citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.
David T Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?NO.Of course, I'm also convinced that Israelite accounts of divinely-mandated genocide are (the "God told us to" part) after-the-fact justification of brutal warfare presented for religious and political purposes, and not a description of reality.So while there's precedent for the "God wanted us to" excuse, I don't believe there's actually precedence for God actually commanding the mass murder of innocents, women, and children. Edited October 22, 2011 by nackhadlow 3
Deborah Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 No. Evidence is to the contrary and there would have been no reason for it given the already precarious position the church was in.
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) NO.Of course, I'm also convinced that Israelite accounts of divinely-mandated genocide are (the "God told us to" part) after-the-fact justification of brutal warfare presented for religious and political purposes, and not a description of reality.So while there's precedent for the "God wanted us to" excuse, I don't believe there's actually precedence for God actually commanding the mass murder of innocents, women, and children.It's probably a risky business deciding which parts of scripture are true based on personal sensibilities, but I respect your point. I think the vast majority of church members accept the account in 1 Sam 15 at face value. I'm unaware of any official pronouncements repudiating it. Edited October 22, 2011 by citizen28
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 No. Evidence is to the contrary and there would have been no reason for it given the already precarious position the church was in.Thanks for your response. The reason given by God for destroying the Amalekites was that they had wronged the children of Israel. It's quite possible that some of the members of the Fancher train were involved in the mobbing of the saints in Missouri, and God required retribution.
Anijen Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 No. The church had zero responsibility. It was done outside of church authority, although members did it, it was not sanctioned, condoned, or ordered, by the church. 1
Anijen Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) deleted Edited October 22, 2011 by Anijen
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 No. The church had zero responsibility. It was done outside of church authority, although members did it, it was not sanctioned, condoned, or ordered, by the church.Of course it wasn't publicly 'sanctioned, condoned, or ordered' by the church. Can you imagine what would have happened if the church had publicly acknowledged responsibility for the massacre?My real question is this: Why isn't it possible for God to have commanded the Mountain Meadows massacre, when there's precedent for it in the Bible (1 Sam 15), as well as precedent for public obfuscation of the truth to protect the church's image (as with early polygamy)?
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.Ah the old proof by imagination. It can be imagined it happend this way but because it got covered up there is no evidence. That is the game played by trolls.
DarkScythe Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 the church authority were not involved. The paranoid bad person lead the other bad people to the massacre. No matter the religion, there will always be bad people that want to kill people regardless.
Mark Beesley Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.Sure, it's possible, but implausible and there is is no evidence for it. At least the Bible provides some evidence for the atrocities commited there, though I agree with nackhadlow that the accounts are likely after-the-fact justifications. God has demonstrated a willingness and abililty to destroy some of His Children without involving others, i.e. the Great Flood, Sennecherib's army, the Egyptian plagues, the parting (and subsequent) unparting of the Red Sea.So, any suggestion that the Church was acting under direction of the Almighty with regard to the MMM is so implausible as to be ludicrous. But, yeah, it's still possible. It's also possible that in another dimension, pigs fly.
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Sure, it's possible, but implausible and there is is no evidence for it. At least the Bible provides some evidence for the atrocities commited there, though I agree with nackhadlow that the accounts are likely after-the-fact justifications. God has demonstrated a willingness and abililty to destroy some of His Children without involving others, i.e. the Great Flood, Sennecherib's army, the Egyptian plagues, the parting (and subsequent) unparting of the Red Sea.So, any suggestion that the Church was acting under direction of the Almighty with regard to the MMM is so implausible as to be ludicrous. But, yeah, it's still possible. It's also possible that in another dimension, pigs fly.So I assume you consider the idea that God commanded the slaughter of innocents in the Bible as ludicrous as the idea that he commanded the same in the Mountain Meadows massacre. I also believe that God had nothing to do with the mass-murder described in the Bible, and I'm glad to find a few other church members who agree.Interestingly, the account in 1 Sam 15 is the basis for the oft-quoted scriptural phrase "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam 15:22 - see for example, Richard G. Scott's talk in October conference this year http://lds.org/ensig...+than+sacrifice). It turns out the Israelites found it easier to kill the "infants and sucklings" than the "sheep and oxen." Edited October 22, 2011 by citizen28
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 I also agree with everyone that the evidence impugning Brigham Young in the Mountain Meadows massacre is lacking. However, I think it's clear that the perpetrators were under the impression they were acting under the commandment of God, and 1 Sam 15 (among other Bible references) could easily have served as scriptural justification in their minds.
Nevo Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I think it's clear that the perpetrators were under the impression they were acting under the commandment of God.CFR.Anyway, congratulations. You managed to get one Mormon to say the words that you were looking for: that it is possible that God commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You must be very pleased with yourself.
