Moroni, the 'Guardian Angel of America'

[CQUIRK]

Did the 'futurity' of the United States of American require the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Native Americans and Native Latin Americans? They seemed more friendly than we were...

Really? Ever seen the movie Apocalypto? Its quite historically accurate in nature.

Were all Native Americans friendly and lived in peace with one another before the arrival of Columbus?

I don't think so!

Despite the Maya & Aztec civilizations being advanced in some degree in math and science, and especially art, they were far from civilized, especially to their enemies and even to children. The evidence is in their murals and artwork; they were quite big on human sacrifice, (the Mayans also practiced child sacrifice as well).

In fact, during the 14th Century to 1521, the Aztecs sacrificed from 300,000 to up to 1,500,000 people in their rituals. In the years before then- ditto about the numbers, but its quite high.

And also we shouldn't forget how even in the continental US, before and after the arrival of the white man, there were Native American tribes that still fought one another and tried killing all the members of the rival tribe as well.

During the westward expansion of the US, there were even some tribes and other Native Americans that assisted the government in suppressing and even killing other tribes that would not give up their land and bend to the will of the US Government. Dances With Wolves was one movie that displayed some of what I'm talking about.

So while the white man may have a lot of blood on his hands- at the same time, various tribes and indigenous empires on the American continent were just as barbaric, cruel, and oppressive as the white man was; they are equally as guilty of playing their part in mass murder & genocide.

Your statement above is simpleton and inaccurate.

-And that's not including the matter of the extermination of the Nephites by the Lamanites.

[CQUIRK]

Some sources for my last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Human_sacrifice_and_ritual_suicide

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_pre-Columbian_America

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

[Sevenbak]

Might as well add this one too. A communal feast!

In the above picture, and the one posted earlier, it's clear that there were mixed races, both light and dark skinned. Throughout the history of the BoM, there were groups of Nephites that joined in with the Lamanites, even after Cumorah, there were those who denied the Christ and remained Lamanites.

At least the food was good...

Sorry to further derail this thread, but since Cannibalism was brought up, might as well finish out the discussion.

Uncle Dale, do you suppose the above pics as well as the one you posted were all part of the vast library in Palmyra?

[Sevenbak]

moved

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sad about those three -- seeing their wives die of old

age, and having to go on living until the Second Coming.

They must be tired by now -- and frustrated, in having

the priesthood and being commissioned to baptize, but

having none of their efforts recorded in Salt Lake City.

Had Moroni taken the trouble to find a wife, before the

great battle, he might have had an eternal family. But,

poor fellow, he's restricted to being a ministering angel

from now unto eternity.

Warning to RMs ---> don't wait too long; you could die unmarried.

UD

Seems harsh and mocking

[Sevenbak]

Seems harsh and mocking

[elguanteloko]

This is pretty absurd. You guys are justifying countless murders, rapes, and the enslavement of a whole continent for hundreds of years... because there was some human sacrifice? Let's say the ruler of the U.S. offered human sacrifices to his god, would a proper answer be to bomb the U.S., rape the women, kill children, torture for gold and money, and then make them slaves and take their lands and resources? Whoa!

There are many accounts by the Spanish conquerors of how peaceful the people from these lands were, for the most part. You might want to read Columbus' letters or Bartolom

[Sevenbak]

This is pretty absurd. You guys are justifying countless murders, rapes, and the enslavement of a whole continent for hundreds of years... because there was some human sacrifice? Let's say the ruler of the U.S. offered human sacrifices to his god, would a proper answer be to bomb the U.S., rape the women, kill children, torture for gold and money, and then make them slaves and take their lands and resources? Whoa!

There are many accounts by the Spanish conquerors of how peaceful the people from these lands were, for the most part. You might want to read Columbus' letters or Bartolom

[elguanteloko]

As you keep refusing to read the context of the references and the meaning behind them, choosing instead to tell us what you think we believe, there is no reason to continue discussing this issue with you.

I read them and I understand them... I just don't get how those verses change anything. You have been making statements that express your opinion and I am telling you why you are not only factually wrong, but morally wrong, too.

This is pretty absurd. You guys are justifying countless murders, rapes, and the enslavement of a whole continent for hundreds of years... because there was some human sacrifice? Let's say the ruler of the U.S. offered human sacrifices to his god, would a proper answer be to bomb the U.S., rape the women, kill children, torture for gold and money, and then make them slaves and take their lands and resources? Whoa!

