Mountain Meadow Massacre

[journeyman]

Instead of just taking a stance from the church is true or not true and therefore the MMM must have been not been sanctioned by top mormon authorities, just consider all items of possible evidence...

I do not believe in the Mormon church but I am willing to consider either side of the story -- I do not need this incident to tell me if the church is true or not.

When I read John D. Lee's confession and such, I do consider that this man could have been throwing his own biased into the picture to get back at the church for whatever reason, but I also consider that there could be alot of truth in his recollections of the events. Well the same ideas apply to the Mormon leaders as well.

Here are just a few factors to consider on the matter:

1) Mormon leaders have lied about facts before MMM to protect the church and their practices.

2) Brigham Young and other leaders taught at great lengths about "blood atonement" and for what reasons it should be carried out.

3) Brigham Young and other leaders taught that the United States and the Gentiles where enemies and would eventually become Mormon or be destroyed.

3) During the Mormon Reformation, Brigham Young was very tight in his leadership and made sure his leaders kept him up to speed on everything that they were up to. If this murderous act was not sanctioned by BY then these men would fall under the "blood atonement" constraints and punishments and should have been killed on the spot... this was not just adultery or going outside the bounds of leadership but mass-murder, which included the shedding of innocent blood.

4) Brigham Young had a full account MMM not long after it occurred but he did nothing -- it was the United States that had to take action when William Stokes first arrested John D. Lee.

5) John D. Lee was completely faithful to the church, was Brigham Young's adopted son and was very close to him throughout his life until the winding up of it.

6) John D. Lee was about to face his God and knew what he had to face very soon and lies would not help him get out of the situation.

7) John D. Lee could have become an apostate for some unknown reason and simply hated the church and wanted to kill the Gentiles for the spoils as he was a wicked and adulterous man -- although nothing seems to imply this as he was serving Mormons up until he was arrested but it could be a possibility.

Perhaps no Mormons were telling the truth, including John D. Lee since they all hated the U.S. Government.

9) Many men fired their weapons and bloodied their knives on that day, not just John D. Lee but only the U.S. Government seemed to care.

Brigham Young could have been a wicked and adulterous man???

9) ???

As I look at what has been available to me, which still isn't enough to make a solid conclusion, I tend to believe that the leaders of the church did help contribute to what happened on that horrible day. I hope that these people are not forgotten as many others as well. And hope the truth will come to light some day.

We hear plenty of the horrible day of Haun's Mill Massacre. In fact I had ancestors die there but what about the Fancher party in MM? The church needs to acknowledge completely and tell the facts, as far as they know them, instead of pushing it aside as they have. These people deserve at least that much.

[journeyman]

I must say that I was somewhat shocked the other day when my brother was able to tell me all about Haun's Mill Massacre but had never heard of MMM.

Just something to think about.

[USU78]

I do not believe in the Mormon church but I am willing to consider either side of the story -- I do not need this incident to tell me if the church is true or not.

When I read John D. Lee's confession and such, I do consider that this man could have been throwing his own biased into the picture to get back at the church for whatever reason, but I also consider that there could be alot of truth in his recollections of the events. Well the same ideas apply to the Mormon leaders as well.

A good approach. My congrats on keeping an open mind.

Mormon leaders have lied about facts before MMM to protect the church and their practices.

Who? When? Where? Moreover, is being private and not public about the then (Nauvoo-era) infant practice of polygyny and cagey in public the same as lying? That word gets a lot of abuse these days. Careful how you apply it.

Brigham Young and other leaders taught at great lengths about "blood atonement" and for what reasons it should be carried out.

This is a slander as pernicious as that which accuses Jews of mixing Christian babies' blood and the Host in making matzoh for Passover. Moreover, even if true, it is said by BY to apply to the Baptized Saints, and to no one else. Thus it has no application to the actions of the Iron County folks.

Brigham Young and other leaders taught that the United States and the Gentiles where enemies and would eventually become Mormon or be destroyed.

Typical wartime propaganda. BY talked tough, but was actually a man of peace who eschewed violence. When presented a plan to wipe out the Illinois mobsters and their Missourian allies, he nixed it. Consider this also by Lincoln: "Do I not destroy my enemies by making them friends of mine." This is in the same vein, in my view.

