The Mountain Meadow Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

The "whitewashing history" thing is a canard.

Hardly. But perhaps you believe that the Church Almanac and the 1st manual used to teach both priesthood and Relief Society, portraying Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as monogamists was simply oversight.

The Strengthening Church Members Committee is a harmless news-clipping service.

If the existence and purpose of this committee is so innocuous, then why did the Brethren feel they had to rely on scripture (D&C 123:4-5) to justify the creation of the committee once its existence was publicly exposed?

How about a First Presidency apology for green jello desserts, while we're cataloging these unspeakable Church-inflicted horrors?

On this point, we agree.

Incidentally, "Baptized1962," can you direct me to the place where Pahoran or anybody else here has endorsed the Mountain Meadows Massacre or, even, expressed nonchalant indifference to it?

C.I.'s cavalier attitude about his Fancher ancestors (expressed in his post above), imo, was incredibly insensitive.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I've read both Brooks and Bagley and will wait patiently until the next book written by Richard E. Turley Jr., Glen M. Leonard, and Ronald G. Walker comes out.

I, too, am looking very forward to that book. We've been waiting a long time now; I hear it's coming out in 2006, so hopefully the wait is almost over.

[Nighthawke]

Sure.  A couple of months ago I posted here my review of the Crockett article you quote.  You can read it here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=10527&hl=

Damn it I don't want to get dragged into a thread...

In the link you posted I read:

Bagley argues that this refers to emigrant cattle, and specifically, an attack on the Fancher train (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 114). In contrast, Mr. Crockett argues this instruction only relates to army cattle on the way to Utah (p. 205). I side with Bagley on this one ...

Um, except that the diary entry specifically mentions soldiers and nothing at all about emigrants:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain & we might fight.9 (cf. p. 114)

(emphasis mine)

[Serious]

Yes, but this refers to God avenging the deaths of the martyrs.

...

I think God should apologize while we are demanding apologies.

Is it your contention that God never uses mankind to answer prayers? LDS teachings are replete with instances in which God used others to answer prayers. In this case, some Mountain Meadows participants saw themselves as instruments in God's hands in avenging the blood of the prophets. I think they were wrong, but one can see how early Church teachings could be viewed as promoting violence of this type.

No need for God to apologize; the buck stops with Mormon zealots who lost control all on their own, with no prodding from God.

You have made two statements here I feel bear repeating. One, God is ultimately the ruler over the earth. We can go just so far before everything comes down around our ears if we are not fulfilling His will.

Two, there is the issue of agency and there are zealots and people making stupid decisions every day.

Many die very day because of malpractice, drunk driving, wars that never should be happening, and a thousand other scenarios I could list.

I find it incredibly biased, narrow, digressive thinking that hashing the MMM is going to be some kind of good thing. It is more than obvious it is only a low level attempt to confront the church about something because something else all together is bothering these people.

If they would stop just long enough to be still and listen to their selves they would hear what we are hearing. Pent up guilt. They have not been disaplined in their own lives and must find something wrong with the church to validate their state of being.

If I were a Psychologist, I believe I would call this transferance. They can't deal with their humanness and strike out and point fingers at others.

The MMM has been thoroughly covered, explained, and yet they demand apologies from non-copable sources. How does that change anything? Does it bring back the dead? Does it clear the air. No. Even if the innocent of today apolgized for the innocent of yesterday, it changes nothing and they would still find something to complain about.

If they were honest about it, they would admit they are doing this for no other reason than to get air time for their transference of guilt.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Damn it I don't want to get dragged into a thread...

In the link you posted I read:

Bagley argues that this refers to emigrant cattle, and specifically, an attack on the Fancher train (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 114). In contrast, Mr. Crockett argues this instruction only relates to army cattle on the way to Utah (p. 205). I side with Bagley on this one ...

