Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pahoran

The Mountain Meadow Massacre

Recommended Posts

Rollo, are you a Mormon?

Yes, I am active LDS, BIC and all that. But, obviously, I am not what most here would consider "orthodox" (although I think I am, in my own way, and in God's eyes, but that's just my personal opinion).

If so I must say you represent your Church very well.

Share this post


Link to post
They could care less about those people and in essence have remurdered them over and over. I doubt those people who were in the MMM are not happily enjoying a higher kingdom and glory because of their untimely demise.

Yeah that's it...

Or people want to get to the bottom of the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing. Would you accept if 9/11 was brushed under the carpet in a similar fashion? Of course not, people want the truth, and that hasn't been sufficiently answered so of course your church will always get inquiry about it. When you respond with venom and hatred, it doesn't bode well for people on the outside looking in...

Whether you want to believe it or not, the massacre was not that long ago, and no the people are not better off having been brutalized, the adolescent women were not better being butchered like sheep. They were murdered, your platitudes withstanding there are still relatives of the deceased alive who I'm sure still burn from the act, and the other than forthcoming attitude of the Mormon Church.

If your faith is so little that addressing the issue intstead of denouncing anyone who questions your dubious version of events as some evil Mormon hater, than I would look in the mirror a little harder as to how solid your faith is.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with those who keep asking the same question when it has been answered many, many times, is they don't want the answer. They keep asking, hoping that, somehow the facts will be changed so that they get the answer they want. They don't want the truth. They want the truth to reflect what they want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post

QUOTE (juliann @ Nov 29 2005, 11:34 PM)

QUOTE (Garden Girl @ Nov 29 2005, 11:12 PM)

I really don't believe there can be a Latter-Day Saint in the Church through the years that does not regret that such a tragedy as Mountain Meadows took place, and are troubled and have a hard time understanding how it could happen.

In all honesty...when I read the triumphant denunciations in these kinds of threads I come away feeling that the counter-Mormons are rather gleeful that it happened.

They definitely are. They have no charity or true feelings for those People. They have no understanding of how transparent they really are.

They could care less about those people and in essence have remurdered them over and over. I doubt those people who were in the MMM are not happily enjoying a higher kingdom and glory because of their untimely demise.

So they can't possibly be trying to get justice or redress for them. It is all about having a weapon with which to whip the church because they have fallen into darkness and resent anyone still walking in the light.

Are you serious?

This is quite a harsh judgement to make on people that you don't even know, but have only read some of their thoughts on the internet. How can you possibly pronounce such a damning judgement on them?

cacheman

Share this post


Link to post

Anytime the subject is brought up, there has to be a discussion of all the details of the activities of everyone involved, not just the people who ambushed the train and murdered the individuals. Much of that puts at least some of the Fancher party in a bad light. So, since the matter was settled a long time ago, digging it up again is not in the best interest of those members of the Fancher party who were guilty of base and degrading acts themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
That is inflammatory rhetoric.  The most "enflaming" thing that Brigham or GAS said was "the army are coming."

Those who heard GAS's speeches described them in a way that I think qualifies as "enflaming."

The September 1 meeting was a repeat of the August 30 meeting, just with different attendees.

Share this post


Link to post

== Or people want to get to the bottom of the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing

But Mickey, you haven't addressed the Sand Creek Massacre that was led by a Methodist minister. It was much worse than the MMM - killing all 200+, mostly women and children - but it didn't involve Mormons, so it is easily forgotten.

And you did not respond to the fact that Governor Bogg's ordered to have Mormons killed; it is the only time in United States History that the government ordered the destruction of its own citizenry! Where is the outrage and concern for the victims at Hauns Mill? Or the clusters of Mormons who were kicked out of their homes and cities and who were raped, tarred/feathered or murdered by the incitement of hate that results in bogus conspiracy theories like yours?

So your reasons for dwelling on MMM do not strike me at all as genuine concern for the victims. It seems to be nothing more than a witch hunt to indict the LDS faith. If your disgust was strictly about murder folks, then you'd be more balanced and consistent in your indictments.

Share this post


Link to post
And you did not respond to the fact that Governor Bogg's ordered to have Mormons killed; it is the only time in United States History that the government ordered the destruction of its own citizenry! Where is the outrage and concern for the victims at Hauns Mill? Or the clusters of Mormons who were kicked out of their homes and cities and who were raped, tarred/feathered or murdered by the incitement of hate that results in bogus conspiracy theories like yours?

