Chapel Mormons

[Calm]

Federation for American Immigration Reform. . . FAIR.

The article vindicator linked to. . . . that had to be noticed to understand the joke. I assumed you had noticed.

I had not, just looked at the substance of the article.

[Redefined]

IF you are impling guilt by association. Meaning since the people who did it were members of the church then yes the church is guilty, but last time I checked that was a logical fallacy.

The cannot be reasonably blamed for the MMM.

Only if you disregard all the contrary material to the church's position of the event, as nonsense.

[Scott Lloyd]

You don't think it's overstating the case to say the Church had nothing to do with it?

I'll put it this way: I don't embrace the concept of institutional guilt, whereby an organization is accountable for the behavior of rogue members acting wholly contrary to the expressed principles and directives of said organization. I think I've expressed this position before on this board.

[Jeff K.]

Only if you disregard all the contrary material to the church's position of the event, as nonsense.

Not that much evidence and most of it is nonsense.

As a German Jew I am sure I can be condemned 7 ways to Sunday in just about any era. I was never big on institutional guilt myself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Only if you disregard all the contrary material to the church's position of the event, as nonsense.

Oh, please I have asked several critics for the relvant material taht unequivocally links BY to the MMM. So far I have never seen taht "evidence". The evidence plays out that the local leaders at Moutain Medows acted on their own.

[Scott Lloyd]

Only if you disregard all the contrary material to the church's position of the event, as nonsense.

Unsubstantiated, conjectural, and, yes, for the most part, nonsense.

[cinepro]

You're both correct (I think), depending on what definition of 'the church' you're using.

How about if we use Brother Turley's definition?

...................

The plan to attack the emigrant company originated with local Church leaders in Cedar City, who had recently been alerted that U.S. troops might enter at any time through southern Utah

[Redefined]

Well Exactly, only if you disregard it as nonsense. . . which you all do!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not that much evidence and most of it is nonsense.

As a German Jew I am sure I can be condemned 7 ways to Sunday in just about any era. I was never big on institutional guilt myself.

I would venture to say that most if the interpretaions of the evidence is nonsense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well Exactly, only if you disregard it as nonsense. . . which you all do!

I sense a challenge comming on. Are you ready to back this up?I am game if you are.

[cinepro]

I'll put it this way: I don't embrace the concept of institutional guilt, whereby an organization is accountable for the behavior of rogue members acting wholly contrary to the expressed principles and directives of said organization. I think I've expressed this position before on this board.

Is it your understanding that if the men of Cedar City hadn't been LDS, the MMM would still have happened as it did?

I haven't read Turley's book yet, so perhaps this is discussed there, but did the men of Cedar City at the time feel that they were acting in accordance with their understanding of LDS principles and directives?

[Redefined]

I sense a challenge comming on. Are you ready to back this up?I am game if you are.

What exactly is it you are asking me to back up? I'm not offering any sort of challenge that you seem to be percieving.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it your understanding that if the men of Cedar City hadn't been LDS, the MMM would still have happened as it did?

I haven't read Turley's book yet, so perhaps this is discussed there, but did the men of Cedar City at the time feel that they were acting in accordance with their understanding of LDS principles and directives?

Part of the genius of the book is that it cites the scholarly literature relative to group violence and shows how the episode at Mountain Meadows was remarkably consistent with a pattern displayed again and again. All of the typical components were there: demonizing of opponents, a local concentration of authority, a lack of clear orders from headquarters, extreme poverty, a history of having been victimized, flashpoint provocation. What emerges is the conclusion that the mass murder had little or nothing to do with Mormon doctrine and culture and very much to do with a tragic confluence of these elements.

So while the men might have rationalized that they were acting in accordance with LDS principles, they were tragically wrong, having been influenced by this pattern of group violence. LDS theology, as it turns out, was not an essential element in the mix.

[notHagoth7]

You don't think it's overstating the case to say the Church had nothing to do with it?

If by "Church" you mean the culture or some of the teachings (which allowed considerable latitude, distrust, or misunderstanding), I'd say yes, it certainly had something to do with it. And, by extension of culture, if you mean the ecclesiastical structure, I could readily acknowledge the danger of people in the vicinity of the disaster giving undue blind obedience to a local church leader also played an unfortunate large role.

But if by "Church" you mean to implicate the broader organization (leaders or other members), I would have to disagree.

[Redefined]

Part of the genius of the book is that it cites the scholarly literature relative to group violence and shows how the episode at Mountain Meadows was remarkably consistent with a pattern displayed again and again. All of the typical components were there: demonizing of opponents, a local concentration of authority, a lack of clear orders from headquarters, extreme poverty, a history of having been victimized, flashpoint provocation. What emerges is the conclusion that the mass murder had little or nothing to do with Mormon doctrine and culture and very much to do with a tragic confluence of these elements.