Um, except that the diary entry specifically mentions soldiers and nothing at all about emigrants:

Kanosh the Pahvant Chief[,] Ammon & wife (Walkers Brother) & 11 Pahvants came into see B & D & find out about the soldiers. Tutseygubbit a Piede chief over 6 Piedes Bands Youngwuols another Piede chief & I gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[.] the southa rout[.] it made them open their eyes[.] they sayed that you have told us not to steal[.] so I have but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us then they will kill you[.] they sayed the[y] was afraid to fight the Americans & so would raise grain & we might fight.9 (cf. p. 114)

(emphasis mine)

I've said many times that BY's primary agenda, at both the Aug. 30 meeting with northern Utah Indians and the Sept. 1 meeting with southern Utah Indians, was his defensive strategy against the approaching U.S. Army. AND part of that strategy was the shutting down of overland travel through Utah, including emigration, for which he enlisted the aid of the Indians (at these meetings) to scatter all cattle, including emigrant cattle. I think Bagley is more correct on this particular point, however, because, according to Dimick Huntington's Sept. 1 account, Brigham's instruction to steal cattle related to cattle that had gone on the south route to California. Obviously this didn't mean army cattle because they were still far northeast from SLC, and no where near the southern trail area from which the particular Indians chiefs (and Hamblin, the new president of the southern Utah Indian mission) in attendance, had come. And, of course, we know the threatening army was not on its way to California, but to SLC. Even Crockett later concedes that "it is not unreasonable to think that Huntington's vocalized strategy to the Indians was to obstruct overland traffic by running everyone's cattle off." (p. 206, n. 14).

[Nighthawke]

The Strengthening Church Members Committee is a harmless news-clipping service.

If the existence and purpose of this committee is so innocuous, then why did the Brethren feel they had to rely on scripture (D&C 123:4-5) to justify the creation of the committee once its existence was publicly exposed?

Relax. All corporations, governments, religious institutions, charitable organizations, et cetera have a media monitoring section. That's why you have big media monitoring (or the favoured term nowadays "media intelligence") companies such as Bacon's Information Inc. who make tons of bucks doing the media monitoring for them (btw Bacon's is just an American subsidiary of the worldwide media intelligence company: Observer Group headquartered in Sweden).

Why is it antis love to point out that the Church is this huge corporation and then when it behaves like one, for example collecting its own news clippings, there is something nefarious about it doing this?

Oh my gawsh! Run for the hills the Church collects media clippings... it also has a Church LIBRARY and a Church ARCHIVES *gasp* just like any other run-of-the-mill organization on the face of the planet who conforms to standard norms for records management.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I find it incredibly biased, narrow, digressive thinking that hashing the MMM is going to be some kind of good thing.

"Hashing out" history is always a good thing, imo. And if doing so can bring the Church to realize, acknowledge, and apolgize for any role the institution, its leaders, or its teachings played in contributing to the massacre of 120 innocent civilians, then I see that as a positive thing, especially for the victims' descendants (excluding C.I., of course, who doesn't seem terribly troubled by it).

It is more than obvious it is only a low level attempt to confront the church about something because something else all together is bothering these people.

I completely disagree. I didn't know that accountability was so out of vogue among TBM's.

If they would stop just long enough to be still and listen to their selves they would hear what we are hearing.  Pent up guilt. They have not been disaplined in their own lives and must find something wrong with the church to validate their state of being.

Wow, that's quite a statement. Should we think this way about every historical atrocity? We should just forget all history because it's irrelevant to the here and now, right?

The MMM has been thoroughly covered, explained, and yet they demand apologies from non-copable sources.

Then perhaps you should tell Turley, et al. they no longer need to work on their forthcoming book.

How does that change anything? Does it bring back the dead? Does it clear the air. No. Even if the innocent of today apolgized for the innocent of yesterday, it changes nothing and they would still find something to complain about.

Is it your contention that apologies serve no purpose or good? Again, is accountability a non-issue among TBM's? If the Church (an institution still existing today), certain leaders, or certain teachings (some of which remain to this day, even in diluted form) contributed to setting the stage for massacre, an apology today is very appropriate.