During the Mormon Reformation, Brigham Young was very tight in his leadership and made sure his leaders kept him up to speed on everything that they were up to.  If this murderous act was not sanctioned by BY then these men would fall under the "blood atonement" constraints and punishments and should have been killed on the spot... this was not just adultery or going outside the bounds of leadership but mass-murder, which included the shedding of innocent blood.

I'm not sure what you point here is. Are you saying that BY should have had Church Courts, excommunicated and imposed capital punishment on the participants in MMM? If so, you have a unique approach to these matters.

Brigham Young had a full account MMM not long after it occurred but he did nothing -- it was the United States that had to take action when William Stokes first arrested John D. Lee.

BY was removed as governor as part of the settlement of the Utah War/Buchanan's Blunder. Just what civil authority did he possess at that time? And, hell yes the US did the arresting. Utah was a territory (or about to become such) and the US was the civil authority in charge of arresting people.

John D. Lee was completely faithful to the church, was Brigham Young's adopted son and was very close to him throughout his life until the winding up of it.

That is not quite correct. They became estranged over this matter and JDL became quite embittered. BY did nothing but cooperate with US authorities in the investigation and later trials.

John D. Lee was about to face his God and knew what he had to face very soon and lies would not help him get out of the situation.

So this makes the posthumous publication of an alleged autobiography more reliable? People writing a selfapologetic can't fudge?

John D. Lee could have become an apostate for some unknown reason and simply hated the church and wanted to kill the Gentiles for the spoils as he was a wicked and adulterous man -- although nothing seems to imply this as he was serving Mormons up until he was arrested but it could be a possibility.

I think this is a burlesque of the probable truth.

Perhaps no Mormons were telling the truth, including John D. Lee since they all hated the U.S. Government.

Mormons had no love for the US, that is true. But they petitioned for admission as an antebellum state, and sent their young men to fight in the Mexican War. Let's not oversimplify.

Many men fired their weapons and bloodied their knives on that day, not just John D. Lee but only the U.S. Government seemed to care.

And Calley took the fall for My Lai. No doubt more prosecutions could have happened, but the civil authorities seem to have been satisfied with Lee's blood alone. Would our critics today were so magnamamous.

Brigham Young could have been a wicked and adulterous man???

Scant evidence of that.

The church needs to acknowledge completely and tell the facts, as far as they know them, instead of pushing it aside as they have.

Evidence, please, that the LDS Church has covered up anything related to MMM.

[Pahoran]

Interesting topic, my personal take on it is:

1.  Normal people don't just up and slaughter ~120 people men, women and children, for no good reason.

That's almost true. I don't believe the Iron County Militia had a good reason, but they certainly had reasons, plural, for what they did.

It stands to reason that Brigham Young was fanning the flames of the faithful into a religious radical frenzy.

Well no, that doesn't "stand to reason" at all. It's merely an assumption.

Or at least there was a real frenzy being passed around.

They had a lot of reasons to be afraid. That could be classed as a "frenzy" I suppose.

2.  LDS typically do excuse the MMM,

I am trying very hard to restrain myself here. That is a highly inflammatory accusation.

I've heard several excuses on these boards:

    A.  It was the humane thing to do, after the men were killed it would've been inhumane to let the women and children live because they would've starved fending for themselves.

Two points:

1) That particular statement does not, by any reading, "excuse the MMM." The most you can honestly say is that it might somehow be taken to excuse completing the MMM once it had already started.

2) I am not convinced that the statement was ever intended to be taken seriously as an expression of the poster's views on the morality or otherwise of murder. I think it was intended with tongue in cheek, but that the original poster was suckered into attempting to defend his words instead of his actual intentions. Diggerdan60 can speak for himself, of course, but if I am wrong about my interpretation, then I will say this: as far as being an "LDS excuse" goes, it is at least original, it is not in any way a representative LDS view of the massacre, and no honest critic of the Church, if such could be found the wide world over, would ever stoop so low as to pretend that it did.

Just in case you missed it, I'll spell it out more clearly: it is not the position of the Church, nor of any Latter-day Saint I've ever met, whether on these boards or elsewhere, that the murder of women and children is acceptable or excusable on any theory, whether of euthanasia or otherwise. This is not a "Mormon excuse." Please refrain from pretending that it is.

    B.  The people in the party that were killed were members of the mob that killed Joseph Smith (of course there is zero evidence for this),

Indeed. In fact, there is zero evidence that any Latter-day Saint ever said it. Can you document this claim?

yet some people use this is an excuse,

Who does? When? Where?

but any insinuation that the Mormon Church is responsible is brushed off.

