Be Not Deceived

[Give It Time]

PR and R4H, if I respond to both your posts, it would be too long. I'll probably write things that fall in line with what you've written here in some post, somewhere and you can think, "a ha!"

Instead, both of you are touching on something I've been learning from a class I've been taking on Chinese philosophy. We've been studying Confucius. Basically, Confucius believed that people aren't basically moral, they are basically social. Set up a culture in a certain way and people will already know how to behave because the pattern has been set by their predecessors. It doesn't matter if the system in place is moral. What matters is that it is functional. Step outside the normative behavior and pattern and the culture has a hard time adapting to this new, not previously established role. There's no pattern to follow. There's no clear understanding of where this role fits in the hierarchy.

This sure had bells clanging for me. Of course, I don't quite know what to do with this information, now that I have it.

[Emower]

I decided to just leave. I didn't know that that lesson was on the slate for this last Sunday. I thought to myself, "I haven't been to SS with Mrs. Mower in a while, I think I'll pop in and see what's going on." Walk in the door and saw milk strippings on the board and thought "oh here we go." I made it about 3 minutes before I couldn't not say anything. 3 minutes! I started to raise my hand, but then I was caught away in a vision.
I saw before me a great multitude, worshipping false ideals. I was moved upon by the Holy Spirit to prophesy, yea even unto rebuking the multitude and call them to repentance and to Remember their common sense. As I was thus engaged, I beheld and heard a great "meh" moving through the multitude like a rushing wind. I was then taken up by the Holy Spirit transported to a high place whose A/C and selection of beverages and pharmacy equipment defy all description. My countenance was quickened by a Pepsi."

I went across the street to Walgreens instead.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I have heard a lot about the Milk Strippings being bunk, but is this intellectually honest by the DAMU or has it grown into a mythology of its own? What I mean is, didn't Thomas Marsh himself reflect upon this being a reason for his disaffection upon return to the Utah saints? I realize that it is incorrect to re-write history to make this the primary reason, but it seems that I see people trying to make it a complete fallacy that it was even a factor and they try to make it into a completely fictional story from George Albert Smith. It may be an exaggerated version, but it seems disengenuous to me to try to say that the Milk Strippings never happened.

I am totally on board with being critical of correlation for removing the complexity and other factors of the story that are the primary reasons for disaffection, but I don't think it's honest to completely throw out the strippings story as fiction.

Reading through this discussion in the comments, they cover all the sources for the genesis of the strippings story:
http://www.millennialstar.org/richard-d ... es-church/

Particulary this comment:

I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I finally was able to go to the FHL in SLC and check out the source in The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465. I didn’t have enough time to verify, but this entry is near the start of the journal which was began during Bigler’s MoBat excursion according to his biographer. The entry reads:

While in Far West I was at the trial of Sister Marsh the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, he was the President of the Twelve, for skimming milk[.] Several sisters in Far West had agreed to unite in make[-]ing cheese by putting their milk together, each one promising not to skim their milk. The trial was before Bishop Edward Partridge where it was [?] that she had not kept her promise and was about to withdraw the hand of fellowship[.] [T]he Bishop and others plead with her to make things right and offered to give her time to do so, but no [?] she called on God and angels to witness her innocence[.] [A]t this the Prophet jumped up and said “Sister Marsh if you say that you lie like the devil.” This remark from the Prophet at that time made me [stare? startled?], However on a little reflection, I [sure?] got over it.

The thing that stands out to me is that Marsh’s wife was already well on the way to apostasy by the time this trial was held. I infer that from her wishing to withdraw from fellowship rather than confess.

As a reminder, my point in bringing the 1845 George A. Smith account and the ca. 1846 Bigler account was to rebut accusations that the story didn’t arise until much later in 1854 and therefore either didn’t happen or didn’t significantly impact Elder Marsh’s apostasy.

[deacon blues]

Joseph accusing Sister Marsh of lying like the devil reminds me of the story about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Emower]

I agree that it shouldn't be represented that the milk was absolutely not a factor. I think that people react in-kind to how strongly the whitewashing has been done. If it was stongly whitewashed, people will go as far in the opposite direction.