If they were honest about it, they would admit they are doing this for no other reason than to get air time for their transference of guilt.

And if the LDS Church had been honest about this a long time ago, the MMM would not be the hot potato issue it is today.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Relax. All corporations, governments, religious institutions, charitable organizations, et cetera have a media monitoring section.

"Media monitoring" is one thing, but seeking out and collecting anything perceived to be negative of the Church written or spoken by a member, and then providing that info to the member's local ecclesiastical leader, smells a bit too "Orwellian" to me.

[Nighthawke]

Relax. All corporations, governments, religious institutions, charitable organizations, et cetera have a media monitoring section.

"Media monitoring" is one thing, but seeking out and collecting anything perceived to be negative of the Church written or spoken by a member, and then providing that info to the member's local ecclesiastical leader, smells a bit too "Orwellian" to me.

Geez I'd think you'd be happy about the Church wanting to trim down its membership roll?

So you believe the local ecclesiastical leaders should be kept blissfully unaware of members of the Church putting out negative information about the Church for example?

Would I be correct in saying that you believe the local leaders of the Church should not be informed about Tom Murphy, for example, working for Living Hope Ministries in opposition to the Church?

I mean it's out in the press already, it's not like it is hidden or anything.

[Daniel Peterson]

The "whitewashing history" thing is a canard.

Hardly. But perhaps you believe that the Church Almanac and the 1st manual used to teach both priesthood and Relief Society, portraying Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as monogamists was simply oversight.

(1) The priesthood/Relief Society Brigham Young manual, just like its successors, was not intended to be a historical textbook. That was not its primary purpose, nor its secondary purpose, nor, even, its tertiary purpose. When the Church actually teaches its history (as, for instance, in the Institute manual for Religion 341-343, Church History in the Fulness of Times, and in the older Gospel Doctrine manual My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth; I don't have the tiny current supplemental Gospel Doctrine book, Our Heritage, with me at the moment to check it) it expressly mentions not only plural marriage but the connection of both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith with the practice.

(2) I don't believe that there are many in the Church -- certainly not in the English-speaking world -- who are unaware that Brigham Young had many wives. In fact, that's one of the very few things that non-Mormons can be relied upon to know about him.

(3) I am not embarrassed by plural marriage.

(4) I see no evidence that the Brigham Young manual was attempting to "portray" Brigham Young, let alone Joseph Smith, as a monogamist.

(5) The chronological information in the Church Almanac features a number of items about the Church's cessation of the practice of plural marriage. While it includes no specific dates for the commencement of plural marriage, this seems to be more a function of the fact that such specific dates are extremely difficult to come by, rather than of some positively weird assumption that readers wouldn't know about plural marriage and wouldn't quickly grasp that something that was suspended must once have been initiated.

(6) This is a tired and, from my point of view, silly issue that will only waste time to discuss further.

(7) Read through the recent James Allen/David Whittaker bibliography of publications on Mormon history, and then try to tell me with a straight face that the Latter-day Saint community has not been richly blessed with an unusually prolific, active, and professional group of historians (the large majority of them active believers in good standing) for the better part of the last century and that Latter-day Saints with an interest in Church history could not have read a vast corpus of publications on the subject. If I were to confess to the bishop that I'm a dues-paying (and occasionally participating) member of both the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Historical Association, do you imagine that he would deny me a temple recommend?

The Strengthening Church Members Committee is a harmless news-clipping service.

If the existence and purpose of this committee is so innocuous, then why did the Brethren feel they had to rely on scripture (D&C 123:4-5) to justify the creation of the committee once its existence was publicly exposed?

First, they were under (hysterical and unjust) attack for its existence. (You demonstrate that such attacks continue.) Justifying it on the basis of scripture was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances. After all, we routinely justify Church practices on the basis of scripture. Yet such scriptural justifications hardly demonstrate those practices (e.g., having quorums of the Seventy, baptizing for the dead, sending missionaries out two by two) to be sinister or evil.

