their "soul mates" (Remember "Saturday's Warrior?") Once Smith had designated a female as one of his "soul mates," or "spiritual wives," they were to be "his" for eternity, even if they were already married to someone else; in this case, Orson Hyde.

3. Third, Smith's "plural" relationship with the 16-year-old Fanny Alger began in 1833. Since the 1832 tarring incident occurred between the 1831 marry-the-Lamanite-girls revelation and the 1833 beginning of his affair with Fanny, it's entirely likely that the tarring was at least partly because of Smith's budding unorthodox sexual concepts, which he tried out on fifteen year-old Marinda.

4. Fourth, it seems more likely that Marinda's brothers would want to castrate a man because of a sexual advance on their teenage sister, rather than over an issue of money.

5. The mob of church members that attacked Rigdon and Smith that night did not attempt to castrate Rigdon. Smith was the sole target of castration by Marinda's brothers.

Here is a little of LDS member and historian Todd Compton's views on the subject:

According to Luke Johnson, Smith was stretched on a board, then 'they tore off the night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation. But when the Doctor saw the prophet stripped and stretched on the plank, his heart failed him, and he refused to operate.

The motivation for this mobbing has been debated. Clark Braden, a late, antagonistic, secondhand witness, alleged in a polemic public debate that Marinda's brother Eli led a mob against Smith because the prophet had been too intimate with Marinda. This tradition suggests that Smith may have married Marinda at this early time, and some circumstantial factors support such a possibility. The castration attempt might be taken as evidence that the mob felt that Joseph had committed a sexual impropriety; since the attempt is reported by Luke Johnson, there is no reason to doubt it. Also, they had planned the operation in advance, as they brought along a doctor to perform it.

The first revelations on polygamy had been received in 1831, by historian Daniel Bachman's dating. Also, Joseph Smith did tend to marry women who had stayed at his house or in whose house he had stayed. [Joseph Smith was living in the home of Marinda at the time.]

Many other factors, however, argue against this theory. First, Marinda had no brother named Eli, which suggests that Braden's accusation, late as it is, is garbled and unreliable. In addition, two antagonistic accounts by Hayden and S. F. Whitney give an entirely different reason for the mobbing, with an entirely different leader, Simonds Ryder, an ex-Mormon, though the Johnson brothers are still participants. In these accounts the reason for the violence is economic: the Johnson boys were in the mob because of 'the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it in the control of Smith.' The castration, in this scenario, may have only been a threat, meant to intimidate Smith and cause him to leave Hiram, Ohio.

While it is not impossible that Marinda became Smith's first plural wife in 1831, the evidence for such a marriage, resting chiefly on the late, unreliable Braden, is not compelling. Unless more credible evidence is found, it is best to proceed under the assumption that Joseph and Marinda did not marry or have a relationship in 1831.

- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156085085X/favoritespanishr/ 231-232.

Of course, Braden's recollection of an "Eli" could possibly have referred to a nickname for one of Marinda's brothers.

Faithful Latter-day Saint Mary Elizabeth Rollins testified that Joseph had a private conversation with her in 1831; she was then twelve years old. She said Joseph 'told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife.'

- Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells, summer 1905, LDS Archives

Within six months of Joseph's conversation with 12 year-old Mary Elizabeth Rollins, he and Emma had moved into the John Johnson home, where 15 year-old Marinda lived. Orson Pratt later quoted Lyman Johnson as saying that 'Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831 that plural marriage was a correct principle,' but remarked also that 'the time had not yet come to teach and practice it.'

- Orson Pratt, "Latter-day Saints Millennial Star (Liverpool England), 40 (16 Dec. 1878):788)

Perhaps Joseph was not discreet in his discussions about plural marriage, because rumor and insinuation fed the fury of the mob that tarred and feathered him. When the Johnson boys joined the mob that entered their own home, they clearly suspected an improper association between Joseph and their sixteen-year-old sister, Nancy Marinda."

- "Joseph Smith: the First Mormon", p.146.