There are many accounts by the Spanish conquerors of how peaceful the people from these lands were, for the most part. You might want to read Columbus' letters or Bartolom

[Sevenbak]

I read them and I understand them... I just don't get how those verses change anything. You have been making statements that express your opinion and I am telling you why you are not only factually wrong, but morally wrong, too.

No, you persist in telling me what I'm supposed to believe, regardless of what has been posted to you. Did you even glance at the surrounding verses as we suggested? Your answers and implications and accusations tell me otherwise.

[elguanteloko]

No, you persist in telling me what I'm supposed to believe, regardless of what has been posted to you. Did you even glance at the surrounding verses as we suggested? Your answers and implications and accusations tell me otherwise.

...sure.

[CQUIRK]

This is pretty absurd. You guys are justifying countless murders, rapes, and the enslavement of a whole continent for hundreds of years... because there was some human sacrifice? Let's say the ruler of the U.S. offered human sacrifices to his god, would a proper answer be to bomb the U.S., rape the women, kill children, torture for gold and money, and then make them slaves and take their lands and resources? Whoa!

There are many accounts by the Spanish conquerors of how peaceful the people from these lands were, for the most part. You might want to read Columbus' letters or Bartolom

[elguanteloko]

So basically my evidence means nothing compared to your politically & culturally biased outlook here. But the truth is, many tribes and indigenous cultures on the American continent were just as bad, and as cruel as Columbus's crew and the Conquistadors- only because they were primitive and less advanced in technology then the white man, they ended up being conquered by them.

But I know if it had been the other way around, they would've done the same to white people.

Both races have a history of blood on their hands, both were just as guilty. If your socialist & politically correct outlook prevents you from seeing that, then you are in the wrong forum here, sir.

I gave some references you might probably want to check out.

[Gillebre]

I gave some references you might probably want to check out.

You can expect him to study the references you provided about as much as you did of Sevenbak's.

It is clear to me now that Moroni has done much more for us than what every primary child knows as the beginnings of the Restoration, and I am continually inspired by His love for us.

[elguanteloko]

You can expect him to study the references you provided about as much as you did of Sevenbak's.

It is clear to me now that Moroni has done much more for us than what every primary child knows as the beginnings of the Restoration, and I am continually inspired by His love for us.

You see, I expect a little bit more effort in your part to show your reasons for believing this. Repeating your position without support is not of much use here.

[Gillebre]

You see, I expect a little bit more effort in your part to show your reasons for believing this. Repeating your position without support is not of much use here.

What would be the point in doing so?

I believe that even if I did add my reasoning to the references of the others in this thread, if wouldn't make a bit of difference. That's because I don't honestly think that you would see them as anything more than 'another deluded Mormon's blindness', unless I happened to agree with you.

It's almost like when I spent a brief time on another certain forum...they'd ask for references, and reasons, but it wouldn't matter because anything I'd say, or anything the other LDS would say, fell on deaf ears.

To some people, the only reasoning and support that is acceptable to them is that which supports their position, which I honestly believe to be the case, here with you. It's the same reason I decided that posting on those forums was futile. A position that I'm sure some also come to about some of us here.

[elguanteloko]

What would be the point in doing so?

I believe that even if I did add my reasoning to the references of the others in this thread, if wouldn't make a bit of difference. That's because I don't honestly think that you would see them as anything more than 'another deluded Mormon's blindness', unless I happened to agree with you.

It's almost like when I spent a brief time on another certain forum...they'd ask for references, and reasons, but it wouldn't matter because anything I'd say, or anything the other LDS would say, fell on deaf ears.

To some people, the only reasoning and support that is acceptable to them is that which supports their position, which I honestly believe to be the case, here with you. It's the same reason I decided that posting on those forums was futile. A position that I'm sure some also come to about some of us here.

If you take me as being someone as close-minded as you depict me here... why is it that I do give reasons for my position but you refuse to? Feel free to post your reasons for stating that "the Spaniards did us all a service" through commiting genocide, raping women, killing children, conquering land that was not theirs, etc. Go ahead and try to justify those crimes... or "judgment" as you call it. What actions justify these crimes against hundreds of thousands of innocent, peaceful people?

[Stargazer]

Did the 'futurity' of the United States of American require the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Native Americans and Native Latin Americans? They seemed more friendly than we were...

You can ask this, when you know very well that the futurity of the human race required the destruction of all but eight humans at one time in the past?