This, too, strikes me as a rather silly issue, and one that I don't intend to get sucked into again. Suffice it to say that I was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. My mission? To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents. (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.) The weapons of choice? Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings. Follow-up? There was none. I filed no report. I was asked to file no report. I invited him to keep in touch, but he didn't. However -- I confess it, to my shame -- I did receive a personal thank-you note from the secretary to the Committee. Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element: This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help. So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

If you can point out an actual injustice perpetrated by the Committee, or indicate a case of actual spying, that will interest me. Until then, your mere sense that a clipping service is somehow "Orwellian" tells me nothing of interest.

Incidentally, "Baptized1962," can you direct me to the place where Pahoran or anybody else here has endorsed the Mountain Meadows Massacre or, even, expressed nonchalant indifference to it?

C.I.'s cavalier attitude about his Fancher ancestors (expressed in his post above), imo, was incredibly insensitive.

Color me insensitive, too. I can't see what is really accomplished (beyond ego-gratification and one-upmanship, of course) by attempting, in the twenty-first century, to demonstrate that one is more morally sensitive than somebody else with regard to sufferings and injustices that occurred nearly 150 years ago. I feel no personal urge, when teaching about the Mongol sack of Baghdad, or Sennecharib's siege of Jerusalem, or the battle of

[Rollo Tomasi]

So you believe the local ecclesiastical leaders should be kept blissfully unaware of members of the Church putting out negative information about the Church for example?

They shouldn't be "blissfully unaware" if they have discernment as part of their mantle, and it's something that bothers the Lord enough to inspire the leader about. And if it's a public statement or writing, I'm sure it'll get to him eventually (if not directly from the subject member him/herself). My beef is with the existence of a committee (supposedly created under the divine auspices of D&C 123), headed by two apostles, collecting info and keeping secret files on members the committee perceives to be troublemakers. It seems paranoid and unbecoming any church claiming to be the Lord's one true and living church on Earth, imo.

Would I be correct in saying that you believe the local leaders of the Church should not be informed about Tom Murphy, for example, working for Living Hope Ministries in opposition to the Church?

I mean it's out in the press already, it's not like it is hidden or anything.

Murphy's local leaders were informed, and they scheduled a disciplinary proceeding, only to cancel it after the public outcry.

There's a fine line between "opposing the Church" and simply publishing scholarly work that some may perceive as negative toward the Church. But I fear that all are fair game for the committee and its infamous "clipping service."

[Baptized1962]

Incidentally, "Baptized1962," can you direct me to the place where Pahoran or anybody else here has endorsed the Mountain Meadows Massacre or, even, expressed nonchalant indifference to it?

This is always a fun game you play, Dan. "Can you direct me...?"

By labeling as a cause celeb of anti-Mormons the brutal murder of 120 humans, some of them children, by Latter-day Saints, probably done with the same nonchelant indifference that came from the spiritual promptings Nephi got when he beheaded a drunk Laban, you all disrespect the event.

Stand for something, Dan. Stand for something like admitting that the church leaders probably caused it. Just like the Church wants the world to remember Joseph and Hyrum perhaps the deaths of these people should be

a broad seal affixed to

[gtaggart]

By labeling as a cause celeb of anti-Mormons the brutal murder of 120 humans, some of them children, by Latter-day Saints, probably done with the same nonchelant indifference that came from the spiritual promptings Nephi got when he beheaded a drunk Laban, you all disrespect the event.

Balderdash.

[awyatt]

Would I be correct in saying that you believe the local leaders of the Church should not be informed about Tom Murphy, for example, working for Living Hope Ministries in opposition to the Church?

I mean it's out in the press already, it's not like it is hidden or anything.

Murphy's local leaders were informed, and they scheduled a disciplinary proceeding, only to cancel it after the public outcry.

