That's a riveting account of yours. I read every word until near the very end when I could see the light of your escape. I wouldn't have skimmed even that but I have to get to bed. I am so sorry that happened to you. Thank you also for the associated website. It is very good.

Thank you, my dear. Yes, you do have the advantage of not being in any danger of mistaking where my heart is at as a father.

Thank you for the sentiment. I get all of that. Letting him make his own choices, including mistakes, has been the way I've maintained credibility with him over the last 8+ years where his mother has had little. But he's not mature, he's still maturing. I'm certain he hasn't done his homework on this.

@vertrauen I understand you dilemma. My daughter was 17 when she asked me whether I allowed her to become a Christian. Later she even downgraded to become a JW. Now she has a daughter, who might one day tell her that she is really an atheist.

Relax and let things happen!

Oh, I could tell some very true and 100% factual tales from the very inside of the Mormon ( Moron) faith that would really open up your eyes.
Ones like;
a) their shareholdings in corporations such as Coca-Cola Amatil yet they demand that Mormons deny themselves ANY drinks/substances that may contain caffeine, numerous Coffee trading Companies, certain Banking Corporations, etc, etc.
I could go on for pages upon pages BUT I'll let you do your own research instead.

Thank you. Good advice. It was my intention to proceed w caution. I just wanted to be prepared for whatever direction the convo might take, like a photographer who takes many more exposures than s/he will actually ever use.

@vertrauen Good luck with it. I hope everything works out for the best.

Or refer him to Mae West, “Oh you stupid Mormon” being one of the classic cinematic lines of all time.

The issue of presenting negative information to your son, you might suggest that he may want to examine both sides of what he is being told before making a decision to join. He is likely being treated a bit like royalty at this stage, which will likely change soon after baptism.

Be prepared to have anything negative about the Mormons be called lies. This was something I struggled with on my way out. I felt it was clear that a certain amount of what is said negative about the church was untrue, embellished by those anxious to prove their point or to justify their own position. I also found reason to believe that the church leaders lied or obfuscated certain bits of information uncomplimentary of the church. The situation around Paul H Dunn was particularly telling to me at the time. In the end, I decided it didn't matter how many lies anti-Mormons told (their actions only made determining the truth more difficult), but that church leaders couldn't be trusted was a big problem for me. Mormons are told how special these leaders are and how they csn be trusted implicitly in all matters. But it just isn't true. Their job is to protect the church and to increase its revenue by gaining members. They are willing to lie and to look the other way whiles others within their ranks lie.

In the end, it is ultimately your son's decision to join or not to join, but you obviously know this to be the case. I wish you the best in interacting with your son, and I wish you both happiness however this situation turns out.

Briefly what are the primary Mormon misrepresentations of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? The fact that Lee was executed at Young's orders would tend - on the face of it - to put Church leadership in the clear. I take it that Lee was a scapegoat and Young complicit?

@vertrauen - It's difficult to say what the primary Mormon misrepresentation because there are so many. Mormons are willing to believe and perpetuate (for the most part) any scenario that exonerates the Mormon church, and some of the beliefs are outlandish. I was told by one faithful member that certain members of the wagon train were Missourians who claimed to have Joseph Smith's scrotum and supposedly threatened Mormons along their journey. They were also accused of poisoning water sources along the way especially those used by the indians. Equally outlandish claims have been made by the other side.

I find it difficult to summarize this event without a few more details and I hope you will bare with me if it gets a bit long. I will attempt to keep it short.

The Francher Wagon Train entered Salt Lake valley near Salt Lake City which is a typical route for those traveling west to Califofnia. Utah territory and the Mormons were fearful of the US government since rumors were that the US army was headed there with promises of the US President to address the polygamy situation there. Mormon had been persecuted in the past by govt. (They also did their share of persecuting, but they don't hear that side).

Anyway, the wagon train leaders may have met with Brigham Young (I don't recall) but they headed south through the length of the valley since the terrain west of Cedar City was more easily traversed. Along the way, they encountered Mormons who were reluctant to sell them supplies because they were worried about the US army arriving. They had been told by church leaders to escape into the mountains if threatened and they believed they would need their supplies to survive. Angry words may have been exchanged since both wanted resources the Mormons possessed. Mormons often sold supplies to wagon trains traveling west so withholding these supplies was probably not understood.