Which is the proper way to handle any such "insinuation." If anyone has any actual evidence, then let them bring it forward for examination, and not try to make their case by mere "insinuation."

    C.  The Mormons were living under an extermination order, (not true at the time)

And, AFAICT, not true that any Latter-day Saint has ever used it as an "excuse." Are you prepared to document your claim, or withdraw it?

    D.  It is wrong to judge them we don't know what they were going through, (however judging their actions is completely appropriate, random massacre is something people have a right to judge and speak agaisnt)

I think you will find that the context of that was not "it is wrong to judge whether what they did was right or wrong;" the MMM was wrong, and I defy you to produce a single Latter-day Saint who says otherwise. Rather, it was probably something more like, "it is wrong of us, enjoying a level of safety and comfort beyond their dreams, to imagine ourselves superior to them on no other basis than that we've never found ourselves in a position where we would need to make a decision like that." That's all.

3.  The MMM has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Church, people have to be judged seperately rather than an entire institution.

Thank you. I agree.

Now tell that to your fellow critics.

4.  I believe Brigham Young was responsible for creating the climate where this could happen, but didn't order it.  I don't think Brigham Young was an evil murderous despot.

Thank you, that is the watered-down accusation most popular these days. It happens that the weather system dominating the "climate" in Utah at the time was Hurricane Johnston. Here is an absolutely bankable fact for you, Pantsman: without Johnston's army, the MMM would never have happened. Between 1847 and the opening of the railroad, hundreds of wagon trains crossed through Utah territory on their way to the coast. Most of them found the transit of Utah to be the safest part of the journey. Only one of them was massacred; is it a complete and unrelated coincidence that it just happened to be the one that most closely preceded Johnston's army?

5.  After the fact the Church didn't behave in a way that was appropriate including detruction of a memorial to the slain at Mountain Meadows, which to me seems cold hearted at the least.

The evidence regarding this event is conflicting and inconclusive, to say the least. Only one person reports the destruction of the cairn; others reported seeing it still standing years later.

(I know it said "vengeance is mine so saith the Lord", but if the Mormon Church bore no responsibility why would that matter?).

It could well be seen as a threat, not only to the guilty, but also to anyone reasonably or unreasonably under suspicion. Note that the prevailing view throughout the U.S. at the time was simply "the Mormons are responsible," just as in Europe it was "the Jews are responsible" for whatever might go wrong.

This is not my imagination. Years later when one of the U.S. presidents was assassinated, "the Mormons" were widely blamed.

I also do not think there was much effort in bringing the guilty in, there must've been 50-100 men participating.  All from the area yet it was covered up.

There were about eighty men participating; yes, they were all from the area; and no, they weren't in a hurry to turn themselves in. Note that the massacre was not carried out in the middle of the town square; the only witnesses were participants, and a few very young children.

I think Krakauer (spelling?) has a point, that religon for people typically turns into a "cause" for people.

Somehow, I suspect that if he starts on the Catholics, you'll suddenly decide he doesn't have a point after all.

For people who focus on their religion as their identity and culture rather than their spirituality this can spell disaster.  Look at Islam today, the Koran says there is no compulsion in religion, yet we don't see that from the radical Muslims murdering in cold blood for the sake of Islam.  There's a difference between being a martyr for the faith, and being a killer for the faith, that some people have a hard time seperating.

Pantsman, either your thinking when it comes to religions other than your own is fearfully woolly and imprecise, or you are indulging in the famous "damnation by association" technique. The Qur'an is not one of our sacred books. We have no concept of warrior-as-martyr. There is neither a material connection between the Saints and the Muslims, nor any more meaningful resemblance than there is between the Muslims and the Catholics, but does that hold you back? Not for a minute!

But in the end you have to be able to seperate the actions of the people and the religion.

Thank you, I'm glad you agree. However reluctantly.

Now I'd like to remind you, Pantsman, that I am the thread starter. If you still think it beneath you to respond to me, then please don't lower yourself by posting further in this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[solomarineris]

Charity;

I knew one of John Lee's granddaughters. She sure thought he was a sacrificial lamb. She was a faithful member of the Church, although she was hurt at what she saw as unfair treatment of her grandfather.

Now this is the most ironic statement about Lee, but coming from one of her Granddaughters is not surprising.