There's a fine line between "opposing the Church" and simply publishing scholarly work that some may perceive as negative toward the Church. But I fear that all are fair game for the committee and its infamous "clipping service."

Nice subject change, Rollo. You were asked specifically about Murphy's collaboration with Living Hope Ministries, yet your response was about his "publishing scholarly work."

Two different things--unless you are implying that Murphy's work with Living Hope Ministries counts as a scholarly work? Was that your intent?

-Allen

[crcrd]

WOW! The reading on this thread is quite amazing.

I am a direct decendant of Bro. Lee. I have heard all of the stories about the MMM while growing up, and to be honest with you there are about 9000 different versions of the story. All of my relatives are through the MacDonald/MacFarlane line in the St. George/Cedar City area. Did anyone know that because of the MMM the saints in Cedar City were told that they would not be able to have a new "place to worship" built until the Lord lifted the curse on those in Cedar City who participated in the MMM? If I remember corretly, that curse was finally lifted in the 1970's. I remember, when I was quite young, all of the "excitement" around having a new church finally being able to be built in Cedar City.

I personally agree that Bro. Lee was the "fall guy" for many. You can briefly read more about another persons view on the MMM in my Great Great Grandpa's book: Yours Sincerely, John M. MacFarlane. (Pages 169-171) John D. Lee was quite close to him.

My personal opinion on the MMM is that intense and immense fear WAS the driving factor behind the vicious slaughter. Look at all the factors here; these people had either walked or had come across the plains in wagons to SLC, where they had previously been driven out of their homes time and again, (read in Doctrine & Covenants where it talks about these things happening because of the saint's "pride and vanity" ~ I will not get into discussion on this on this thread, so do not even bother bringing it up!) THEN when they finally did get to the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham told them to travel another 400 plus miles south to barren desert and make that their home! Ummmmmm....... talk about EXTREME conditions that these people were trying to deal with, then let's add a mega-dose of MORE fear that they might be having to move again because these so-called "bad guys" were coming again to take them out. I am not trying to rationalize one way or the other here, I am just trying to point out the factor of what happens to the human brain when: #1) So much strain has been put on the body and #2) A lack of diversity in a group of people (town) is prevalent.

I know that I have probabally opened up a whole new forum for discussion, but I just needed to say something. Peace.

[charity]

I know a woman descended from John D. Lee. She also felt that her grandfather had taken the whole weight of the blame. She did not believe that Brigham Young or other general church officers were involved in any way, but that her grandfather was not the sole culprit. She felt that he was reconciled to the way things had worked out with him, that he would not lose his reward in Heaven, and the whole story from both sides had not been seen.

[Elphaba]

If being a descendant makes one an authority, what about Thelma "Granny" Geer? She was also a descendant of John D. Lee.

[crcrd]

An "Authority"? Huh? I was just adding my two-cents. That's it. Who is this Granny Geer? Tell me about her please.

I am not on here to "defend" John D. Lee one way or another.

Peace.

[Rollo Tomasi]

(1) The priesthood/Relief Society Brigham Young manual, just like its successors, was not intended to be a historical textbook. That was not its primary purpose, nor its secondary purpose, nor, even, its tertiary purpose.

(2) I don't believe that there are many in the Church -- certainly not in the English-speaking world -- who are unaware that Brigham Young had many wives. In fact, that's one of the very few things that non-Mormons can be relied upon to know about him.

Perhaps, but the manual included an "Historical Summary" of Brigham's life (p. vii), and the first chapter is entitled "The Ministry of Brigham Young," and gives 13 pages of major events and accomplishments of his life. In other words, history, my friend. Apparently the Church learned its lesson with this manual, because subsequent manuals of polygamous presidents do not mention any marriage in the timeline (even a legal one). But Brigham's timeline mentions his first legal marriage, the death of that legal wife, and then mentions his legal remarriage. More detail is given of these two legal marriages in Chapter 1, but alas, no mention of the dozens of other wives and children he had.