What's interesting, imo, is that Sidney Rigdon, during a fiery July 4 speech, was the first to raise the issue of extermination (saying that either the Mormons or Missouri mobcrats would be "exterminated," or words to that effect), months before Boggs's extermination order. I'm not saying this excused Boggs (because it doesn't) or past crimes committed after the order was issued, but an argument could be made that Church leaders egged him on. And, if memory serves, didn't Missouri ultimately rescind and apologize for the extermination order? No such luck when it comes to the LDS Church acknowledging and apologizing for any role it played in the MMM.

Share this post


Link to post
== Or people want to get to the bottom of the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing

But Mickey, you haven't addressed the Sand Creek Massacre that was led by a Methodist minister. It was much worse than the MMM - killing all 200+, mostly women and children - but it didn't involve Mormons, so it is easily forgotten.

And you did not respond to the fact that Governor Bogg's ordered to have Mormons killed; it is the only time in United States History that the government ordered the destruction of its own citizenry! Where is the outrage and concern for the victims at Hauns Mill? Or the clusters of Mormons who were kicked out of their homes and cities and who were raped, tarred/feathered or murdered by the incitement of hate that results in bogus conspiracy theories like yours?

So your reasons for dwelling on MMM do not strike me at all as genuine concern for the victims. It seems to be nothing more than a witch hunt to indict the LDS faith. If your disgust was strictly about murder folks, then you'd be more balanced and consistent in your indictments.

****STRAWMAN*****

If you want my opinions on what you stated start a thread instead of trying to illogically:

a. Assume my opinions

B. Somehow justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre, by bringing them up

You know what they say, if everyone believed in an eye for an eye, everyone would be walking around blind...

Share this post


Link to post

But the same sermon made it clear that "we would never be the aggressors," indicating that he was simply saying Mormons would defend themselves next time. Rigdon was a little wacked at times, but who could blame him. This is the guy who was tarred and feathered, and dragged into the streets by his feet so violently that he suffered permanent internal and external damage to his skull.

Share this post


Link to post

== ****STRAWMAN*****

What? At best you might make a case that these are red herrings, but not a straw man. You don''t have a stranglehold on basic logic 101 do you? You don't even know what a straw man argument is! Asking questions is not straw man construction.

== If you want my opinions on what you stated start a thread instead of trying to illogically: a. Assume my opinions

Excuse me, but I asked questions. Are you so enissophobic that you can't even handle questions? Good grief. All this does is confirm my own suspicions that you are just trying to bash Mormonism. Your so-called "concern" for victims is just a lame cover for bigotry.

== B. Somehow justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre, by bringing them up

Ah, you see, now that is a straw man argument. You're attacking an argument nobody here has ever made. Not one single Mormon in this forum has tried to "justify" the massacre. In fact, I've seen numerous people make it perfectly clear that there couldnever be a justification for it. But you're not interested in what Mormons actually say, because you're perfectly content with creating their arguments and declaring their positions for them, right?

Now you're the one wo said you were concerned about victims. Well, we want you to justify your creepy "concern" for one group of people but outright neglect for other victims of non-LDS related murders.

But keep running from the questions. The answers you would offer would only reveal a double-standard anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
When you respond with venom and hatred, it doesn't bode well for people on the outside looking in...

Don't forget, Mickey_D29, that you opened your thread on Mountain Meadows by declaring that our church rests on a foundation of fanaticism, perversion, and murder. That was not a particularly good approach, and it's nothing short of bizarre that you now imagine yourself an innocent victim of other people's rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post

Your arguments are most certainly strawmen, your using an irrational logic to come to a predetermined conclusion. Such as, 'if you were really outraged by the MMM you would be more vocal in the Haun's Mill Massacre'. That's a strawman, sorry buddy. And you are the absolute KING of them....

Or I say the "the MM was a travesty and I think the Mormon Chruch is hiding something", you say "You are obviously an anti-Mormon just looking to bash our religion", that's a logical fallacy and a strawman.

To be honest I have no interest to even debate with you, you're all over the place and make no points, you do set up Red Herrings too, infact all of your arguments are logical fallacies.

Good Day,

Your an arguer, not a debater, you take everything entirely too personal, and can't have a reasonable discusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't forget, Mickey_D29, that you opened your thread on Mountain Meadows by declaring that our church rests on a foundation of fanaticism, perversion, and murder.

