Episode 141: The Top 10 Mormon Criminals

Well here there is something to disagree on. For me
Mitchell’s prophet persona and ideals on polygamy may have been a consequence
of his Mormon culture but his criminality and modus operandi was a product of
his paedophilia and narcissism. He actually used his knowledge of religion to
cover several crimes; eg he knew that by claiming that his religion prohibited a man
from looking at his “daughters face” (a muslim tradition not a mormon
one by the way) that then the detective in that library would respectfully
comply with his religion. 

So with regards to your: “and kidnapped children to take as
plural wives? Probably not”…..Actually the answer is Probably Yes for
the kidnapping and rape of teen girls because he was a paedophile who progressed
to that level. If he were a Baptists, then he’d have fashioned the kidnapping
like Jaycee Duggards case and if he were an atheists he have fashioned it like
the Hornbeck case. But the point is that because he was a paedophile and criminal
mastermind he kidnapped, it isn’t at all that because he was ex-mormon that he kidnapped
for polygamy’s sake.

With you or I, we talk and discuss mormon related issues because we are a
product of mormonism -went to primary, mission, temple etc- but because neither
you or I are paedophiles or incredible narcissists we don’t go out kidnapping
teen girls. They are different issues and, true, neither of us need to be on
this list. I think you misunderstood what I was saying about that in the
previous comment.

The word ‘evidence’ is very peculiar.

However, from memory, my evidence on Mitchell’s paedophilia
is what was said during the trial: one former stepdaughter testified that he
sexually abused her form around age 7 onwards (from memory it was 7 odd to 12
odd) plus his father testifying that he went to juvee for exposing himself to a
4 year old when he was 16, plus Smart herself mentioned a story of sexual
impropriety he told her about and he was aged 18 at the time, plus his former
stake president who said that he was looking into accusations of paedophilia
against Mitchell but he became angered and moved out of that stake and nothing
happened after that; plus some neighbours testifying of finding photos of young
girls that Mitchell had hidden but he moved out before anything happened. Apart
from all that, his second wife formally accused him of sexually abusing their 4
year old because of the things the toddler was doing. She actually went to
police and to the church authorities but no one did anything. So if there is a
story with Mitchell and the church it’s about the lack of belief of authorities
that he was a paedophile since his wife accused him of it in the early 80’s.
Had they stopped him then, then the Smart case would probably never have
happened.

Most of the prosecution’s argument was to show that Mitchell
was actually just a paedophile who used religion to cover his crimes and get
away with more sexual crimes. It was the defence that argued that he had these
revelations which made him insane and not responsible for his sexual crimes (events
which were stipulated by the way)

because non-scientific evidence is very subjective. we only have here peoples testimony and one can never be completely sure that people are 100%  truthful, although the court assumes they are.

I feel sorry for poor Elizabeth Smart, not just for the experience she suffered at the hands of a criminal almost a decade ago but for the day she comes to the realization that BDM and Joseph Smith Jr. are two peas in a pod.  Both used religious belief to justify their actions with young girls.  I honestly hope she never hears or reads about Helen Mar Kimball.  I do think she is a brave soul for standing up to him in court.

Smith never kidnapped girls in the middle of the night nor raped them up in some camp.

Smith had at worst an arranged marriage, if it is actually true that it happened off course, but that far from criminal kidnapping and rape. Plus Smith was arrested many times and defended himself, never claimed insanity nor anything similar.

I hope Smart will find out about Helen Kimball because there is no reason whatsoever to encourage censorship.

” do not reduce the experience of the young victims of polygamy by claiming”

I never did and never will. However there is still a huge difference between teen brides, teen polygamist wives and what Smart went through. Plus I think the record shows that people like Heber Kimball thought it was a matter of salvation etc not so much Helen, however girls back then couldn’t say much that went against their fathers will, mormon or non-mormon. it was the 1830 long before women could vote, study medicine etc etc…

the problem here is that people will twist things as far as possible to somehow equate Joseph Smith to Brian Mitchell but Smart herself said repeatedly that Mitchell’s religious persona was all BS and that only the threats of death kept her controlled. With Smith many people actually left him even with the apostates curse and excommunication threats or condemned to hell threats.