I don't have the tiny current supplemental Gospel Doctrine book, Our Heritage, with me at the moment to check it) it expressly mentions not only plural marriage but the connection of both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith with the practice.

Thanks for bringing this up; I do happen to have my copy handy, and it's another perfect example of the whitewash I'm talking about. Where is the polygamy "connection" mentioned in the book? In the part on 1830's Kirtland (pages 21-36), when Joseph married his first plural wife? Nope, not a mention. Or how about the part discussing 1840's Nauvoo (pages 55-67), when Joseph revved up his polgamy? No again. Oh, come now, it must at least be discussed in the part about 1850's Utah (pages 77-91), since polygamy was publicly announced and practiced in 1852, right? Hmm, another "nope" there. Gee, it must be somewhere ... oh, wait, I found it!!! On page 97, immediately after the discussion of the Jubilee Conference on April 6, 1880, there's a two paragraph discussion on the nearly 50-year history of polygamy in the LDS Church. Whew, and I here I thought the Church was trying to hide or downplay that significant part of its history. Silly me. Well, at least the booklet must admit that Joseph himself practiced polygamy, right? Hmm, this sounds peculiar:

The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God.  Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife.  A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City.  At that conference, Elder Orson Pratt, as directed by President Brigham Young, announced that the practice of a man having more than one wife was part of the Lord's restitution of all things (see Acts 3:19-21).

(Our Heritage: A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, p. 97)(emphasis mine)

Note how this passage was cleverly worded so as NOT to admit that Joseph personally practiced polygamy, instead referring to "some" and "a number" of members who practiced polygamy. Is Joseph included in that "some" and "a number"? Sure, but for some reason the writers of the booklet didn't want to expressly admit it. And putting the first mention of polygamy 50 years out of sequence in any Church history is quite amazing, imo. Put it where it belongs -- in the Kirtland discussion, or, at the very latest, the Nauvoo discussion, not stuck in after a discussion of the Church's 1880 Jubilee party.

(3)  I am not embarrassed by plural marriage.

Nor should you be, particularly since the doctrine remains in the canon and the practice itself exists in a limited form even in today's Church.

(4)  I see no evidence that the Brigham Young manual was attempting to "portray" Brigham Young, let alone Joseph Smith, as a monogamist.

Really? In addition to the historical discussions, how about the manual's changing BY's use of "wives" to "[wife]"? Just a typo, right?

(5)  The chronological information in the Church Almanac features a number of items about the Church's cessation of the practice of plural marriage.  While it includes no specific dates for the commencement of plural marriage, this seems to be more a function of the fact that such specific dates are extremely difficult to come by, rather than of some positively weird assumption that readers wouldn't know about plural marriage and wouldn't quickly grasp that something that was suspended must once have been initiated.

I'm speaking of the section that gives biographical sketches of past Church presidents. You'll note that Joseph's marriage to Emma (and the number of children they had) is given, but no mention of other marriages. But the bios for BY through Heber J. Grant (all polygamists) make no mention of any marriage (even the legal ones), but then with the bios for George Albert Smith through Howard W. Hunter (all monogamists) all marriages are listed (even second and third ones after a previous legal wife dies) and the number of children from each marriage. Hmm, the polygamist presidents get no mention of marriage, and the monogamists get every one mentioned -- and then we have Joseph (a polygamist), whose legal marriage is mentioned (along with number of children from that marriage) just like the monogamist presidents do. Face it, Dan, it's portraying Joseph to be a monogamist.

(7)  Read through the recent James Allen/David Whittaker bibliography of publications on Mormon history, and then try to tell me with a straight face that the Latter-day Saint community has not been richly blessed with an unusually prolific, active, and professional group of historians (the large majority of them active believers in good standing) for the better part of the last century and that Latter-day Saints with an interest in Church history could not have read a vast corpus of publications on the subject.  If I were to confess to the bishop that I'm a dues-paying (and occasionally participating) member of both the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Historical Association, do you imagine that he would deny me a temple recommend?