Lee was the Eternal Coward, that fateful day he was literally an instrument in devil's hand. Knowing that the Fencher party would be slaughtered he agonizingly persuaded them to give up their guns. Once that happened Cedar City hooligans with Indans help descended upon innocent people and masaccred them.

So far there's no direct evidence B.Y. ordering or having anything to do with this. My problem with BY's attitude is that he never explicitly discouraged Cedar City Posse, he was strangely silent as if encouraging their bad behavior.

[USU78]

My problem with BY's attitude is that he never explicitly discouraged Cedar City Posse, he was strangely silent as if encouraging their bad behavior.

Excuse me? His letter, hand-delivered in response to a written request for instructions, was quite plain: "Don't molest them."

In what universe does this count as "strange silence?"

Besides that, he had other, much bigger fish to fry at that moment in time (an army crossing Nebraska and headed for SLC) . . . yet he still took time to answer the request for instructions.

USU "Guess he should have said the magic phrase, Shazaam!, and flown down to deliver the letter in person" 78

[Analytics]

Interesting topic, my personal take on it is:

1.

[USU78]

Of course without the Johnson Army attack there wouldn

[charity]

It is really hard to mind read when you are not in the cultural milieu of the time? If you had been chased from your homes on multiple occasions, if you knew people who had been martyred for their faith, if you knew the government was out to get you, you might think in ways we do not.

After all, we are safe in our homes, no prophet has been murdered in 162 years, and the only part of the government out to get us is the IRS. And the only place most of us see a real rabid anti-Mormon is on Temple Square and none of them are carrying guns.

[katherine the great]

If you had been chased from your homes on multiple occasions, if you knew people who had been martyred for their faith, if you knew the government was out to get you, you might think in ways we do not.

But the Fanchers had already passed through an entire state of people who fit your criteria. They made it to Salt Lake and then 300 miles further. No. There had to be something different about this particular group of people in Southern Utah. I still think the primary motive was robbery. Those people were dirt poor, but in the 1860 census, John D. Lee (a farmer) in Harmony is listed as having almost $50,000.00 in assets and cash. My relatives in nearby Washington list assets of two to six hundred for each family.

[katherine the great]

I don't think anybody would disagree with that, friend.

I do.

[Pahoran]

The potato farmers you are speaking of kept the Spanish and their Indian allies out of the Utah for 200 years.  Whether or not your assessment is correct, could the Mormons of 1857 have fought a war with the US Government and the Piaute, Goshute, and Ute Nations?  Whether or not the army was threatened by the Fanchers is moot.  The rumor was there.  The Paiutes attacked first because the Fanchers had sold poisoned flour to some northern members of the tribe, from their perspective.  The Saints in Iron County saw no way out after the potato farmers attacked.  Whether or not there was an Army coming from the West is not the issue.  The issue is, did the Saints think it a possiblity?  I am not trying to excuse the actions of the Iron County Militia.  I think it was hienous.  What I am trying to do is demonstate what BY did to foster this situation.  All he did was promote a siege mentality due to the sitiuation.  The Iron County Militia and the local Piautes did the rest.

Dr Fatguy

LOL that is complete fabrication, where are coming up with this? Call for references, this is straight up slander of the fancher party.

This would be a serious charge, were it not for the suspicion that this is not acceptable to you, because (and only because) the Fancher party weren't Mormons.

Isn't it the case that, if they were, slandering them would be fine with you?

There is zero evidence the Pauite attacked first,

Did you really mean to say that? There is 100% evidence that the Paiutes attacked first. All the authorities are agreed on this. Except for the lunatic fringe who insist that there were no Indians present, just white guys in war paint, the fact that the Paiutes attacked first is settled beyond controversy.

zero evidence the Fancher party espoused any violence towards the LDS,

Actually there is evidence of this. How reliable the evidence is is another question. If it is true--and on balance I'm inclined to think that it is--then it in no way justifies what happened, and no Latter-day Saint has claimed that it does.

zero evidence the Fancher party sold "poisonous flower to the Pauite",

Again, there is in fact evidence of this; in this case I'm inclined to regard it as unreliable.

History is always an exercise in sifting evidence. If there was literally "zero evidence" for an assertion, then it would probably not be made.

this is simply bad apologetics in its rawest form....

For some reason, I have an urge to talk about pots and kettles. Can't think why...