If Joseph Smith had been successfully castrated that night in 1832, it's unlikely that there would ever have been secret Mormon temple ceremonies, sealings, garments or even temples as they exist today. After all, these are all relics of Joseph Smith's attempts to practice and conceal his plural marriage.

See: http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_legacy.htm

Castration that night in 1832 may have done Joseph Smith and his followers more good than harm."
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_mormonpersecution.html
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Does it matter? on January 6th, 2010
voted: True
no matter who the attackers were, Joseph as the prophet was the head of the church and the retaliation against joseph was because of what he said was mormon doctrine. the attackers were against this therefor making them against the mormon church or in other words anti-mormons.
Comments
- Thank you for your answer.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 6th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on January 19th, 2010
ROFL... what pride.... asking a queston, answering it and then selecting yourself as the best answerer. you really need to find a new hobby. how about you save your antiism for when someone comes here with a legitimate question rather than set yourself up to toot your own horn.
Comments
- And what biased prejudice!
  
  If you had slowed down and read what I marked as "Great Answer" twice you would have seen that that they weren't answers at all - they were supporting evidence for the readers to consider from TWO - count them - TWO different perspectives and points of view.
  
  And if you understood the New Answerbag system you would realize that answer marked "Great Answer" get permanently pinned right underneath the question rather than getting lost in the shuffle of answers. Therefore, tagging additional supporting evidence that won't fit in the "description" field as a "Great Answer" is the best method for ensuring that such supporting evidence remains at the top of the thread where it belongs.
  
  Mr. Price you really, really, really need to stop making such an arse out yourself in public by REACTING rather than responding to anyone who is in the least bit critical of the Mormon Church. At first it was amusing to see you consistently act like a child but now it's rather sad and pathetic.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 19th, 2010
- And if you HAD taken the time to consider the entire thread you would have noticed that my actual ANSWER to the question is indeed down at the bottom with everyone else's.
  
  So mate, do yourself a favor from now on: When you really, really, really think that you just HAVE to make a point here in the Mormonism section - don't.
  
  Every time you do you just end up looking like a horse's patoot.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 19th, 2010
- yes. your unhealthy obcession with the evil mormons which exceeds your interest in all else combined (including your own faith) and your namecalling makes me the mules backside
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on January 19th, 2010
- perhapse you should try following christs example and build up those who would follow you rather than harass those you disagree with. christ spoke to the sadussies and pharasies because they were following him around and harassing him... he did not seek them out. yet the majority of your questions are merely loaded questions you are excited to answer yourself to show just how learned you are. yet you express your bias as though it is nonbiassed. if you want to see an unbiassed assessment of the mormon church look to "an american prophet" the majority of the experts are nonreligious historians... unlike your "christian" sources who are threatened by a church without a paid clergy.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on January 19th, 2010
- >your unhealthy obcession with the evil mormons which exceeds your interest in all else combined (including your own faith) and your namecalling makes me the mules backside<
  
  No, your bias prejudiced towards anyone and everyone who looks at Mormonism through a critical eye combined with not gathering up all the facts before you fired off a factually inaccurate accusation combined with a string of insults is what makes you look like a horse's patoot.
  
  And this isn't the first time you've done this - it is now a pattern.
  
  And your inability to take ownership of your behavior - another pattern - just makes you an even bigger horse's patoot.
  
  Let's be clear here Mr. Price if I am publicly attacked I will defend myself. So if you don't like being called on your bias and prejudice don't attack.
  
  As I said before: If you really, really, really feel the need to make a point - don't.
  
  You're not good at it and you only embarass yourself.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 19th, 2010
- And rather than responding to your latest angst driven tirade about everything you don't like about me and my methods I will get this thread back on track by asking you this: So what's your answer to the question which, once again is . . .
  
  'TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".'
  
  You still haven't answered.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 19th, 2010
- tirade [taɪˈreɪd]
  n
  1. a long angry speech or denunciation
  2. (Literature / Poetry) Prosody rare a speech or passage dealing with a single theme
  ...
  sounds a hell of a lot more like your 3-4 digits worth of "mormon" questions for which you already have all hte answers than it does my suggestion that you develop other interests to the point that they atleast combine to excede this one interest.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on January 19th, 2010
- That's very nice.
  