I don't disagree. But I'm not talking about historians, I'm talking about materials the Church publishes and uses in its general classes. And there can be no doubt that the topic of polygamy has been downplayed in a misleading way.

First, they were under (hysterical and unjust) attack for its existence.  (You demonstrate that such attacks continue.)  Justifying it on the basis of scripture was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.

Are you admitting that the committee was not created based on D&C 123:4-5, as claimed in the press after its public disclosure? I figured this was just an ad hoc excuse, but I never thought a member of the committee would admit it.

Suffice it to say that I was once sent out, a number of years ago, as a kind of "agent" of the Strengthening Church Members Committee.  My mission?  To try to help a member of the Church whose apostasy was threatening his marriage and causing anguish to his very active wife, children, and parents.  (The wife and parents, and his stake president, has asked for help.)  The weapons of choice?  Talking with him for about four hours in Salt Lake City, in the presence of his wife and stake president, and recommending some readings.

It's nice to know you were not relegated to "newspaper snipping" duty. Btw, why would the committee get involved in this? Shouldn't it have been an ecclesiastical leader (like one of the Brethren)? Or shouldn't this brother have approached you first instead of being approached by an "agent" of a committee of "newspaper snippers"? It just seems odd.

Toward the end of the encounter, though, there was one painfully ironic element:  This all happened at at the very time that the Strenghtening Church Members Committee had made the news, where it was being portrayed as something like the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials.  The secretary had asked me not to mention the fact that it was his committee that had asked me to try to help.  So, when the man launched into an attack on the villainous Strengthening Church Members Committee, whose only goal was to injure, persecute, and hurt questioning members of the Church, and lauded my attempt to help as a striking contrast to those evil men at Church headquarters, it was very difficult not to break my promise to the secretary.

I guess I am not the only one who finds it odd that an "agent" of such a committee was sent to talk sense into the guy. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this committee should have any knowledge (or if it did, to act on it) of the man's marital issues and testimony, such that they sent an "agent" to speak with him.

If you can point out an actual injustice perpetrated by the Committee, or indicate a case of actual spying, that will interest me.  Until then, your mere sense that a clipping service is somehow "Orwellian" tells me nothing of interest.

Depends on what you call "spying" or "clipping service." But looking for writings that may be perceived as negative toward the Church, compiling them, giving them to one of the Brethren, and unilaterally sending that info to the person's local leader (with instructions on what to do or not) seems wrong, imo. Famous example is the September Six in 1993, with an emphasis on Mike Quinn's case and BKP's involvement (see Sunstune June 1994, pp. 67-73).

Color me insensitive, too.

Ok.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Two different things--unless you are implying that Murphy's work with Living Hope Ministries counts as a scholarly work? Was that your intent?

Sorry, I thought you were speaking to his very public writings on Lamanites/DNA that led to his disciplinary council being scheduled (and later canceled). I know very little about his other work with the Ministry.

[Pahoran]

As I understand your position, that role consists of the fact that, when a federal army was on its way to put down the mythical "Mormon rebellion" in Utah, Mormon leaders didn't roll over and play dead but decided that they had had enough (in New York and Ohio and Missouri and Illinois and even, with the recent murder of Parley Pratt, in Arkansas, to say nothing of the petty oppressions and open hostility of previously appointed federal officials in Utah).

It's one thing to fight back against an approaching (perceived) hostile army; quite another to engage an emigrant train close to leaving Utah, and then to lure these unarmed defenseless men, women and children civilians into an ambush in order to methodically slaughter them.

Y'know Rollo, for once you are absolutely right. They are two quite different things.

And Brigham was entirely focused upon the "one thing" while the other was a local operation undertaken entirely at the initiative of the perpetrators.

I appreciate your apology, and while I recognize that FARMS seems to speak for the Church on many things these days (the ol' 'driving the bus' metaphor), I'd still like the apology for Mountain Meadows to come from a member of the Brethren.