Joseph accusing Sister Marsh of lying like the devil reminds me of the story about the pot calling the kettle black.

I wish some one had slapped him right there. They all knew he was lying about stuff. It might have been that comment that broke the marshes back.

[blazerb]

I have heard a lot about the Milk Strippings being bunk, but is this intellectually honest by the DAMU or has it grown into a mythology of its own? What I mean is, didn't Thomas Marsh himself reflect upon this being a reason for his disaffection upon return to the Utah saints? I realize that it is incorrect to re-write history to make this the primary reason, but it seems that I see people trying to make it a complete fallacy that it was even a factor and they try to make it into a completely fictional story from George Albert Smith. It may be an exaggerated version, but it seems disengenuous to me to try to say that the Milk Strippings never happened.

I am totally on board with being critical of correlation for removing the complexity and other factors of the story that are the primary reasons for disaffection, but I don't think it's honest to completely throw out the strippings story as fiction.

Reading through this discussion in the comments, they cover all the sources for the genesis of the strippings story:
http://www.millennialstar.org/richard-d ... es-church/

Particulary this comment:

I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I finally was able to go to the FHL in SLC and check out the source in The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465. I didn’t have enough time to verify, but this entry is near the start of the journal which was began during Bigler’s MoBat excursion according to his biographer. The entry reads:

While in Far West I was at the trial of Sister Marsh the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, he was the President of the Twelve, for skimming milk[.] Several sisters in Far West had agreed to unite in make[-]ing cheese by putting their milk together, each one promising not to skim their milk. The trial was before Bishop Edward Partridge where it was [?] that she had not kept her promise and was about to withdraw the hand of fellowship[.] [T]he Bishop and others plead with her to make things right and offered to give her time to do so, but no [?] she called on God and angels to witness her innocence[.] [A]t this the Prophet jumped up and said “Sister Marsh if you say that you lie like the devil.” This remark from the Prophet at that time made me [stare? startled?], However on a little reflection, I [sure?] got over it.

The thing that stands out to me is that Marsh’s wife was already well on the way to apostasy by the time this trial was held. I infer that from her wishing to withdraw from fellowship rather than confess.

As a reminder, my point in bringing the 1845 George A. Smith account and the ca. 1846 Bigler account was to rebut accusations that the story didn’t arise until much later in 1854 and therefore either didn’t happen or didn’t significantly impact Elder Marsh’s apostasy.

I agree that we could go too far and state that the event never occurred, but it did not happen in the way that George A. Smith recounted. He stated that the matter was appealed to the high council and then to the first presidency. The high council minutes don't say anything about the event. Given what you have above, I could not imagine wasting time by appealing it to the first presidency.

I am glad you shared this. If this account is accurate, I wonder if there is something to the accusation that Joseph was partial towards Lucinda. It is believed that he was married her in Nauvoo, but the sealing date is unknown. I seem to remember some possibility that the marriage took place in Missouri, but I always thought that was unlikely. However Joseph's over-the-top reaction here would indicate to me that there might be some personal connection. Maybe Joseph and Thomas were both defending their wives.

Also, I don't think the reality of the event makes it a significant part of Thomas' apostasy. He was bothered by the violence being committed and sanctioned by the saints. I am sure that was what caused him to leave the church.

[moksha]

Maybe posters here could bone up on the real Thomas Marsh story and mention that even though it does not jive with the point of today's gospel indoctrination, it is nice to know the truth. Just a thought.

[Corsair]

Maybe posters here could bone up on the real Thomas Marsh story and mention that even though it does not jive with the point of today's gospel indoctrination, it is nice to know the truth. Just a thought.

Are you talking about the part where the other woman sharing milk strippings was Lucinda Harris, wife of George Harris and very likely polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith? That may have affected the decision to escalate a milk problem into a frothy cream of scandal and apostasy.