  So your answer to the question . . .
  
  'TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".'
  
  . . . is what exactly?
  
  Or do you want to just go off on another tirade and avoid answering the question yet again thus digging your "Horse's Patoot" hole even deeper than it already is?
  
  It's your choice.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 19th, 2010
- what gain comes from answering a question when the asker already has decided in his mind what the only acceptable answer is. but hey.... I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong, though I doubt you will take it. yes it was antis.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on January 20th, 2010
- That's good to know. So, based on the evidence and therefore the FACTS surrounding this historical event the answer to the following question is . . . ?
  
  'TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".'
  
  (Pretty easy really - read the evidence and then answer the question. This just isn't that hard.)
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 20th, 2010
- The first time I saw one of Mister IT's polls under the new format I too thought "Gee he sure is abusing the system to grand stand isn't he" But after reading what was flagged as the "Askers Pick" I changed my mind "Oh well that is a smart way to get around the space limitation in the question format!"
  -
  Yes every word of both descriptions of the incident show bias. But that is only because all inteligent communication is biased. To say something void of opinion is mechanical at best and babble at worst, but never intelligent.
  Mister IT has wisely bipassed both uneven bias and unintelligent reporting by posting two opposed views one of which published by the Church.
  
  Report
  
  by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on January 25th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
11 comments | Post one | Permalink
by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on January 25th, 2010
voted: True
Surely one can not assume the act of tarring and feathering a prophet is a show of support for the church he leads. Atleast in the moment at which they acted these men were anti-mormon or more correctly "Anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
Comments
- Thank you for your answer.
  
  >Atleast in the moment at which they acted these men were anti-mormon or more correctly "Anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"<
  
  If they were "Anti" then why were they members of the LdS Church?
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 25th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Richard the Anonymous on January 13th, 2010
voted: False
They may have been 'anti-Mormon' in as much as they didn't like what Joseph and Sidney were doing but they were also Mormon! The Mormon doctor on hand was there to castrate Smith because of his involvemnt with polygamy and young teenagers.
Comments
- It seems like they were more "Anti-First Presidency" than anything else to me.
  
  And based on the behavior of Smith and Rigdon up to that point I think they had a good case!
  
  Wasn't Warren Parrish, a former Private Secretary of Joseph Smith, referring to this period when he said of Smith and Rigdon:
  
  "This then is the conclusion of the whole matter; they lie by revelation, swindle by revelation, cheat and defraud by revelation, run away by revelation, and if they do not mend their ways, I fear that they will at last be damned by revelation."
  (Warren Parrish, Letter to the Editor of The PAINESVILLE REPUBLICAN; Feb. 5, 1838; http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/painerep.htm)
  
  Or perhaps he came later than 1932. . . it eludes me at the point, it's late.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 13th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by laie_techie on January 7th, 2010
I've heard more of that story which strongly implicated that at least some members of the mob were present in the congregation the next day.
Comments
- Which would imply that they were either members of Smith's church OR they were guests that wanted to admire their "work" from the night before.
  
  What does the historical evidence say?
  (and yes it DOES answer this question)
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 7th, 2010
- Believe it or not, Joseph Smith's lesson on Sunday was on forgiveness and he declared that if any of the men who tarred him the night before he forgave them.
  
  You go to this URL for more information:
  
  http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0c0ba41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=637e1b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
  
  Report
  
  by Braedon on January 12th, 2010
- Your provided link says:
  
  "The next day was Sunday, and Joseph went at the usual time to worship with the Saints. The group of people he preached to included some members of the mob who had covered him with tar and feathers the night before. Even with his skin scraped and sore, Joseph preached as usual and never mentioned the violence of the night before."
  
  It doesn't say that the sermon was on forgiveness. What is your source for that?
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 12th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
3 comments | Post one | Permalink
by whew4 on January 5th, 2010
voted: False
Unlike Anti-Mormons, these members of this mob just wanted to get rid of the Mormons out of their state, by threatening them with death.