Of course you would.

And, after all this time, I've finally figured out why. Slow on the uptake, aren't I?

Here is how it would work, according to your wishful thinking:

Rollo, December 2005: "I believe that the Church should apologise for its role in causing the Mountain Meadow Massacre."

Pres. Monson, April Conference, 2006: "On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apologise to the descendants of the Fancher Party and the people of the United States for the Church's role in causing the Mountain Meadow Massacre."

October, 2006: the long-anticipated book by Turley et. al. comes out, demonstrating that neither Brigham Young, George A. Smith nor the institutional Church did anything that contributed to the causes of the MMM.

Rollo, November 2006: "So who do you TBM's take more notice of, Turley or the Brethren? The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve apologised. That means that they admitted the Church was at fault."

That's why you want an apology, Rollo. Not because it would soothe the hurt feelings of the descendants, but so that you can gloat about it forever after. Far from satisfying you, it would simply provide you with ammunition.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Rollo,

if I were Dan, I think I would find your intentional misrepresentations of his post more than a little bit irritating.

You wrote:

First, they were under (hysterical and unjust) attack for its existence.  (You demonstrate that such attacks continue.)  Justifying it on the basis of scripture was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.

Are you admitting that the committee was not created based on D&C 123:4-5, as claimed in the press after its public disclosure? I figured this was just an ad hoc excuse, but I never thought a member of the committee would admit it.

You know perfectly well that you misrepresent Dan when you call him "a member of the committee."

And of course he's not "admitting" any such thing. Since the work of the committee conforms in detail to the scripture in question, and since the scripture certainly came first, your hard-line uber-anti-Mormon spin is a false accusation. The attacks were made; the scripture was cited to justify the existence of the committee, which was appropriate since the scripture is the basis for the committee's existence.

Now: the SCMC is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the MMM. If you have anything to contribute on that topic--other than merely iterating and reiterating your accusations--please do so.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

... while the other was a local operation undertaken entirely at the initiative of the perpetrators.

Wrong. The Sept. 1 meeting between BY and the southern Utah Indian chiefs took place in Brigham's office in Salt Lake City.

That's why you want an apology, Rollo.  Not because it would soothe the hurt feelings of the descendants, but so that you can gloat about it forever after.

Wrong again.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps, but the manual included an "Historical Summary" of Brigham's life (p. vii), and the first chapter is entitled "The Ministry of Brigham Young," and gives 13 pages of major events and accomplishments of his life.  In other words, history, my friend. 

Not much. And in a manual that wasn't designed as a text for a course on history but for the practical use of current members of the modern Church, for whom plural marriage, while of historical interest, is of no direct practical concern.

You're really, really, really, really straining to find something to be upset about.

I myself would, had I written the manual, have included passing mention of plural marriage. But I don't think its omission very significant.

Thanks for bringing this up; I do happen to have my copy handy, and it's another perfect example of the whitewash I'm talking about.  Where is the polygamy "connection" mentioned in the book?

What difference does it make? This is really trivial stuff. It must take considerable effort to wake up in the morning and psyche yourself into indignation over something as unimportant as the page number on which reference to plural marriage is first made.

Silly me.

No comment.

Well, at least the booklet must admit that Joseph himself practiced polygamy, right?  Hmm, this sounds peculiar:

It could have been somewhat clearer, but it doesn't strike me as justifying much moral outrage, if any. Since, as I've demonstrated, a relatively recent prior Gospel Doctrine manual was much clearer, and the current Institute manual is much clearer, you don't seem to have much evidence for your contention that the Church is trying to suppress the fact that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriage.

(4)

[SlackTime]

I take it that this topic has run it's course. Statements are made entirely without foundation, I see mostly flame attacks and counter attacks. I give this thread 10 minutes for someone to write a post that demonstrates purpose to keeping this thread open. Rollo, you particularly seem to like unsubstantiated innuendo. Fix this thread or I close it, with prejudice.

-SlackTime