Yup which I apoligized for three times...

Do Mormons not know the meaning of forgiveness? Or do you make someone beg after they admit they're wrong and spoke in haste and too harshly?

I';ve had me writing that brought up no less than 15 times, yet not one comment after I apologized three seperate times for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Pahoran, you closed the opening of this thread with the following:

Let the discussion begin. Keep it civil, please.

You then proceeded to say the following to Rollo:

I'm sorry, but is a simple "no" just too hard for you?
Naturally; all the anti-Mormons think that.
While fanaticism and extreme prejudice are just as real in 21st-Century Internet fora.

Doesn

Share this post


Link to post
But the same sermon made it clear that "we would never be the aggressors," indicating that he was simply saying Mormons would defend themselves next time. Rigdon was a little wacked at times, but who could blame him. This is the guy who was tarred and feathered, and dragged into the streets by his feet so violently that he suffered permanent internal and external damage to his skull.

Sidney Ridgon was an interesting fellow. Here is the relevant portion of his speech given at Far West, Missouri on July 4, 1838:

"We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us; for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. Remember it then all men." (bold mine for emphasis).

Let me make clear that I do not disagree with Rigdon's sentiments. If attacked like they were, I would have lashed out in the same way. But, nevertheless, it's easy to see how these words could be taken as a sort of declaration of war by the Mormons (and including the mobcrats' "houses" and "families" would only serve to inflame them more), and even egg on Boggs to issue (some 3 or 4 months later) his infamous "extermination order."

Share this post


Link to post

== Your arguments are most certainly strawmen,

Name one single argument of mine that is a straw man. Just one. I dare you.

Face it Mickey, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. You're completely ignorant when it comes to the basics of logic and logical fallacies. You pretend to be knowledgable but all you offer us is Mickey Mouse logic.

== Such as, 'if you were really outraged by the MMM you would be more vocal in the Haun's Mill Massacre'. That's a strawman, sorry buddy.

No, it is a valid observation. A straw man argument is an argument created by one participant, pretending it is the argument of his opponent. Please demonstrate where I have created your argument for you. You can't do it.

My statement above was a response to your bogus claim of concern for the victims. If you would simply respond to the statement by explaining your double-standard, instead of babbling about fallacies, you'd prove just how bogus it is.

== And you are the absolute KING of them....

Still running from the questions huh? All this is is diversion technique, nothing more. You can't handle one-on-one debate because you can't handle basic questions without tearing into a rant about how it is wrong to as them.

== To be honest I have no interest to even debate with you

Since you can't argue your points intelligently, I don't blame you. You should first have a basic understanding of the terms you keep throwing around.

== you're all over the place and make no points

From someone who adopts Mickey Mouse logic, I'll take this as a compliment.

== you do set up Red Herrings too, infact all of your arguments are logical fallacies.

Unfortunately you can't even identify what the arguments are, let alone the fallacies.

== Your an arguer, not a debater

As any dictionary would confirm, there is no difference between the two. (Sounds as imbecilic as "You're a male not a man!")You should probably stop Mickey. The more you speak the sillier you sound.

"It is best to stay quiet and appear the fool, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

== youtake everything entirely too personal, and can't have a reasonable discusion.

That's because you are not being reasonable.

== You don't seem very "at peace",

I'm not. Just ask my wife if she considers me laughing while I type a "peaceful" event.

== you seem angry and bitter (at least in your writings). Take care

Actually, this is more for comic relief purposes than you know. I'm hardly foaming at the mouth. If I were, I'd probably be on some religious forum telling the adherents that their religion is based on fanaticism, perversion and murder. But thanks for the psychoanalysis.

I'm just getting a kick out of watching anti-Mormons squirm and then tuck their tails between their legs and head for the hills whenever they're are faced with their own logic- or lack thereof. No, I don't expect you to understand what I mean by that either....

You take care now.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Rollo, here is something I wrote a few years ago in response to Dennis Wright.

http://www.kevingraham.org/saltsermon.htm

I never got around to cleaning it up... but it contains some interesting quotations.

Note the follow-up statements from your citation...

"...Remember it then all men. We will never be the aggressors, we will infringe on the rights of no people; but shall stand for our own until death. We claim our own rights, and are willing that all others shall enjoy theirs. No man shall be at liberty to come into our streets, to threaten us with mobs, for if he does, he shall atone for it before he leaves the place, neither shall he be at liberty to vilify and slander any of us, for suffer it we will not in this place.