Sleeper Cell Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.My theory is that a secret anti-Mormon group actually plotted the massacre in order to provoke further persecution of the Mormons. Lee and the other local leaders were actually members of this anti-Mormon group and had been assigned to infiltrate the church. I have absolutely no evidence to support my theory, but it is quite possible. 1
etana Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.No. There is no justification for such things.I do think we can take it as a chilling lesson in the power of the Adversary in sowing hatred and xenophobia, and what those things can lead to, even in the local saints. Edited October 22, 2011 by etana
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 My theory is that a secret anti-Mormon group actually plotted the massacre in order to provoke further persecution of the Mormons. Lee and the other local leaders were actually members of this anti-Mormon group and had been assigned to infiltrate the church. I have absolutely no evidence to support my theory, but it is quite possible.I also have no evidence but I think it was an inspired move to test future saints. Again I have absolutely no evidence to support my theory, but it is quite possible.
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 Ah the old proof by imagination. It can be imagined it happend this way but because it got covered up there is no evidence.My theory is that a secret anti-Mormon group actually plotted the massacre in order to provoke further persecution of the Mormons. Lee and the other local leaders were actually members of this anti-Mormon group and had been assigned to infiltrate the church. I have absolutely no evidence to support my theory, but it is quite possible.I also have no evidence but I think it was an inspired move to test future saints. Again I have absolutely no evidence to support my theory, but it is quite possible.Sounds a little like Book of Mormon archeology My intention is not to prove the validity of this "theory" (neither you nor I believe it), but to argue plausibility based on scriptural precedent. I'm much more interested in the implications of scriptural precedent than whether or not God commanded the Mountain Meadows massacre.
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 Sounds a little like Book of Mormon archeology My intention is not to prove the validity of this "theory" (neither you nor I believe it), but to argue plausibility based on scriptural precedent. I'm much more interested in the implications of scriptural precedent than whether or not God commanded the Mountain Meadows massacre.Or to open a back door to reviving the claim that Brigham Young is to blame. By all credible evidence your theory is a non starter.
Calm Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) . I'm much more interested in the implications of scriptural precedent than whether or not God commanded the Mountain Meadows massacre.Scriptural precedent has the Israelites proclaiming for all to hear that they were instructed by God. Scriptures have the prophet chastising them for saving anything.No public announcement of the alleged commandment. No public chastisement of saving children younger than 8. If you are looking for parallels in the scriptures for MMM, this isn't it.The murders of the MMM more closely parallel the scripture account of the massacre of the city of Shechem where it was done for revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah, where the inhabitants were tricked into thinking everyone was okay and where the riches of the city were seized as plunder.The scriptures show the murderers being condemned for their actions.You still haven't answered the CFR, I'd be interested to see it as well....that they thought they were commanded to commit murder and not just justified by the rationalizations they made to make themselves feel better about acting on their fears rather than trusting in the Lord. Edited October 22, 2011 by calmoriah
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 Scriptural precedent has the Israelites proclaiming for all to hear that they were instructed by God. Scriptures have the prophet chastising them for saving anything.No public announcement of the alleged commandment. No public chastisement of saving children younger than 8. If you are looking for parallels in the scriptures for MMM, this isn't it.The murders of the MMM more closely parallel the scripture account of the massacre of the city of Shechem where it was done for revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah, where the inhabitants were tricked into thinking everyone was okay and where the riches of the city were seized as plunder.The scriptures show the murderers being condemned for their actions.The destruction of Amalek was also apparently an act of vengeance (1 Sam 15:2), but you make a good point about the deception involved in the MMM. I've never thought of the parallel with Genesis 34.The idea of God commanding the slaughter of innocents is revolting to me, and I'm apt to reject the account in 1 Sam 15, just as I (and everyone else) reject the idea that God commanded the MMM. If you take 1 Sam 15 at face value, I'd be interested to hear your justification.
Calm Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 The vengeance was for something that had happened way in the past when Israel came up out of Egypt. This is significantly different from the claim of vengeance against the members of the wagon train where it was said that among them were the murderers of Parley P Pratt. The murderers themselves had been victims of persecution, etc. There is an immediacy of atrocities present that is lacking in the 1 Sam account, but is present in the Shechem Massacre account.
citizen28 Posted October 22, 2011 Author Posted October 22, 2011 The vengeance was for something that had happened way in the past when Israel came up out of Egypt. This is significantly different from the claim of vengeance against the members of the wagon train where it was said that among them were the murderers of Parley P Pratt. The murderers themselves had been victims of persecution, etc. There is an immediacy of atrocities present that is lacking in the 1 Sam account, but is present in the Shechem Massacre account.That's a good point. I'm curious; do you accept the account in 1 Sam 15 (it sounds like you do)? As someone noted earlier, God is perfectly capable of doing the dirty work (see Moses and the Red Sea), or allowing the wicked to destroy the wicked (Mormon 4:5). Why was it necessary for God's people to kill innocent children and infants by their own hands?
Peppermint Patty Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 This is significantly different from the claim of vengeance against the members of the wagon train where it was said that among them were the murderers of Parley P Pratt. The murderers themselves had been victims of persecution, etc. Very interesting. Could you perhaps provide a CFR, please?
Calm Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I accept that from the POV of the Israelites he commanded them. I have no insight or inspiration into what actually caused their actions if this event actually took place so I make no judgment one way or the other save to say it does not match my own perception of what God desires of us, but it was a different place and time of which may require something different from those who obey the Lord so who really knows these days what they were going through save God?
Recommended Posts