As the wagon train headed west away from Cedar City they were attacked by indians (who the Mormons recruited) and they were disabled unable to proceed at this point. Some Mormon men may have joined in with the indians, I don't recall, but it quickly became evident that the Mormons were involved in at least planning the attack. Imo, this sealed the wagon trains fate. I don't believe the Mormons would allow themselves to be part of this event harming these people.

Motivations for the Mormon's attack may have included a blood oath added to the Mormon temple ceremony to avenge the death of Joseph Smith (this oath was later removed). The thinking was reportedly reinforced by a traveling Mormon apostle who left Salt Lake City after the Francher wagon train arrived in the city and ahead of their departure. I believe church detractors see this as Brigham Young instructing the attack, but am more willing to believe it was a misunderstanding amid raised tensions anticipating the army's arrival. There are also some reports which say the Mormons feared the wagon train was supposed to direct US forces on the west coast to Utah territory. No evidence to my knowledge that this was the case.

Anyway, the wagon train was stranded on Mountain Meadows and they had repelled the indians (and possibly Mormons) I don't recall if there were any other attacks, there may have been. The wagon train had taken casualties and were running low on supplies. The Mormons with Lee taking a leading role negotiated a surrender in which the wagon train gave up all their weapons, and they were to be escorted back to Cedar City. But the Mormons have other plans. They separated the wagon train members men from women and the very young children. They had the indians escort the women because none of the Mormon men wanted to kill a woman. Women were aways away from the group of men when a prearranged signal was given and the killing began. Within less than 5 minutes, 120 pioneers headed to Calufornia were dead. About a dozen and a half children survived the slaughter. One or two of the children were old enough to start talking about what they witnessed and they were removed not to be seen or heard of again. Most of the children were returned to family wherever they existed, but a couple of children were believed to have been adopted and raised by their Mormon foster families. This isn't to say they didn't have family, but the foster families fell in love with the child and hid them from any family who came to claim them.

According to the book about John D Lee, the Mormons had a great deal of conflict of what to do with the wagon train after the first attack. Some were certain they needed to be killed others not certain at all. They decided to send a rider to Salt Lake for direction. But it was a long journey and the massacre was carried out before the rider returned. Young's direction was to let them pass. Having recieved this news, Lee and another local leader went to Salt Lake to meet wit Young. At first, Young was disturbed by the account, but later claimed that God had sanctioned it. I'm a bit fuzzy on the exact degree of approval, but he was reassuring to Lee and his companion.

At sometime after the US army arrived, an investigation into the massacre began (this was something like 10 to 20 years after the fact). Eventually, indictments were issued for 9 Mormon men. Since Young had absolved these men, the Mormon community was uncooperative in apprehending them. But, eventually, all 9 were caught. 8 of the 9 - all but Lee - followed Young direction and pleaded guilty to the charge and were given light sentences. Lee was the hold out because be apparently believed in his innocence. Lee's first trial had a mix of Mormon and non-Mormon jurors. Only 1 witness was called to testify who was (I believe) Lee's companion when they met with Young after the massacre. He had since left the Mormon church and lived in Nevada. His testimony was in exchange for immunity. The outcome of this trial (as expected) was a hung jury with all non-Mormons voting to convict and all Mormons voting to aquit (Young still supported Lee at this point).

