The latest news in the Hovindology/Hovindicator world is rumors of Kent Hovind’s divorce from Mary Tocco.  My view is that Hovindologists should pretty much leave the issue alone.

A bit of background for readers unfamiliar with Kent Hovind, which regulars can skip.

About Doctor Dino


Kent Hovind is an Independent Baptist minister.  A hyper literal reading of the King James version of the bible makes him a young earth creationist – i.e. the universe is roughly six thousand years old.  Kent believes that real science supports that view.  Among the implications of YEC is that people and dinosaurs must have coexisted.

He created a kind of theme park in Pensacola to teach this doctrine.  He got into a lot of trouble with the IRS which is why I ended up following him starting over five years ago on forbes.com.  . The best summary I have written of that is probably The Trials of Kent Hovind – An American Tragedy.  I declared an end to Kent Hovind as a Forbes worthy tax story over two years ago.

The purpose of this blog – Your Tax Matter Partner – is to follow tax stories that I deem not Forbes worthy. As it happens I have not been able to put much time into other stories that are not Forbes worthy, which accounts for this blog being close to All Kent Hovind All The Time.


Why The Mary Tocco Marriage Divorce Should Be Of No Interest

I appreciate why King James Only former Hovindicators who believe that marriage after divorce is sinful,  (George Lujack for example) were apoplectic about the marriage and are now experiencing  schadenfreude, but the atheists, agnostics, more liberal Christians, etc.among the Hovindologists should consider the matter as evidence of Kent being a regular guy in some regards and not pay it any mind.

Here is my theory on why the purported divorce is altogether unremarkable.

Having spent a lot of time listening to Kent Hovind, I formed the following conclusion.  He strongly and sincerely believes that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is morally wrong.  It has only come up in passing but he has mentioned that self help in that regard is not, as Catholics teach, sinful, which does make things a little easier.

Also listening to him, I would say his interest in sex is probably somewhat above average, but within the range of normal for a heterosexual male.

By his account he was welcomed home by his wife by being told that he had a different bedroom than she did.  I took this as a euphemism for “no nookie”. He then got into a heated public dispute with his wife and son about property and she initiated a divorce.

If Kent had more conventional contemporary views, the logical thing to do would have been to sign up with match.com or eharmony.com.  When asked by the algorithm generator whether he thought that sex was a normal part of dating he could answer yes.

Instead he fell in love with the most attractive woman in his conspiracy bubble and was strongly motivated to marry her quickly.  That he had not had sex in ten years was probably a big factor.

Mary Tocco seems like a strong independent woman who is probably not really a good long term match for Kent Hovind’s patriarchal views.

The answer to the “Can this marriage be saved?” question in this case is pretty obvious.


Kent’s Silence On The Matter


Kent’s lack of comment on the matter is an indication of one his rare flashes of good sense.

Perhaps he learned something from going so public with his family disputes. A divorce after a long separation is altogether unremarkable.  It is not just prison terms.  It is also a problem with military couples.  So he could have just said that it was a private matter if it ever came up instead of getting the Hovindicators stirred up.

A more cynical view might be that publicly attacking Mary Tocco is probably more fraught with peril than publicly attacking Jo Hovind, who would not fight back in the public square.


Something That Really Should Be Of Interest 


There has been a very valuable and fascinating addition to the ranks of the Hovindologists. Jacquelyn Weaver critiques things like the Sovereign Citizen movement from a Christian perspective. She recently wrote – Robert Baty, Retired IRS Appeals Officer And Christian Seeks To Break The Code Of Silence Protecting Kent Hovind’s False Legal Narrative
.
My first encounter with the tax protest/sovereign citizen world was over twenty years ago with someone I thought of as a friend who had drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid.  He ended up in a lot of trouble himself and the fallout harmed his family and also me to an extent. At the time I thought that it would make sense to reach out to evangelicals for help, since they seemed to have more than their share of this particular form of mishegas. I thought that the common ground of scriptural inerrancy would help.  No luck.

Jacquelyn Weaver embodies what I was looking for.  I have had a bit on an exchange with her.  She is roughly in my age bracket and Kent’s.  She became a follower of Jesus when she was 9 or 10 attending a Presbyterian church, but she had to contend with a Unitarian father who tried to shake her of it.

I asked her her views on a few of the topics and here is some of what she shared with me.

Church Tax Issues

 After viewing the disgraces of many of those who have been afforded these great tax privileges, I would like to see all nonprofits, whether churches or corporations or any other legal entity done away with.  Perhaps at some time in the past, these tax benefits were of great help to those of little means who were doing good works which benefited our nation. But over time every con artist for miles around has coveted the benefit of appearing righteous by being a pastor or head of a charity, and gaining tax privileges not afforded the average citizen. I believe it is time to get rid of all 501(c) (3)’s and similar do-gooder tax shelters. Let those who are real charities show forth their true value.  Let churches show forth the light of God through their individual members, and not through their impressive buildings and showy productions on TV, videos, etc.