Well, I’ve been waiting for Mike Michaels to respond this one as well. I’ve waited long enough. 

YOU WROTE
“In defense of Mormonism, we should point out that Christianity has a longer history of violence, and has been used as justification for more killing (in terms of people dead).”

MY REPONSE
Fallacious since Christianity has a history of approximately 2,000-years and Mormonism a history of approximately 180-years.  Do mean to tell us that violence by Christianity it’s first 180-years was equivalent in quantity or “quality” to what we’ve seen in Mormonism?  If you know your Christian Church History then you know that is NOT the case.

Clearly there’s a difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity

YOU WROTE
“As late as the last century, the Spanish Civil War was a religious crusade for certain Catholics (not to mention the Marxist fervor on the other side).  As I see it, the real problem is not so much ideological (i.e. a matter of the adjective one chooses to describe one’s religious affiliation) as human.  Why are we all so violent, no matter what our creed? What can we do to control our violence? Myths about peacemakers human and divine can help (and have over the centuries), but they fall obviously short (when significant numbers of people professing them end up using that profession to justify violence). ”

MY RESPONSE
Really? Do you mean to tell us that Quakers, Mennonites, and other Christian groups whose idealogy, creed, and theology includes pacifism doesn’t result in different behavior than the Catholics that you referenced? 

I think that one’s group ideology and creed can and does indeed make a difference! 
 
YOU WROTE
Rejecting Mormonism as a violent ideology seems over the top to me, akin to declaring that I am no longer American because I cannot approve all of the wars in which we have fought.  In both cases, ideology is just the accidental messenger of an innate violence deeply rooted in the human psyche.  If we want to touch the root of the problem of human violence, we need to look past the messenger (all the -isms with their justifications for war masked as protestations of peace) and confront the hungry beast in every one of us that keeps sending him out there.

MY RESPONSE
There is indeed violence in every people that’s a given. However, it’s always a matter of degree and proportion. Clearly the degree and quantity of violence in Mormon History is, all things being equal, disportionally higher relative to the mean – as noted in the podcast. As noted in “Under the Banner of History”. As noted by Mormon History in doctrines like Blood Atonement. As noted in my own post regarding this podcast that quotes from a knowledgeable expert acknowledging this fact.

However, in the end The Apostle James answered your question:

James 4
1 What is causing the quarrels and fights among you? Don’t they come from the evil desires at war within you? 2 You want what you don’t have, so you scheme and kill to get it. You are jealous of what others have, but you can’t get it, so you fight and wage war to take it away from them. Yet you don’t have what you want because you don’t ask God for it. 3 And even when you ask, you don’t get it because your motives are all wrong—you want only what will give you pleasure.

 7 So humble yourselves before God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come close to God, and God will come close to you. Wash your hands, you sinners; purify your hearts, for your loyalty is divided between God and the world. 9 Let there be tears for what you have done. Let there be sorrow and deep grief. Let there be sadness instead of laughter, and gloom instead of joy. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up in honor. 

Or, put another way, as Francis Schaeffer once said: 
“[t]he climax of the Ten Commandments is the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17… [t]he commandment not to covet is an entirely inward thing. Coveting is never an outward thing, from the very nature of the case. It is an intriguing factor that this is the last command that God gives us in the Ten Commandments and thus the hub of the whole matter… [W]e break this last commandment…before we break any of the others. Any time that we break one of the other commandments of God, it means that we have already broken this commandment in coveting.”
(Francis Schaeffer, “True Spirituality”, chapter 1)

Thank you for clarifying.  

And on this we agree 100%: 
 ”For me the lie is that professing some kind of ideology makes one automatically morally superior.”

To which I would only add: “Well said”

correction: My friend’s father is now a member of the Episcopalian clergy.

Why your Christian friends didn’t communicate this to you baffles me!