[Stargazer]

Seems harsh and mocking

[CQUIRK]

I gave some references you might probably want to check out.

If you're talking about the Columbus letters, I don't dispute that. But if you really think all the Native Americans and indigenous people that inhabited the American continent were all innocent and peace-loving and not capable of the same cruelties and sadistic torture that some of the Conquistadors and other European settlers have committed, then you are dead wrong.

[elguanteloko]

If you're talking about the Columbus letters, I don't dispute that. But if you really think all the Native Americans and indigenous people that inhabited the American continent were all innocent and peace-loving and not capable of the same cruelties and sadistic torture that some of the Conquistadors and other European settlers have committed, then you are dead wrong.

All Native Americans? I am not that naive. What I don't understand is, why would anyone even mention the crimes of the people that were here already when we mention the conquest as if they somehow absolve the terrible crimes of those "inspired men"?

The facts are on the table: they said all kinds of stuff about God and great spirits... do their actions reflect such influence? Not at all.

[elguanteloko]

You can ask this, when you know very well that the futurity of the human race required the destruction of all but eight humans at one time in the past?

God =/= Columbus Although, of course, both are recorded to have done lots of attrocities in the past you and I could never do.

[Stargazer]

If you take me as being someone as close-minded as you depict me here... why is it that I do give reasons for my position but you refuse to? Feel free to post your reasons for stating that "the Spaniards did us all a service" through commiting genocide, raping women, killing children, conquering land that was not theirs, etc. Go ahead and try to justify those crimes... or "judgment" as you call it. What actions justify these crimes against hundreds of thousands of innocent, peaceful people?

Why do you think that no reasons for these positions have been given? Plenty of reasons have been provided, yet you persist in your insistence that they aren't reasons. I can perfectly understand it if you heard the reasoning and nevertheless disagreed with it. Yet you insist that no reasons have been given.

The problem with your arguments is that they are based on some kind of godless ideal of Pollyanna.

You write: "...commiting genocide, raping women, killing children, conquering land that was not theirs, etc. Go ahead and try to justify those crimes... "

In fact, there IS NO JUSTIFICATION for them. There is no justification for genocide, rapine, infanticide and unjust conquest, at least when committed by human beings. If you want to judge God for permitting, ordering it, or actually doing it (e.g. Sodom & Gomorrah), then the first thing you'll have to do is admit that God exists, and then you'll have to wonder if you're in any kind of position to judge Him. Good luck with that one.

But the previous posters aren't trying to justify it, despite what you think. Not a one of them would try to claim that Cortez, Pizarro, and the rest of that bloody crew were righteous men who did what they did out of the purity of their hearts. Was God "inspiring" them somehow to do it? Probably not necessary, these gents were greedy and glory-seeking, no inspiration was needed. The Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the LDS prophets and apostles are trying to explain the original cause for what happened to the indigenous peoples in American history when the Europeans showed up. In a sense, it's very simple.

It happened because of apostasy, and rejection of the law of God.

I predict that at this point you're now talking trash about how intolerant God is, or at least, how intolerant our God is. Save it. The fact is, for the most part God doesn't take direct action to destroy those who reject Him. It isn't generally necessary. Rejection of Him leads inexorably to destruction because the principles of God's laws are principles of strength, which if followed leads to strength, but if rejected leads to weakness. Spiritual weakness, economic weakness, and political weakness all lead to destruction. Again, not because God is a petty tyrant who strikes out and smacks the disobedient, but because the rejecting His laws leads by nature to destruction.

The question might be asked, how was it that the Europeans were able to ride roughshod over the indigenous populations of the Americas? Why is it that not one of the supposedly uplifted cultures survived? Because they were outgunned by the Europeans? No. Because their cultures were not being run in accordance with the laws of God. They were essentially too weak to survive hostile contact with the Europeans, who despite their manifest shortcomings, were still generally practicing God's laws. How on earth do you think that Cortez could possibly have conquered the Aztec Empire with 600 men, 15 horsemen and 15 cannons? Because the Aztec Empire was a murderous totalitarian state with virtually no popular support, and knew little of, nor followed the laws of God. Cortez was able to enlist the aid of numerous other indigenous states, such as the Nahua, the Tlaxcaltecs, and the Totonacs, and when he arrived at Tenochtitlan he had a considerable army, the vast majority of which was indigenous, not Spanish. The Aztecs did not fall because Cortez was a monster, because they had guns, or because the Spaniards were particularly doughty warriors. It fell because it was a society that was rotten from the inside out, and the reason it was rotten was because of its disobedience to God.

