Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Jaybear]

If being Mormon and a follower of Brigham Young were enough to transform one into a mass murderer, one could wonder why there weren't massacres all up and down the trail and, for that matter, throughout Utah territory. On the other hand, one could view this atrocity for what it very plainly is: an anomaly in Mormon history and a matter of group psychology arising from a unique and complex set of circumstances and events. But I suppose Jaybear and his ilk are not up to the intellectual energy such a nuanced understanding requires. Far less challenging to embrace a "September Dawn" paradigm.

Typical, a non-responsive post, containing a person insult.

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

[Scott Lloyd]

Typical, a non-responsive post, containing a person insult.

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

Has there ever been a more blatant example of the fallacy of guilt by association?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

[Anijen]

Typical, a non-responsive post, containing a person insult.

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

Yes they did believe that BY was a Prophet but that is not what led up to the massacre. I wish people would stop placing blame on BY or the church for this sad event.

[ttribe]

Typical, a non-responsive post, containing a person insult.

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

And yet the evidence persists that said "zealots" ignored that prophet's advice to let them alone. How very inconvenient for your argument.

[Jaybear]

Has there ever been a more blatant example of the fallacy of guilt by association?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association

...and I accused BY of being guilty of what crime? If this is such blatant example, surely you can answer that question, using my own words.

If not, then this is a blatant example of a straw man.

[Scott Lloyd]

...and I accused BY of being guilty of what crime? If this is such blatant example, surely you can answer that question, using my own words.

If not, then this is a blatant example of a straw man.

Here are your own words:

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

From the foregoing, your fallacy, stated or implied, can be summarized as follows:

The perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre were Mormons and followers of Brigham Young.

Therefore, Mormons and followers of Brigham Young are religious zealots and potential mass murderers.

It's not that difficult to grasp, really.

[Jaybear]

Here are your own words:

From the foregoing, your fallacy, stated or implied, can be summarized as follows:

The perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre were Mormons and followers of Brigham Young.

Therefore, Mormons and followers of Brigham Young are religious zealots and potential mass murderers.

It's not that difficult to grasp, really.

I see. Though I did not say it, your logical reasoning skills lead you to believe that what I said was "Mormons are religious zealots ... and potential mass murderers"

Thanks for sharing how your mind works. It certainly helps me understand why you have this propensity to insult me.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see. Though I did not say it, your logical reasoning skills lead you to believe that what I said was "Mormons are religious zealots ... and potential mass murderers"

Thanks for sharing how your mind works. It certainly helps me understand why you have this propensity to insult me.

Why do you keep hammering on the fact that the perpetrators believed Brigham Young was a prophet and using the term "religious zealots" if not to associate by implication Brigham Young and Mormonism in general with the massacre? Suggest a more reasonable conclusion, and I'll consider it.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

QUOTE

Really?? I have never heard this .. The only possible meeting is south of Harmony when Smith and Hamblin were camping across Corn Creek from the Fancher Train on their way back north to SLC.

Please enlighten us with a reference..

Still waiting for a reference .. "George A. Smith himself advised them to go the other way--around the northern shore of the Great Salt Lake"

My mistake--it was Charles C. Rich. Evidently he wasn't in on the "conspiracy."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Why do you keep hammering on the fact that the perpetrators believed Brigham Young was a prophet and using the term "religious zealots" if not to associate by implication Brigham Young and Mormonism in general with the massacre? Suggest a more reasonable conclusion, and I'll consider it.

I like the word "associate."

Yes, I would say BY and Mormonism are "associated" with the massacre. As you pointed out, it is a fallacy to say that everyone "associated" with a crime is "guilty" of a the crime.

Since I never said BY was "guilty", it is you that conflated "association" with "guilt."

[Scott Lloyd]

I like the word "associate."

Yes, I would say BY and Mormonism are "associated" with the massacre. As you pointed out, it is a fallacy to say that everyone "associated" with a crime is "guilty" of a the crime.

Since I never said BY was "guilty", it is you that conflated "association" with "guilt."

What are you trying to say by associating Brigham Young and Mormonism with the massacre?

[ttribe]

I like the word "associate."

Yes, I would say BY and Mormonism are "associated" with the massacre. As you pointed out, it is a fallacy to say that everyone "associated" with a crime is "guilty" of a the crime.

Since I never said BY was "guilty", it is you that conflated "association" with "guilt."

How else are we to interpret your following quote from a previous post than as an outright accusation that BY ordered the "mass murder of unarmed and innocent...":

If it is so vile, odious and unthinkable that Brigham Young would order the mass murder of unnarmed and innocent men, women and children, why then would religious zealots who considered Brigham Young to be a prophet of God proceed to murder unarmed and innocent men women and children?

Seems to me you are trying to wiggle out of your accusation now.