Anti-Mormons on the other hand simply want to discourage anyone from investigating the doctrines of the Mormon Church, by making them sound so ridiculous and false, no one would check to see if what they say is correct or not. And most often they will purposely lie and change quotes from our leaders to make them say just opposite what they really said.

There is a big difference...Later
Comments
- Thank you for your answer.
  
  However, there's a incongruity between your vote and your answer.
  
  Why would someone be in a mob tarring and feathering two leaders if as you said: "Anti-Mormons on the other hand simply want to discourage anyone from investigating the doctrines of the Mormon Church..."
  
  Can you think of a better way to do that than killing them? I can't.
  
  And of course the rest of your post is fallacious nonsense. If you really believe that then you really need to get out more often - or simply expose yourself to more Anti-Mormon material.
  
  Many consider me an "Anti-Mormon" and frankly I encourage others to investigate and study Mormonism using BOTH internal and external sources. I do that because when examined from the outside looking in Mormonism clearly is NOT what it claims to be.
  
  As one ExMormon said so well:
  
  "The ONLY place the public can get a 'responsible opposing viewpoint' of the Mormon story is Ex-Mormons/ anti-Mormons."
  -- Ex-Mormon posting on www.exmormon.org
  
  >And most often they will purposely lie and change quotes from our leaders to make them say just opposite what they really said<
  
  Actually quotes from your leaders - past and present - are an Anti-Mormon's best friend! Again, when examined from the outside looking in the words of your leaders are self revelatory of the fact that Mormon is a contrived, man-made religion. I say let 'em speak - the more they speak, the more the speak, the MORE better for Mormon Critics like myself!
  
  Unfortunately those Mormons who refuse to get out of the "Mormon Tank" are blind to this.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
- yeah, you sure told me.
  
  Report
  
  by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on January 5th, 2010
- Actually Joe, if you think about it, Whew said a lot more about himself than he did any so-call "Anti-Mormon" what he told us is that to outsiders the claims of Mormonism "sound so ridiculous and false, no one would check to see if what they say is correct or not."
  
  AND he acknowledged that pretty much the same about quotes from their leaders.
  
  Frankly, I can't disagree with either premise.
  
  And, of course, anyone who's stuck in entrenched think that they're unwilling to examine will also claim that anyone who presents unsettling and/or troubling evidence that challenges that thinking is "lying".
  
  Of course you've seen what happens when they go to the source documents and attempt to "explain away" what their leaders (past or present) actually said or meant.
  
  The best example of this are LdS Apologists of whom even those with half a brain inside the LdS Church acknowledge do far more harm than good with their "creative" spin-doctoring.
  
  Within the Mormon Tank it's ALL about "bending the facts to fit the conclusion" isn't it?
  
  You despicable Anti-Mormon you!
  
  ;-)
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
- Oops I missed this little bit of error in Whew's answer:
  
  >these members of this mob just wanted to get rid of the Mormons out of their state<
  
  Out of Ohio?
  
  No, that was simply NOT the case. If it had been why did they SPECIFICALLY target Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon (hint! hint! hint!) and no other Mormon Leader or Mormon?
  
  The rest of the Mormon community was ignored (hint! hint! hint!) I wonder why that was?
  
  . . . well . . .
  
  . . . actually I know.
  
  Do you?
  
  Perhaps if you could like a modern scholar who working from the TOTAL body of evidence regarding what happened PRIOR this event as well as WHO was in the mob (we know who it was - it's no secret) and WHY they were in the mob (hint! hint! hint!) all would be revealed (and it has been).
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
- (And you would also see that the CES Primary curriculum that I cited in the description - as well as Joseph Smith's version of the story - are bunk! Or to use the impolite term, lies.)
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 5th, 2010
- AMAZING! Whew4 is a laught! Yet this is actually quite sad and serious. It's people like Whew4 that know very little about 'true mormonism' in comparison to the watered down and simple 'christianity' that the LDS Church tries to teach today in replacement for their major doctrinal differences. If whew really believes what he wrote then he sure needs to take an objective viewpoint because he's as far from the truth as he can be. I was a Mormon for 10 years and loved it until I discovered the lies, I still attend to accompany my wife, that's all, really no reason to follow or believe and of their lies though!
  