In the run up to Lee's second trial, Young again tried to convince Lee to plead guilty and put the whole thing behind them. The situation was bringing nagative attention to the Mormon church. But Lee refused maintai ing his innocence. By the time the second trial was to begin, Lee had lost Young's support and it became widely known. Witnesses for the second trial came puring out of the woodwork. The court had to suspend the trial to interview witnesses because it became clear that some of them could not have been at Mountain Meadows to witness anything. Eventually, the trial resumed. The new witnesses (who were Mormons) could remember in stark detail the actions of Lee that day, but could not recall at all the actions of anyone else. Some of the Mormons at Mountain Meadows were apparently opposed to killing anyone and they were instructed to shoot into the air. By the accounts of these Mormon witnesses, everyone but Lee shot their guns into the air (my exaggeration, but you understand my meaning). Of course, Lee was convicted and eventually executed. I believe the jury of his second trial was made up all of Mormons and they convicted him shortly after the trial was complete - not much deliberation if any at all. During the course of his incarceration through the 2 trials, only 3 of his 19 wives stayed with him, and each one that left took a portion of his property. Lee was a pauper when he died.

So, there you have it. You are very likely to find plenty of people who will take issue with this account, and I can't say it doesn't include errors. This is how I see the event from my reading taken mostly from "The writings of John D Lee" and from internet sources. I hope you can find something helpful.

@RussRAB thank you again. This is very helpful for my overall understanding of the issue.

Thanks. That last is a very reasonable hypothesis based on earlier temperamental characteristics of his, and I absolutely noticed the aptness of his choosing neither/nor here.

But I don't think it is intentional, not even on the part of his semi-conscious. His mother is Chinese and knows virtually nothing about Mormonism, so she hasn't been in a position to say anything against it. I didn't tell him anything much about LDS, either, when he was growing up and nothing at all in the last maybe 6 years. Extent of our convo would have been a very brief q&a maybe about a big LDS church we were passing when he was about 14 or 15. At the time I would have been reluctant to say anything critical about LDS bc I figured he'd hear that elsewhere in Baptist country.

So not exactly the best material for him to express defiance today. I think the current LDS missionary is just selling Mormonism as rebranded Protestantism and obscuring all the additional 19th-century peculiarities. He had no LDS contact at college, so all of this has happened in 2 months. Plus, he's extremely busy at work => I don't think he's looked anything up.

I was thinking the same thing! There must be a woman involved (or at least a romance). He is an adult. Chances are very good that with everything you have taught him, he will eventually return to his roots. I wouldn’t worry too much. It may be a good learning experience for him.

Hopefully, an adult female human being, a.k.a. "a woman."

Pardon me, (not picking on you at all. You're not alone in the least. "Female" has become very common), but what has happened to the word "woman" in the last 30 years? Where I went to college in the 1980s, we all learned very quickly our first year (if we didn't know already) that our female peers were women, not "girls," because they were adults and deserved to be respected accordingly.

Now using "girls" to describe women would still be a faux pas today, to say the least, but the word "females" now crops up all over the place where it's obvious that adult human beings are meant and therefore "women." Last month alumnae from my alma mater did thank me on FB for reminding folks that calling women "females" tends to seem to reduce them to their reproductive organs. But women as well as men call women "females" all the time now even when no-one under 18 could be included in the group.

What's going on? What have I missed? Are there now numerous women who prefer to be called "females"? I'll oblige if that's what most women want, but it sounds demeaning to me.

P.S. Trans women are women, so it's not about that.

I did wonder that, thanks. I know nothing about the supervisor, but I did check out the company a bit online. Doesn't appear to be part of the Mormon conglomerate. Company founder was either Quaker or nothing in particular.

Granted. But I'd try to talk anyone out of a plunge of less than 2 months after first contact w a missionary, even if he/she weren't family. Then live and let live after that.

I think the LDS missionary is deliberately obscuring the differences with mainstream Protestantism, which I don't care for either but the latter would be easier for me to process since he's been hanging out w evangelicals for several years. He knows stuff about that. Has said he didn't buy it, but OK if he decides to buy it, at least I know where that came from

In MISSOURI of all places!

@motrubl4u, @JonnaBononna He's not in Missouri.

@motrubl4u Oh, now I get it. Jonna was probably talking about Smith's attempt to set up his Zion in Missouri. I lost track of which "he" was being referred to. Mea culpa. Smith moved around so much that I missed that allusion.

I wouldn't tell him that he's just bowing to pressure, even if I'm worried about it. That would be counterproductive.

There's no question that he's an adult and it is his right to make decisions. I've been telling him that much longer than his mother has.