[Scott Lloyd]

How else are we to interpret your following quote from a previous post than as an outright accusation that BY ordered the "mass murder of unarmed and innocent...":

Seems to me you are trying to wiggle out of your accusation now.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jaybear

[Pahoran]

Typical, a non-responsive post, containing a person insult.

The unique and complex set of circumstances leading to the massacre, included the very important fact that the religious zealots that committed the barbaric crime believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet.

The fact that the main perpetrators of the MMM believed that Brigham Young was God's prophet is irrelevant and extraneous to their participation in the massacre. The fact that other Americans who did not so believe have committed similar or worse atrocities proves that such belief is not necessary to the commission of such an act; the fact that not even a hired historian can manufacture evidence tying Brigham to the massacre proves that anyone trying to do so is either making a false accusation, or if they are doing it by indirection, as you are, then they are trying to insinuate guilt by association, as Scott so rightly points out; and the fact that they asked for Brigham's advice, but did not wait for his answer rather conclusively demonstrates that they relied primarily upon their own judgement.

Your calling them "religious zealots" is one of the more blatant instances of jaybearing we have seen in this forum. As you are no doubt aware, quite apart from the fact that Brigham did not order the massacre, and that it is "disgustingly odious" to accuse him of so doing, there is simply no evidence that the actual motivations of the actual perpetrators were religious in nature.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jaybear

[Jaybear]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jaybear

Once again you feel the need to resort to a personal insult. Pathetic.

Tribe: Seems to me you are trying to wiggle out of your accusation now.

Let me state it clearly for the record. I have not now or ever accused BY of ordering the massacre. If I wanted to do so, you would not have to infer such an accusation from my statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's another:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...lling+a+Jaybear

[ttribe]

Once again you feel the need to resort to a personal insult. Pathetic.

Let me state it clearly for the record. I have not now or ever accused BY of ordering the massacre. If I wanted to do so, you would not have to infer such an accusation from my statement.

Well since you have allegedly been so wrongly accused (isn't that ironic), please explain what other inference there is.

[Jaybear]

Your calling them "religious zealots" is one of the more blatant instances of jaybearing we have seen in this forum ... there is simply no evidence that the actual motivations of the actual perpetrators were religious in nature.

That is laughable.

When the saints were given the order by to "do your duty" are we supposed to believe there was no religious implication. Who then were they serving when the committed the murder if not God and his Church?

If these vile, despicable cowards that lied to and then killed unarmed men women and children were not religious zealots, then what were they? Humble farmers, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Somehow I suspect that if these disgusting cowards were not momons, you wouldn't be sticking up for them.

[urroner]

That is laughable.

Who then were they serving when the committed the murder if not God and his Church?

How about themselves or their fears, but then again, they were Mormons and like Mormons today, they were totally incapable of doing one damn thing without receiving orders from HQ.

[ttribe]

How about themselves or their fears, but then again, they were Mormons and like Mormons today, they were totally incapable of doing one damn thing without receiving orders from HQ.

[ttribe]

When the saints were given the order by to "do your duty" are we supposed to believe there was no religious implication. Who then were they serving when the committed the murder if not God and his Church?

But wait! Didn't you just get through saying:

Let me state it clearly for the record. I have not now or ever accused BY of ordering the massacre. If I wanted to do so, you would not have to infer such an accusation from my statement.

????

Methinks you weren't sincere in one of these statements...I wonder which one....

Somehow I suspect that if these disgusting cowards were not momons, you wouldn't be sticking up for them.

Well, since the massacre wouldn't be used by people as "evidence" of the "fact" that we belong to a false church with a false prophet (BY), then we probably wouldn't have to do so much "sticking up for them".

[selek]

That is laughable.

When the saints were given the order by to "do your duty" are we supposed to believe there was no religious implication. Who then were they serving when the committed the murder if not God and his Church?

If these vile, despicable cowards that lied to and then killed unarmed men women and children were not religious zealots, then what were they? Humble farmers, who were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Somehow I suspect that if these disgusting cowards were not momons, you wouldn't be sticking up for them.

And I suspect that if these vile, disgusting cowards had instead killed Mormons, you would be sticking up for them.

[urroner]

Well, since the massacre wouldn't be used by people as "evidence" of the "fact" that we belong to a false church with a false prophet (BY), then we probably wouldn't have to do so much "sticking up for them".

Pssst ttribe, Mormon aren't suppose to defend themselves. They are suppose to be so simpleminded that if somebody throws any type of logic at them, even if it's totally incoherent, then they are suppose to throw up their hands, say how silly they have been, and surrender their brains, heart, and soul.

[ttribe]

Pssst ttribe, Mormon aren't suppose to defend themselves. They are suppose to be so simpleminded that if somebody throws any type of logic at them, even if it's totally incoherent, then they are suppose to throw up their hands, say how silly they have been, and surrender their brains, heart, and soul.

Sorry, my Mormon-implant-chip has been on the fritz again. Thanks for the reminder; I'll make sure to get this looked at this Sunday by my Bishop.