Now everyone, please remember the purpose of this thread. It isn't to discuss what happened and why, but to examine how anti-Mormons exploit the MMM for polemical purposes.

We've seen some examples already. Any others?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

Of course without the Johnson Army attack there wouldn

[Pahoran]

Of course without the Johnson Army attack there wouldn

[gramps]

I have stayed out of this thread because I don't need to be dinged again. I hope I won't get dinged for saying what I am going to say. But, I can live with a cleaner conscience by saying it. And that is more important to me than getting dinged by the mods. You can be assured of that.

However, I would like to interject one, just one, incontrovertible fact into this discussion. I will try to do it as delicately as possible. And then, you tell me, whether it makes any difference in your analysis. I can excuse those who have never been Mormons for not being aware of this point. But, for those of us who have been Mormons, or are still Mormons, there really is no excuse, in my mere estimation, for leaving it out of the analysis.

First, as a prelude to my point, I quote Dad of 7.

Dad of 7 wrote:

It was not the religious environment that created the massacre. It was political and economic. In fact had Lee and others followed the dictates of their religion the massacre would not have happened.

Their rank in the priesthood should have caused them to pause and think how their actions would reflect upon the church. Their actions were diametrically opposed to the very teachings of their religion.

Your accusations go to the very point of this thread. That critics are very eager to portray what is a tragic, evil and unsaintly act as the product of our religion as opposed to what it really was,

Now, to the point I want to make. There are sacred Church buildings throughout the world, in to which only worthy members of the Church may enter. Don't we all know what went on in those buildings at the time this event occurred?

If you don't know, I'm sorry. If you do, then you have to change the analysis given above by Dad of 7.

Am I wrong?

[charity]

yes, gramps you are wrong. I first went to the temple in 1961. You are making an assertion of a falsehood that cannot be discussed on this board, no matter how careful we are. Those who do not know for themselves, can take it from me that there is no correlation at all between anything in the temple and what happened at Mountain Meadows.

[awyatt]

Now, to the point I want to make. There are sacred Church buildings throughout the world, in to which only worthy members of the Church may enter. Don't we all know what went on in those buildings at the time this event occurred?

If you don't know, I'm sorry. If you do, then you have to change the analysis given above by Dad of 7.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. The MMM was in 1857. The first temple in the Utah Territory was dedicated twenty years later, in 1877.

Of course, I guess you could say that they learned it in the Nauvoo temple during the five months or so it was semi-operational before they were forced out in 1846.

What, exactly, were these Mormons in Southern Utah supposed to be doing that they learned in the temple, when the same thing would not have already been done by Mormons in Northern Utah who supposedly had learned the same thing?

-Allen

[gramps]

awyatt wrote:

Yes, you are wrong. The MMM was in 1857. The first temple in the Utah Territory was dedicated twenty years later, in 1877.

Of course, I guess you could say that they learned it in the Nauvoo temple during the five months or so it was semi-operational before they were forced out in 1846.

Are you telling me they didn't do temple work in SLC, or other places, for that matter before temples were actually built in Utah?

[SlackTime]

awyatt wrote:

Yes, you are wrong. The MMM was in 1857. The first temple in the Utah Territory was dedicated twenty years later, in 1877.

Of course, I guess you could say that they learned it in the Nauvoo temple during the five months or so it was semi-operational before they were forced out in 1846.

Are you telling me they didn't do temple work in SLC, or other places, for that matter before temples were actually built in Utah?

Gramps;

To both answer your question and then to understand why it appllies I ask a question.

Answer: Yes temporary places existed for limited temple work in and around Salt Lake prior to the Temple in Salt Lake being completed. The most obvious was the Endowment House. The following is a quote from

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples...ent_houses.html

The Latter-day Saints occasionally used a mountaintop as their temporary temple, and President Brigham Young dedicated Ensign Peak, a hill just north of Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "natural temple." Though Brigham Young designated a temple site in Salt Lake Valley on July 28, 1847, just four days after his arrival, the temple took forty years to build. In the meantime, the upper floor of the Council House, Salt Lake City's first public building, served 2,222 members of the Church as their Endowment house between February 21, 1851, and May 5, 1855.

A more permanent Endowment house, designed by Truman O. Angell, Church architect, was soon built on the northwest corner of Temple Square. Brigham Young named it "The House of the Lord." It was dedicated on May 5, 1855, by Heber C. Kimball. The main structure was a two-story building 34 feet by 44 feet, with small one-story extensions on both ends. The first floor had a room for washing and anointing, and also "garden," "world," and "terrestrial" rooms. The upper floor was the "celestial room," with an adjacent sealing room.