Unfortunately, in an attempt to avoid posting something of tl;dr length, I didn’t give my friends’ responses fair representation.  I should have realized further explanation would be necessary.  This is not a reflection of their “Biblical literacy” but a reflection of my haste.  To clarify:

By saying it was the culture or practice of the time, I meant that God didn’t tell Abraham to do it…. that it wasn’t sanctioned by God… it was something Sarah and Abraham chose to do because they wanted an heir.  My Evangelical friend claimed, like you, that they were disobeying God or sinning by introducing Hagar as a concubine.  Personally, I don’t buy it.  God still chose to bless Abraham with posterity numbering the stars of the heavens.  Honestly, I’m not even interested in debating this issue.  Regardless of whether we agree on why God still chose to “work with” Abraham, even though he was hunky-dory with slavery and concubines, this is STILL an example of Christians justifying behavior by God that many unbelievers, including myself, find repugnant.

I’m also uninterested in debating the murder of the Egyptian firstborns or the extermination of the Canaanites.  But to do right by my friends (as my lacking explanations in the previous post has apparently given you the opportunity to so cleverly impugn them while still coming across as gracious) I will explain further their positions on these issues.  In regards to God murdering the “firstborn” of the Egyptians, my friends did claim that those people would have been protected if they had also painted their doorposts with blood – so it was basically their fault due to their unbelief.  They also explained that softening Pharaoh’s heart required God showing his “might.”  Our discussion turned to why God demonstrated his might the way he did and that is where the discussion came to God picking whatever plagues he wants to pick.  As for the extermination of the Canaanites, there was plenty of discussion about their sinfulness and unwillingness to repent.  There was also plenty of semantics discussions about whether or not military procedure of the time would have meant running off all but the “army” before slaughtering those who remain.  A detailed account of my response to all of that is basically unimportant because, again, whether or not we agree, this is STILL an example of Christians explaining away God’s lack of morality.  (Though, I would like to point out that if Christians can claim that the Bible isn’t literal in that aspect, then others are free to question the factual veracity of anything else in the Bible.)

As I said, I’m completely uninterested in debating these points with you.  So if you still find my explanations inadequate, then by all means just believe that, since you’re getting this information secondhand, I’m obviously just too stupid to understand what they are really talking about, rather than calling into question the religious education of my friends.

[Y]our definition of Abraham as a “prophet” would seem to betray the type of Mormon residue/bias that Mike was referring to and, candidly, I see too.

I re-read my post very carefully and I did not define prophet at all.  You read into my use of that word what YOU expected me to believe based upon your opinion of me and my former religion.  I am completely aware of the different usage of the word “prophet” in Christianity and Mormonism.  

No where in the Bible is Abraham called a “prophet”.

Genesis 20:6-7 (KJV)
Genesis 20:6 (NIV / NLT)

[T]o “control the morality” of ANYONE is a violation of their free agency…… God never violations anyone’s free will – period.

Again, in my attempt to be brief, I chose my words poorly.  By saying “control the morality” I did not mean God should have actually eliminated Abraham’s free agency.  What I should have said was that God has had PLENTY of opportunities to make statements and take stands on issues I (and many others) find morally reprehensible.  Is there some reason God couldn’t have had a burning bush moment with Abraham where he explained why slavery and polygamy are not acceptable?  God couldn’t have said, “Hey buddy, I want to give you this really amazing blessing and make you this amazingly important person.  But before I can do that, you’ve gotta get straight on a few issues”???

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say that Christians explain away the immorality of God.  They are perfectly willing to accept that God had a hand in some horrific behavior.  They never step back and say, “Yeah, why DIDN’T God put ‘thou shall not own another human as a slave’ in the ten commandments!”  They never say, “Yes.  I understand murdering innocent children doesn’t make God look very moral.”  

This entire debate is a perfect example of why I decided, LONG before abandoning my former beliefs, that if Mormonism fell apart for me my only other option was atheism.  Religion is just too much of a logic free cluster.  For me it comes down to this: “What is more likely… that the Bible is a bunch of stories written by a group of tribalistic people who used them to exert control and assume authority in their societies… or that God is really this inept and amoral?”

God isn’t interested in slave, unthinking robots, zombies, or any other type of dominated, enslaved, non self-autonomous praise, worshipping, and adoring serfs.