Of maybe it was because Thomas Marsh actually left the church after early Mormons in Missouri sacked the town of Gallatin, Missouri. Marsh did not appreciate the rather un-Christlike activity of murder and theft in Gallatin when filling up the Bishop's Storehouse. On October 19, 1838, the day after Gallatin was burned, Thomas B. Marsh and fellow apostle Orson Hyde left the association of the Church. Marsh drafted and signed a legal affidavit against Joseph Smith on October 24, 1838, which Hyde also signed. The fact that they returned to membership in the church does not excuse the incredibly bad behavior in Missouri, nor does this make it a happy story of repenting of their wicked apostasy.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Interestingly the Sunday School manual "Revelations in Context" has a very short blurb about violence in Missouri being a factor but it is overshadowed heavily by the milk story and Marsh's affidavit contributing to the extermination order.

Within a few months, Marsh fell prey to a spirit of apostasy, as had many others. He was among several Latter-day Saints who became disturbed by the increasingly violent relationship between Church members and their Missouri neighbors.

https://history.lds.org/article/revelat ... g=eng&_r=1

It's infuriating how good the authors are at hiding the "transparency" so that an average member wouldn't even register this part of the story.

[alas]

Something that has always bothered me about this story is that, if true, I think it is a grand reason to leave a church. It is not petty at all. Consider putting yourself in Marshes position. Someone accuses his wife on what evidence? One other woman's word that Mrs. marsh's milk seemed to have less cream. Well, some breeds of cows do produce less rich milk. You get less cream off Red Bally cows than Holsteins. Which is why the Red Bally is a primarily a beef cow rather than a milking cow, even among milk cows, some produce more milk with less cream, while others have less milk, but that milk has more cream. So, someone accuses Mrs Marsh of cheating but she claims she is innocent. If this was your wife, would you believe her, or the other woman accusing her of cheating? And say you did believe your own wife, but the "prophet" you are already beginning to have doubts about sides with the lying other woman? And what's more, you know that woman is secretly married to this "prophet", so of course he is going to side with her.

Personally, that kind of uninspired treatment of my spouse, who I believe to be innocent, and claims to be innocent, would convince me that the prophet was no prophet.

But the church assumes that Mrs Marsh was cheating and that Mr Marsh knew she was cheating, but got offended that the prophet sided (correctly) with the other woman. The church assumes that Joseph's inspiration on this is infallible, so OF COURSE Mrs Marsh was guilty. So, it was terribly unloyal of Mr. Marsh to get so offended by this.

The problem is, that Joseph got terribly offended by what he saw as disloyalty to HIM, and would then accuse the disloyal person of all kinds of trumped up crimes. So, when Thomas Marsh showed loyality to HIS WIFE instead of Joseph, it was a crime in Joseph's mind. So, Joseph would call it apostasy.

So let's stop looking at the story through Mormon eyes, that think Thomas showing loyalty to his wife is a crime because he dared go against the prophet. If this was the primary reason he left the church, great, I think it is a valid reason to see that Joseph was a smuck. But the church can't afford to see Joseph as a smuck, so they have to see it as Thomas getting offended. I think the way his wife was treated was horrible, and is a damned good reason to get offended. Some things are WORTH getting offended over.

[achilles]

You know, I have to agree with others that the real scandal here is not whether or not Mrs. Marsh actually skimmed the cream or was unfairly turned upon and accused. It is that Marsh's disaffection regarding the men pillaging Gallatin and surrounding settlements was reduced to such a petty motivation, rather than the real and very serious business of ordering, sanctioning, or countenancing that kind of violence. Things like the cream are simply the straw breaking the camel's back, and convenient for maintaining denial.

I realize that Sampson Avard and others were eventually excommunicated, but the idea that the Mormons were lily white and 100% wronged just feeds into a kind of Mormon self-satisfied arrogance about the whole period. And this careful narrative has been cultivated by the Brethren.