...

As the Salt Lake Temple neared completion, the Endowment house was torn down in November 1889. The Salt Lake Temple was dedicated April 6, 1893. A long-anticipated holy place for temple ordinances was then permanently established in Salt Lake City.

I do a quick summary and we have

Ensign Peak .......... July 1847- February 1851

Council House ....... February 1851 - May 1855

Endowment House . May 1855 - November 1889

Now all of these were in Salt Lake, I have never heard of any temple work being done on mountains, or temporary endowment houses in southern Utah. As far as I know the saints had to go to Salt Lake until the St. George Temple was completed in April 1877. If anyone has better information feel free to enlighten me. So where, Gramps, did they do all this plotting that you ascribe to these super-secret meetings in temples?

-SlackTime

[gramps]

Think about that last question awyatt.

They aren't going to massacre a wagon train full of men, women, and children in the middle of SLC, are they? If there was a cover-up, which is still being debated, I know, where would it be easier to do the covering up?

In SLC or some little meadow in the middle of nowhere?

[SlackTime]

Think about that last question awyatt.

They aren't going to massacre a wagon train full of men, women, and children in the middle of SLC, are they? If there was a cover-up, which is still being debated, I know, where would it be easier to do the covering up?

In SLC or some little meadow in the middle of nowhere?

Since they didn't do it in Salt Lake, there was no place for them to do it. It was a stupid angry mob action, mobs don't think and plan, they react in anger to provocations and rhetoric in a heated stressed atmosphere. The atmosphere of fear and anger has been demonstrated, likely provocations were chronicled, The rhetoric likely came from John D. Lee and other local leaders. It was stupid and shouldn't have happened. Everybody agrees to that, including Brigham Young. Nobody defends it, but you want to turn it into a conspiracy. And you have demonstrated no proof of such a thing.

-SlackTime

[USU78]

awyatt wrote:

Yes, you are wrong. The MMM was in 1857. The first temple in the Utah Territory was dedicated twenty years later, in 1877.

Of course, I guess you could say that they learned it in the Nauvoo temple during the five months or so it was semi-operational before they were forced out in 1846.

Are you telling me they didn't do temple work in SLC, or other places, for that matter before temples were actually built in Utah?

Throw down, mister, or withdraw your accusation against my Great- and Great-Great Grandparents.

That is slander, pure and simple.

[gramps]

Hi SlackTime. Thank you for that research. I think it will help awyatt. I already knew the information, but, again, thanks for posting it. I think it will be helpful for the discussion.

You wrote:

So where, Gramps, did they do all this plotting that you ascribe to these super-secret meetings in temples?

I'm not talking about plotting or super-secret meetings in temples. Those are your words. I will not own them for the purposes of this discussion.

I'll say it again: those are your words, not mine. I know nothing about any plotting or super-secret meetings.

And, furthermore, I never said anything about plotting and super-secret meetings.

Do you clearly get that? I hope so!

I do still stand behind my post just prior to Charity's and awyatt's post.

[SlackTime]

Hi SlackTime. Thank you for that research. I think it will help awyatt. I already knew the information, but, again, thanks for posting it. I think it will be helpful for the discussion.

You wrote:

So where, Gramps, did they do all this plotting that you ascribe to these super-secret meetings in temples?

I'm not talking about plotting or super-secret meetings in temples. Those are your words. I will not own them for the purposes of this discussion.

I'll say it again: those are your words, not mine. I know nothing about any plotting or super-secret meetings.

And, furthermore, I never said anything about plotting and super-secret meetings.

Do you clearly get that? I hope so!

I do still stand behind my post just prior to Charity's and awyatt's post.

Then maybe you better make your position VERY clear, what connection are you trying to make between the MMM and temple work, because there is NO correlation. No veiled innuendo, no sidestepping, make your position clear.

-SlackTime

[gramps]

SlackTime.

You don't know what BY instituted in the work done in those sites you posted, do you? Do your own research. I won't do it for you.

But, I am not lying. That is for sure. In fact, I swear on my mother's grave that I am not lying about this.

In fact, I will e-mail you information you need, if you give me some way to reach you. But, I will not give out my e-mail address. Look already at the near threats from someone on this board.