We therefore take all men to record this day, that we proclaim our liberty on this day, as did our fathers. And we pledge this day to one another, our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honors, to be delivered from the persecutions, which we have had to endure, for the last nine years, or nearly that. Neither will we indulge any man, or set of men, in instituting vexatious lawsuits against us to cheat us out of our just rights, if they attempt it we say woe be unto them. We this day then proclaim ourselves free, with a purpose and a determination, that never can be broken, "no, never! no never!! NO NEVER!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
You take care now.

Will do Kevin, let that Mormon light shine... :P

This entire topic was full of loaded questions, it was a joke to begin with, the topic was never meant to "get to the truth of the MMM", or "be civil"...It was an ambush!

Share this post


Link to post

History is full of tragic incidents and injustices. The best we can do is try to understand why ordinary people get so out of control so such things don't happen again. Part of that understanding is putting it in the context of the times. This doesn't justify what happens but gives some perspective on how things might have gotten so out of hand.

Fear is a big factor. The scriptures tell us perfect love casts out fear. Unfortunately human beings are far from loving perfectly. There probably isn't something in any of our pasts that we don't regret and wish we could take back, whether it's a small incident or some great sin. The same applies to any organization. To continue throwing stones at the church for something that happened in the past and for which none of the living members had any part is not only childish but shows a desire to simply tear down something for which one has a deep-seated hatred and prejudice.

Pres. Hinckley has expressed the church's great regret at what happened at MM. Even extensive research probably won't give us all the answers of what really happened or what all the motivations were. The purpose of the study should be to try to understand, not to condemn. What good does it do to condemn people who are long dead and who have already met their just desserts?

Share this post


Link to post
The US Army has a much worse record against the native population, including men, women and children, around the same time period, for example.  Using the logic that condemns the LDS faith for MMM, do you also condemn the US government and its founding fathers for the Army's behaviour?

****STRAWMAN****

Can't anyone come up with a retort that doesn't rely on these ridiculous strawmen argumets?

1. The U.S. armies actions or whether or not I condemn it has ZERO to do with the Mormon churches involvement in the massacre, or subsequent cover up. Nor does it somehow vindicate them, or advance your arguments or opinion in the slightest.

2. The US Government and the US Army is NOT a religion or faith, it is an organization trained to kill the enemies of the United States and follow orders without discussion. apples/oranges...

Just calling something a strawman doesn't make it so. :P

You are proceeding from the assumption that the Church was complicit in the massacre itself. (I'm not talking about the subsequent cover-up, but about the massacre.) That has been shown, time and again, to not be the case. It is an important distinction that it was the militia (the local military unit in Southern Utah, comparable to today's National Guard) that initiated the massacre; it was not an ecclessiastical action.

Since it was the militia involved, comparing their military actions to the actions of other military units--especially the US Army--is not "apples and oranges." It is very appropriate.

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

== This entire topic was full of loaded questions, it was a joke to begin with, the topic was never meant to "get to the truth of the MMM", or "be civil"...It was an ambush!

Yep, you got us. We ambushed you by making you begin a discussion about how our faith is based on fanaticism, perversion and murder.

Damn we're smart.

I'd ask you to present us with an example of any "loaded questions" (apparently you don't know what this means either) but I know you'll just call this question a ****STRAWMAN*** or something to that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Name one single argument of mine that is a straw man. Just one. I dare you.
"Are you so enissophobic that you can't even handle questions? Good grief. All this does is confirm my own suspicions that you are just trying to bash Mormonism."

No it doesn't, that's a strawman...I explained why i didn't answer your questions. Your questions are loaded and don't pertain to the topic.

You are setting up a position I never made, attacking it, and declaring victory.

"Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of. "

These are ALL examples of strawmen, that's all you do is set up strawmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Yep, you got us. We ambushed you by making you begin a discussion about how our faith is based on fanaticism, perversion and murder.

Damn we're smart.

Another strawman, that isn't what happened PAHORAN started THIS discussion.

Do you see how you just switched the entire scenario that isn't the truth, attacked it and then felt you justified your position? That's setting up a strawman. You do it in every argument You attack my use of debater and arguer, to somehow claim every point I make on the MMM is worthless and think you've proven your points, that's not how it works.

"Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation."

Learn it love it. Misrepresenting an argument is not the only straw man, a red herring is an example of setting up a strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...