King James

..in my personal Bible study I only use a King James Authorized Version of the Bible.  However, I am not part of any group who is labeled KING JAMES ONLY.  While I probably walk in agreement in most respects with those who are associated with a KING JAMES ONLY position, the unfortunate reality is that almost all groups that promote a position end up having beliefs added on that do not reflect my thinking. This does not nullify their primary arguments; however it means that one always has to approach these issues with an impartiality that can objectively weigh the evidence presented.
Years ago I got into an “argument” with my father, who was an atheist/agnostic who also later became a Unitarian, about the multitude of Bible translations. His argument was that the Bible is from man and not God, otherwise why so many translations that contradicted each other.  Well, that is a fair question, even if I consider that his answer to his own question is tainted with prejudice.  My father always said that he was the Devil’s Advocate, and he was indeed quite a good one.  As a Christian, I think it only fair to seriously consider if another person’s viewpoint has any merits, and so I studied the Bible translation issue in depth.

… I began to study in earnest the Christian faith, and of course the questions arise, what church denomination, which Bible translation?  This was in the days before the internet and I was living in a small Texas town without many resources, so I began looking up note references found at the end of Christian books I saw, and I started writing the publishers, trying to get some answers.

 One day after proceeding in this search, I found the address for Dr. Peter S. Ruckman’s bookstore, and discovered that he had a wealth of knowledge on the manuscript evidence for the King James Bible, as well as the modern translations.  I spent two years doing my own collating of English translations, and came to the personal conclusion that God had preserved his word as described in Psalm 12,  in the English language through the King James Bible

Young Earth Creationism

I am a Creationist, but I do not believe in Young Earth Creationism because I believe it misreads Genesis 1:1-2, which declares In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
G. H. Pember has argued in his Earth’s Earliest Ages (1876) that the Hebrew words show that essentially God had created the heaven and the earth, and that subsequent to that there was some sort of ruin or destruction of the earth, which God then had to recreate in order to make this planet habitable for mankind and animals and plant life.  If you consider that the Bible are the words of God, and He created the material Universe as evidence of his handiwork, then it follows that what we see around us is a material record which we can examine as a secondary witness to the Scriptures.
Therefore in the debate between the Biblical record and the Evolutionary theories, there ought to be a scientifically verifiable way of approaching this material evidence.  The reason why these so called debates become so absurd is that it is difficult for the ordinary person to sift through all of the so-called proofs on either side in order to know if the evidence has been mishandled or falsified. That is the primary reason I do not engage in such debates, as first I would want to gain a personal acquaintance with such “evidence” and that takes a great deal of time and commitment if one is truly sincere.

The so called debaters of Creation/Evolution on both sides must share the responsibility for contributing to the inability of modern man to look at the Universe in wonder, and to desire to know what the real truth is behind our marvelous earth, the stars and the heavens, and to wonder why we are in a fallen state, in the first place. I stay away from such debates because they do not build up real knowledge, but rather bring us all down into some kind of ditch which is getting muddier each time these debaters open their mouths. It is a shame, because this is a fascinating aspect of life to contemplate.

Rudy Davis et. al.

I do not know much about Rudy Davis except he is from Texas,  is a plumber , likes to produce videos,   and is a supporter of Kent Hovind, the Bundy’s and other men with a proven lack of integrity.  I have lived in 6 locations in Texas from 1983-2011, beginning in Amarillo, Corpus Christi, Seguin, the Denton area, and ending in Lampasas. I now live in Mississippi.  This has afforded me the chance to visit many Texas/ Deep South churches of different denominations, and to discover what types of individuals are attracted to different congregations.
I am familiar with the type of man which Rudy Davis represents. If you find sincerity in Rudy Davis you are probably dealing with the side of him that has retained something of his individuality.  Yet if you look at his causes which he promotes, and the inherent skewed criminal type thinking and propaganda based orientation which is represented, you are looking at a brainwashed man. Looking at the bare facts of Kent Hovind would not lead the average person to believe that he is a noble cause. To me, Rudy Davis looks like a man who would like to stand out in his masculinity as someone who has noble ideals.
If the day ever comes, when genuine martial law and the Mark of the Beast become the major means of sorting persons out, then we will know the truth about Rudy Davis.  In fact we will know the truth of us all.  In the meantime, he seems to be an unrepentant upholder of the sanctity of Religious Con Artists, particularly those who have made their home in the IFB churches.

There is a lot of good sense there in my opinion.  It happens that I really like Rudy and think he is very sincere, while at the same time thinking much that he believes is preposterous.

And From Rudy


Given the dwindling ranks of Hovindicators, I thought it would be a good time to check in with Rudy.  I have not even been watching his videos of late.  He did one in September about his separation from Cisco, which you can find if you are interested.

I asked him if he still felt the same way about Kent and he responded.

There is no change in our view and support of Kent Hovind. Erin and I have been consumed with our small Christian prison ministry so we don’t have the time or inclination to keep up with all the online drama that seems to follow Kent Hovind. In regards to any additional problems that he may be going through, he has our prayers and support.  I will also say that our involvement in advocating for Dr. Hovind’s innocence as well as other political prisoners has been an eye-opening education on human nature for both Erin and I.