[blazerb]

You know, I have to agree with others that the real scandal here is not whether or not Mrs. Marsh actually skimmed the cream or was unfairly turned upon and accused. It is that Marsh's disaffection regarding the men pillaging Gallatin and surrounding settlements was reduced to such a petty motivation, rather than the real and very serious business of ordering, sanctioning, or countenancing that kind of violence. Things like the cream are simply the straw breaking the camel's back, and convenient for maintaining denial.

I realize that Sampson Avard and others were eventually excommunicated, but the idea that the Mormons were lily white and 100% wronged just feeds into a kind of Mormon self-satisfied arrogance about the whole period. And this careful narrative has been cultivated by the Brethren.

There is a very real possibility that Avard was excommunicated simply because he was not going to keep quiet to protect Joseph anymore. Joseph knew about much of the violence.

I found this book review over at BYU Studies. Marvin Hill, at least, does not see any evidence that Orson Hyde ever retracted any of the statements in the affidavit that he signed with Marsh.
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/orson-hyde

[Emower]

Something that has always bothered me about this story is that, if true, I think it is a grand reason to leave a church. It is not petty at all. Consider putting yourself in Marshes position. Someone accuses his wife on what evidence? One other woman's word that Mrs. marsh's milk seemed to have less cream. Well, some breeds of cows do produce less rich milk. You get less cream off Red Bally cows than Holsteins. Which is why the Red Bally is a primarily a beef cow rather than a milking cow, even among milk cows, some produce more milk with less cream, while others have less milk, but that milk has more cream. So, someone accuses Mrs Marsh of cheating but she claims she is innocent. If this was your wife, would you believe her, or the other woman accusing her of cheating? And say you did believe your own wife, but the "prophet" you are already beginning to have doubts about sides with the lying other woman? And what's more, you know that woman is secretly married to this "prophet", so of course he is going to side with her.

Personally, that kind of uninspired treatment of my spouse, who I believe to be innocent, and claims to be innocent, would convince me that the prophet was no prophet.

But the church assumes that Mrs Marsh was cheating and that Mr Marsh knew she was cheating, but got offended that the prophet sided (correctly) with the other woman. The church assumes that Joseph's inspiration on this is infallible, so OF COURSE Mrs Marsh was guilty. So, it was terribly unloyal of Mr. Marsh to get so offended by this.

The problem is, that Joseph got terribly offended by what he saw as disloyalty to HIM, and would then accuse the disloyal person of all kinds of trumped up crimes. So, when Thomas Marsh showed loyality to HIS WIFE instead of Joseph, it was a crime in Joseph's mind. So, Joseph would call it apostasy.

So let's stop looking at the story through Mormon eyes, that think Thomas showing loyalty to his wife is a crime because he dared go against the prophet. If this was the primary reason he left the church, great, I think it is a valid reason to see that Joseph was a smuck. But the church can't afford to see Joseph as a smuck, so they have to see it as Thomas getting offended. I think the way his wife was treated was horrible, and is a damned good reason to get offended. Some things are WORTH getting offended over.

I never thought about it in this way before. Good point. This kind of shows me that as hard as I pull away from mormonism, I still view things from a very mormon viewpoint. That is interesting to realize.

[consiglieri]

I have heard a lot about the Milk Strippings being bunk, but is this intellectually honest by the DAMU or has it grown into a mythology of its own? What I mean is, didn't Thomas Marsh himself reflect upon this being a reason for his disaffection upon return to the Utah saints? I realize that it is incorrect to re-write history to make this the primary reason, but it seems that I see people trying to make it a complete fallacy that it was even a factor and they try to make it into a completely fictional story from George Albert Smith. It may be an exaggerated version, but it seems disengenuous to me to try to say that the Milk Strippings never happened.

I am totally on board with being critical of correlation for removing the complexity and other factors of the story that are the primary reasons for disaffection, but I don't think it's honest to completely throw out the strippings story as fiction.