  Report
  
  by Richard the Anonymous on January 13th, 2010
- He never - and I mean NEVER - fails to amaze me. Amazing!
  
  Look up the saying, "Ignorance is bliss" in the encyclopedia and they have his picture with a note that says, "See 'Psychologically Snapped Cultist'"
  
  You turn to "See 'Psychologically Snapped Cultist'" and they have his picture with a note that says, "See 'Ignorance is bliss'"
  
  It is utterly amazing even with all my years of training and experience I don't know if there's anything that I can do to get through to him.
  
  Of course you know the old Joke . . .
  
  Q: How many psychologists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
  A: Just one - but the light bulb must REALLY want to change!
  
  :-)
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 13th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
7 comments | Post one | Permalink
by bikerchic666 on January 7th, 2010
What the hell is it with you and mormons? Is that what really interests you?
Comments
- Yes, that's what really interests me as a Mormon Studies scholar.
  
  Answerbag is an invaluable research tool.
  
  Thank you for asking.
  
  Report
  
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 7th, 2010
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 12th, 2010
voted: False
"To the contrary, they were tarred not by an "anti-Mormon mob," but by their own followers, for two primary reasons.

First was their plan to have all of their church members sign over all of their assets and properties to the "United Order" communal experiment. Some members saw this as Smith and

Rigdon's scheme to fleece them, and rightly so; the financial disaster that was the United Order, which culminated in the Kirtland Bank scandal, caused many Mormons to lose their life savings, and about half of all church members abandoned the faith over the incident, including most of the original twelve apostles.

The proof that it was his own church members who did the tarring was Smith's own statement that he recognized the perpetrators in church the morning after the incident, primarily one Symonds Rider and the sons of John Johnson. Smith, Emma, and Rigdon had been boarding with the Johnson family 35 miles from Kirtland at Hiram, Ohio. They weren't subjecting themselves to the communal lifestyle that they demanded of their followers at Kirtland.

Second, it was alleged that Smith made a pass at Johnson's 15 year-old daughter, Nancy Marinda, and that was her brothers' motivation for attacking Smith. "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" supports this idea, but in his "In Sacred Loneliness" Todd Compton doubts it for lack of convincing evidence. It's likely true that Smith made the pass at Marinda for five reasons..."
(Please use provided link below to continue)
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_mormonpersecution.html
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink

Poll

TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".

Answers. 10 helpful answers below.

Asker's Pick

Comments

Asker's Pick

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Was it a Mormon or Anti-Mormon mob that attemped to castrate Joseph Smith and tarred-and-feathered both Joseph and Sidney Rigdon the night of 24th March 1832? What were the reasons for this attack?

How do you think that today's Mormonism would be different if Sidney Rigdon (who had FAR greater Apostolic Seniority than Brigham Young) had been the second LDS President after Joseph Smith's assassination?

The results of the recently released Wordprint analysis of The Book of Commandments strongly indicate that was written primarily by Sidney Rigdon, with Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith as secondary sources. Then why did Joseph Smith get credit for the BoC?

The newest evidence strongly indicates that the Book of Mormon was compiled by Sidney Rigdon & Oliver Cowdrey and then recited to unsuspecting transcribers by Joseph Smith using concealed documents. How does this impact your opinion of this work?

On January 18, 1827, Joseph Smith married Emma Hale in South Bainbridge, New York. It has been suggested by some Mormon Historians that Sidney Rigdon was the presiding minister. Does anyone have evidence to support or discredit this suggestion?

Professionally Researched

What did joseph priestley discover in 1774?

What was the original name of the Macy\'s Thanksgiving Day parade?

What is Persian lamb\'s wool?

When is Children\'s Day in the Chinese culture?

What is the amount of money earned each year from selling flowers on Valentine\'s Day?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Poll

TRUE OR FALSE: Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob".

Embed this poll on your website or blog by pasting the code below.

Answers. 10 helpful answers below.

Asker's Pick

Asker's Pick

Comments

Asker's Pick

Asker's Pick

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!