So while the men might have rationalized that they were acting in accordance with LDS principles, they were tragically wrong, having been influenced by this pattern of group violence. LDS theology, as it turns out, was not an essential element in the mix.

Maybe that is an argument for the church to focus on "informing" its members. Otherwise you get the "crazies" that were simply "misinformed".

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe that is an argument for the church to focus on "informing" its members. Otherwise you get the "crazies" that were simply "misinformed".

I don't know what you expect. The book by Turley and colleagues was written with the full cooperation and assistance of the Church. They were allowed free reign to go wherever the research took them. Turley himself was employed by the Church and has since been given the title of Assistant Church Historian. Prior to the book's publication, he published an article in the Ensign, the Church's official magazine for adult members.

You can lead a crazy to text, but you can't make him read.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What exactly is it you are asking me to back up? I'm not offering any sort of challenge that you seem to be percieving.

You stated that we all seemed to think the "evidence" was nonsense to us. I challange you to back that claim up. If you don't want to or I mis-understood you that is fine.

[cinepro]

I don't know what you expect. The book by Turley and colleagues was written with the full cooperation and assistance of the Church. They were allowed free reign to go wherever the research took them. Turley himself was employed by the Church and has since been given the title of Assistant Church Historian. Prior to the book's publication, he published an article in the Ensign, the Church's official magazine for adult members.

You can lead a crazy to text, but you can't make him read.

Keep in mind that the MMM was 1857, and the book and article appeared in 2007.

So, granting that the Church is now being "open" about the MMM, I will suggest it serves as a good model for ways in which the Church can deal with other areas of its history.

Although it would have been especially interesting to see a lesson in this year's Sunday School curriculum that incorporated the MMM, and discussed the factors that can lead to such a tragedy (if there are any gospel corollaries that could be extracted).

[Redefined]

You stated that we all seemed to think the "evidence" was nonsense to us. I challange you to back that claim up. If you don't want to or I mis-understood you that is fine.

Ok. First of all my word was not "evidence" my word was "material". The church has their ideas about Brigham Young's involvement, just as the critics do. One example here. . . "Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."^[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.^{[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_and_prosecutions_relating_to_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre.}

[Bsix]

Funny how everyone seems to have a different take on what internet and chapel Mormonism is supposed to be. I know of nobody who holds to the original Dr. Shade's concept.

It would seem that nowadays, so-called Internet Mormons and so-called Chapel Mormons pretty much believe the same LDS basic doctrines...but differ only to the degree of knowledge regarding the controversies.

Regards,

Six

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok. First of all my word was not "evidence" my word was "material". The church has their ideas about Brigham Young's involvement, just as the critics do. One example here. . . "Brooks believes it shows Young "did not order the massacre, and would have prevented it if he could."^[10] Bagley argues that the letter covertly gave other instructions.^{[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_and_prosecutions_relating_to_the_Mountain_Meadows_massacre.}

Which is why I stated

I would venture to say that most if the interpretaions of the evidence is nonsense.

I also asked were teh evidence or "material" as you called it, that unequivocally puts the MMM in to BY hands.

[cinepro]

Funny how everyone seems to have a different take on what internet and chapel Mormonism is supposed to be. I know of nobody who holds to the original Dr. Shade's concept.

It would seem that nowadays, so-called Internet Mormons and so-called Chapel Mormons pretty much believe the same LDS basic doctrines...but differ only to the degree of knowledge regarding the controversies.

Regards,

Six

Interesting. I wasn't aware that the theory ever suggested disagreement over basic doctrines.

It's only value to me is to help me understand (and remember) why some LDS seem to be so committed to some consistently contradictory beliefs, and adjust my expectations accordingly.

[Redefined]

Which is why I stated

I also asked were teh evidence or "material" as you called it, that unequivocally puts the MMM in to BY hands.

In the least, critics have as much reason to believe that Brigham Young was involved, as the church has reason to believe that Brigham Young wasn't involved.

[Jeff K.]

It is always interesting how anti Mormons and ex Mormons with an ax to grind want "their" version of events and information displayed. It is "their" justification that must hold sway over any other. Otherwise everyone else is "misinformed".

It must be tough, playing the martyr and not really having a cause....

[Dr.JD]

Here's it in a nut shell. Chapel Mormons don't choose to waste their time like us internet Mormons. Both me and my wife have prayed about the gospel and know it to be true. She has spent her time studying the scriptures and I have spent my time in internet sites. Are conviction as to the truthfulness of the gospel is the same, but you can bet that she has had more time with the spirit then me.