The laws of God are very clear. First of all, one of the two original commandments that we can still choose to obey or disobey is "multiply and replenish the earth". This is done most effectively by men and women who join in family units for the purpose of begetting and raising children. Raising children requires that they be fed, clothed and housed, as well as educated to be able to do the same themselves in their turn. Which leads to the commandment to listen to and respect one's parents's teaching ("Thou shalt honor your father and your mother"), because they can teach you how to survive to raise your own children. Raising children successfully is easiest if the husband and wife remain faithful to each other, at least for the duration of the child-raising, and becomes even more effective if they persist as bound couples helping their children to raise their own children. Thus the law of multiplication leads inexorably to the law of chastity ("Thous shalt not commit adultery"), which if followed leads to children being born into secure family units where they may be raised successfully to maturity, and who are able to do the same in turn. As society forms from individual couples and their offspring it becomes expedient that each individual be given the right to control property, both real and personal, so that it might be used freely in support of obedience to the first commandment, and thus we see that the law of property ("Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet your neighbors property") is born. If this law is faithfully followed, what results is a society where individuals are assured of the ability to use their property for their own good without fear of losing it to their neighbors, and results in a stronger society, based on trust. As society grows more complex, there are inevitably going to be disputes, and some will opt to break the laws to obtain some unfair advantage, so some kind of law enforcement will have to be instituted. In order that this enforcement not be used unjustly, the commandment to only accuse wrongdoers ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor") becomes necessary. If all of these laws are followed faithfully by a society, it will grow and become strong. If they are not, it will decline and become weak. And God need do nothing for the weakness or the strength to manifest itself. A society of atheists, if faithfully following these laws of God, will prosper and become strong. And any society, regardless of whether it recognizes God's existence or not will fail if it does not acknowledge and follow His laws.

Now, the 10 commandments contain some other commandments I have not mentioned. These might be called the "theological" commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
3. Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy \

From a completely secular point of view one might be tempted to think that these are unnecessary. What good are they, then? Whether you respect God or not, if you follow the rest of His laws you will prosper. So can we ignore them? The answer is:

Hell, no.

Humans, especially human males, can be as independent as cats, and just try to herd those. If the answer to the question, "Why should I not try to mate with every female I see, willing or not?" is "Because it is against the rules," there will be a significant number of them who will say "Take your rules and shove them. I will go my own way." The more who do this, and form robber bands willing to steal, murder, rape, and pillage, the more dangerous society will become. Eventually it must break down, if the requisite trust in one's society breaks down. This destroys societies. This is why Gadianton was so devastating to the Nephite state. If, on the other hand, the rules are considered to emanate from a Supreme Being who will take it very unkindly if His rules are broken, even to the extent of ruining one's chance at a comfortable afterlife, AND if this Supreme Being is taken serious, by and large, then His laws will be taken seriously. This strengthens societies, not so much because God is prospering them by direct intervention, but because following His laws leads to that end as a natural result. This is why I said that an atheist society could prosper by obeying God's laws, but that a theist one would fail miserably if it didn't.

But in point of fact, no atheist society could ever follow God's laws because if God doesn't exist then there's no reason to follow them, if one's own will is all one acknowledges. Then to survive, an atheist society must resort to dominion by force in order to survive, and thus society becomes a God-substitute. In fact it must break down if it cannot find a substitute for God. Do you know what the ultimate goal of communism was, anyway? It was complete and utter freedom, when True Communism had finally vanquished the Old Man, and Soviet Man be the new human, perfect in every way. Supposedly. Oddly enough, Christianity seeks the same thing through a different route. But that is why communism failed, because it rejected God's laws.

Thus if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him. But He does exist, he gave His laws, and failure to follow them leads to destruction. Both temporally and spiritually.

That's what destroyed the indigenous societies of America. Because when the Christianized Europeans arrived, the indigenous societies had no answer to them, and could not stand against them. All because they were not following God's laws sufficiently, including recognizing the nature of the One True God, their Creator. Not because God hated them, but because they abandoned Him and His righteousness, and thus were ripe for conquest.

It wasn't just here in the Americas, though. All thoughout the Old Testament, when Israel was faithful to God, she prospered and was able to defend herself against those who sought to destroy her. When they became faithless, all kinds of things went completely wrong. Until they were scattered to the four winds, by nations who were more righteous than they.

I'll bet you're still not listening.