Yes, I’m perfectly aware of this.  God only wants those who would be happy living under his thumb for eternity.  All others need not apply and will be sent to hell (whatever version floats your particular version of Christianity’s boat).  To be completely honest, I’ve NEVER been able to wrap my head around this.  I could NEVER be happy living in eternity with a God who had banished people who I knew to be good, decent people to hell… ESPECIALLY considering what he’s done to people through the history of mankind.  He’s going to “roast” my atheist family and friends for eternity for favoring logic and science over dogmatic belief when he’s murdered millions upon millions of people?????  How could living in heaven knowing that eternal existence befell my loved ones (and even those I don’t know) and still be happy by ANY stretch of the imagination?  The idea disgusts me.  It’s like people pandering to a despot out of gratitude for not being tortured and killed while everyone around them is annihilated (might I point you to Christopher Hitchen’s statements likening God to Kim Jong Il).   I’ve been told that I’ll be sorry for taking that stance when the dreadful day of judgment finally arrives.  Who knows, maybe their right.  But if they are right… then all I have to say is that I’m glad I was given the opportunity to make the decision rationally, as a thinking person, rather than out of fear for what kind of punishment I’d have to endure for not kowtowing to despotism.

I’m sorry if that last paragraph offends you.  I am not attacking your choice to believe.  I’m simply giving you an honest account of my beliefs.

Mormonism would have some theological weight to contend against traditional Christianity if JS had not made it up as he went along.  I agree the Mormonism has some laudable theological elements, however JS was constantly changing his theology.  Throw out all the wacky theology that JS, BY, and their peers ventured into, allow the modern LDS church to distill it into the current canon of theology, and the result is respectable.  However, a whole lot of garbage went into the trash along the way – garbage that was said by supposed prophets who are highly revered within the Church.  I don’t know how anyone grants Mormonism theological credibility if they have a knowledge of what has been thrown out the window.  I’ll admit though that likely the same occurred in Christianity but it was so long ago that few bother to dredge up that ancient history.

As far as morality, I think it is very difficult for Mormonism to claim moral equivalence or superiority with the millstone of polygamy hanging about its neck.  It’s not that Christianity doesn’t have its own dirty laundry – it does.  Again, it’s just so very long ago.  Comparing contemporaries of 1800 and onward, though, the manner in which JS started and advanced polygamy, the institutionalized lying that it created, and the impoverishment and abandonment of women left in its wake is condemning.  Perhaps you might blame Christianity for the persecution of this practice and thereby counter that Christianity was in the moral wrong.  If this were the case the Church would be itching for re-instatement of polygamy – but it isn’t.  The Church is scared to death of gay marriage and anything that might open the door for society to reconsider plural marriage.  That’s a clear sign that, history to the contrary, the Church was doctrinally and morally wrong on polygamy.

It sounds like you have reasonable sources for your information about Christianity, but why the focus on the God of the OT?  That’s not where you will find modern day Christians spending their time.  Admittedly they have to explain it with a narrative that minimizes their cognitive dissonance, but that does not mean it is the driving focus of their lives.  They focus on the NT and Jesus.  In contrast, Mormonism places heavy emphasis on the characteristics of God of the OT, Jesus in the BoM, and then even heavier weighting on JS and the justification for the restored church.  

Salvation is a throw-away term in Mormonism.  Mormons are perfectly willing to grant everyone access to heaven as long as they reserve exaltation for themselves.  That is contradictory to the Nicene Creed of 381 stating Christian acceptance of “one holy catholic” church which drives equanimity among the mainline faiths to this day.   In contrast, the “One True Church” mantra creates a superiority complex among Mormons that is itself a moral downfall. 

I don’t find that celestial sex for eternity any more purposeful than singing praise to God.  In the former Mormons stroke their own ego and the latter they stroke God’s ego.  And since Mormons believe they become Gods (or perhaps they don’t teach that anymore according to GBH – theology that is firm as green jello with carrots nailed to a wall) they are still stroking the ego of God – it just so happens that they themselves are God.

Mormon theology makes absolutely no sense to me, logically or morally.  It is belief in whatever is convenient today as defined by fifteen businessmen who have absolutely zero training in theology and their faith’s theological history.  Any mainline church would be ashamed to elevate men of such learning to the highest level of spiritual and doctrinal leadership.