Reading through this discussion in the comments, they cover all the sources for the genesis of the strippings story:
http://www.millennialstar.org/richard-d ... es-church/

Particulary this comment:

I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I finally was able to go to the FHL in SLC and check out the source in The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465. I didn’t have enough time to verify, but this entry is near the start of the journal which was began during Bigler’s MoBat excursion according to his biographer. The entry reads:

While in Far West I was at the trial of Sister Marsh the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, he was the President of the Twelve, for skimming milk[.] Several sisters in Far West had agreed to unite in make[-]ing cheese by putting their milk together, each one promising not to skim their milk. The trial was before Bishop Edward Partridge where it was [?] that she had not kept her promise and was about to withdraw the hand of fellowship[.] [T]he Bishop and others plead with her to make things right and offered to give her time to do so, but no [?] she called on God and angels to witness her innocence[.] [A]t this the Prophet jumped up and said “Sister Marsh if you say that you lie like the devil.” This remark from the Prophet at that time made me [stare? startled?], However on a little reflection, I [sure?] got over it.

The thing that stands out to me is that Marsh’s wife was already well on the way to apostasy by the time this trial was held. I infer that from her wishing to withdraw from fellowship rather than confess.

As a reminder, my point in bringing the 1845 George A. Smith account and the ca. 1846 Bigler account was to rebut accusations that the story didn’t arise until much later in 1854 and therefore either didn’t happen or didn’t significantly impact Elder Marsh’s apostasy.

My recollection is that according to George Albert Smith's account, the appeal was first taken to the high council in Missouri, not the bishop.

After the high council ruled against Sister Marsh, the appeal was taken to the First Presidency.

I am not sure why Brother Bigler has an appeal taken to the bishop.

Nor am I sure why Brother Bigler has Joseph Smith present at this hearing.

Just some thoughts.

[Mormorrisey]

I decided to just leave. I didn't know that that lesson was on the slate for this last Sunday. I thought to myself, "I haven't been to SS with Mrs. Mower in a while, I think I'll pop in and see what's going on." Walk in the door and saw milk strippings on the board and thought "oh here we go." I made it about 3 minutes before I couldn't not say anything. 3 minutes! I started to raise my hand, but then I was caught away in a vision.
I saw before me a great multitude, worshipping false ideals. I was moved upon by the Holy Spirit to prophesy, yea even unto rebuking the multitude and call them to repentance and to Remember their common sense. As I was thus engaged, I beheld and heard a great "meh" moving through the multitude like a rushing wind. I was then taken up by the Holy Spirit transported to a high place whose A/C and selection of beverages and pharmacy equipment defy all description. My countenance was quickened by a Pepsi."

We had this lesson yesterday. I too was overcome with the spirit of apathy, and instead of teaching the pig to sing, I decided to bail also - went to Subway instead. Same result, a much better experience. The wife was glad I bailed, she reported later that I would have hated it, and she still fears I will say something and get ex'd. No matter how much I say that they lack the stones and the knowledge to do this, I think she fears a public stoning that will get out of hand and kill her also, sitting beside me.

I'm coming to understand, like those in the Matrix, these people just don't want to wake up, or to see that the demonization of those "in apostasy" is a bad thing. They like to beat down on them. So, better to bail and not give them a live victim, just the dissected yet evil corpses of poor Bros. Marsh, Eaton and Rider (Ryder? Sorry, bro, to do that to you again).

[Corsair]

I'm coming to understand, like those in the Matrix, these people just don't want to wake up, or to see that the demonization of those "in apostasy" is a bad thing. They like to beat down on them. So, better to bail and not give them a live victim, just the dissected yet evil corpses of poor Bros. Marsh, Eaton and Rider (Ryder? Sorry, bro, to do that to you again).

I can imagine one curious benefit from the Annual Abuse of Object Lesson Apostates by the LDS church. Each one of the official stories contains an accurate retelling that simply does not favor the institutional LDS church. These will accelerate the apostasy of anyone who looks into their stories. I will grant that this is not an effective hope to hold onto. But the LDS church trots out only thin, paper enemies in Sunday School lessons. If they had a serious "Darth Vader" opponent to bring out then they would. Instead, they only have Thomas Marsh who actually took a principled stand against the worst crimes of Mormons in Missouri, but has since been rhetorically lambasted for milk strippings.