Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Cobalt-70]

No, there is never justification for murder. From Abraham to Nephi, both of whom failed the test, to the present day.

"Follow your leaders even when you know they are wrong and you will be blessed for it" is straight from Satan. It is wrong and has always been wrong. It did not work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it has no place in religion.

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

I agree with you on the "follow the leader, not your own conscience" part. But I'm not so sure that murder is never justified. What if you could have murdered Hitler in the 1930s, knowing what he was to become? Would you be justified if you knew it would save the lives of 6 million Jews?

Edited October 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac, and Nephi was justified by the direct threats of death by Laban.

Fortunately none of us can time travel. But no I wouldn't have killed even Hitler before he actually did anything. Ever see Minority Report?

[Pahoran]

No, there is never justification for murder.

And nobody is offering any.

From Abraham to Nephi, both of whom failed the test, to the present day.

No. They did not.

"Follow your leaders even when you know they are wrong and you will be blessed for it" is straight from Satan. It is wrong and has always been wrong. It did not work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it has no place in religion.

Nor does it have any place in this discussion.

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

And nobody is offering any.

Do you wish to discuss something, or would you rather take a few more swings at that straw man?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

"Follow your leaders even when you know they are wrong and you will be blessed for it" is straight from Satan. It is wrong and has always been wrong. It did not work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it has no place in religion.

Aha!! One waits on tenterhooks for the inevitable NAZI connection.

Been nice seein' you 'roun'.

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

For "murder", no, there is not, but what you suggested as examples were not murder.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac, and Nephi was justified by the direct threats of death by Laban.

By the time Nephi murdered him, Laban was not an imminent threat. His family had left the city and were hiding, and Nephi could easily have joined them. Laban was unconscious, and not a threat. As Nephi begins to rationalize the murder, he does not mention self-defense. Rather, he argues that (1) Laban's life is outweighed by the spiritual needs of his posterity, and (2) he felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to commit the murder. This was a sober, rational balancing of interests. If this happened in Texas, he would have been convicted of First Degree Murder (because the murder was premeditated and in the course of committing kidnapping and burglary), and he would have been executed by lethal injection. But was it justified? The Book of Mormon author seems to think so.

As to Abraham, this was attempted murder, thwarted only by an angel at the last second. If it happened in Texas, Abraham would likely get life in prison. Is an attempted human sacrifice justified in order to show true commitment to the god Yahweh? The author of that part of Genesis seems to think so.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt 70:

He'd already stolen their money. Threatened them with their lives, and because of Labans' position he was a continueing threat. Under existing law Nephi didn't have the wait till Laban put a sword into Nephi's belly before he could defend himself.

[Cobalt-70]

He'd already stolen their money. Threatened them with their lives, and because of Labans' position he was a continueing threat. Under existing law Nephi didn't have the wait till Laban put a sword into Nephi's belly before he could defend himself.

These threats were in the past, and Nephi had escaped. If someone threatens your life yesterday, but you escape, you can't sneak back and kill them in their sleep today and call it self-defense. Nephi and his family were not under an imminent threat--or even any threat at all--when Nephi killed Laban.

If Nephi rationalized the murder on the basis that Laban stole his money, then this would just have been vigilante retribution--still capital first degree murder under the laws of Texas. But retribution actually did not enter the equation. Lehi had left their precious belongings behind, and they were not important to them anyway. The real reason for the murder was that Nephi saw a way, if he murdered Laban, God had provided a way that he could burglarize Laban's home and kidnap his servant to obtain the brass plates.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Calm]

The law at the time was not the same as it is today:

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=1&num=1&id=7

It was likely legal....doesn't mean it was automatically moral, that would involve a different standard for us as observers even if it didn't for Nephi's community seeing how religious law and legal law was often one and the same.

[Minos]

For those who are new or forgot, any reference to Hitler, Nazi or other extreme comparisons involving genocidal dictators who govern by systematically committing mass murder will result in the thread being closed and or suspension.

[stevedallas]

For those who are new or forgot, any reference to Hitler, Nazi or other extreme comparisons involving genocidal dictators who govern by systematically committing mass murder will result in the thread being closed and or suspension.

as it should be. That would absolutely disgusting.

[Cobalt-70]

The law at the time was not the same as it is today:

http://mimobile.byu....ol=1&num=1&id=7

It was likely legal....doesn't mean it was automatically moral, that would involve a different standard for us as observers even if it didn't for Nephi's community seeing how religious law and legal law was often one and the same.

And likewise, the Utah Territory was a theocracy at the time of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The law of God reigned supreme, above the law of the United States. So in their minds, cold-blooded murder--which would get you hanged under US law--could be justified if the murder was based on the promptings of the Spirit, like it was with Nephi.

But make no mistake, Welch's valiant attempt at apologetic hair-splitting notwithstanding, Nephi would have been executed under Hebrew law for what he did, had he been caught. Almost every commentator and translation interprets Ex. 21:12-14 differently than does John Welch (as Welch, to his credit, basically admits). In ancient Israel, if somebody steals your property and chases you out of his home, and then later that night you behead him with a sword while he sleeps, and then burglarize his house and kidnap his servant, you can bet you are going to be executed under Biblical law.

But this is all immaterial: presumably, if Mormon notions of morality are not to be taken as relativistic and culturally defined, what Nephi did would be no more morally culpable, under Texas law today, than it would be under Hebrew law, or under U.S. law that governed the Utah Territory during the Mountain Meadows massacre. If a Mormon Texan were in the same position as Nephi, he would be justified in committing cold-blooded murder that would: (1) get him lethal injection in the state of Texas or Utah, and simultaneously (2) be hailed as an act of obedience and faith.

[Zakuska]

And likewise, the Utah Territory was a theocracy at the time of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The law of God reigned supreme, above the law of the United States. So in their minds, cold-blooded murder--which would get you hanged under US law--could be justified if the murder was based on the promptings of the Spirit, like it was with Nephi.

Oh yes... As I was informed just yesterday by a rabid anti-mormon "A mouse did not flatulate in Utah without BY knowing about it".

But make no mistake, Welch's valiant attempt at apologetic hair-splitting notwithstanding, Nephi would have been executed under Hebrew law for what he did, had he been caught. Almost every commentator and translation interprets Ex. 21:12-14 differently than does John Welch (as Welch, to his credit, basically admits). In ancient Israel, if somebody steals your property and chases you out of his home, and then later that night you behead him with a sword while he sleeps, and then burglarize his house and kidnap his servant, you can bet you are going to be executed under Biblical law.

But this is all immaterial: presumably, if Mormon notions of morality are not to be taken as relativistic and culturally defined, what Nephi did would be no more morally culpable, under Texas law today, than it would be under Hebrew law, or under U.S. law that governed the Utah Territory during the Mountain Meadows massacre. If a Mormon Texan were in the same position as Nephi, he would be justified in committing cold-blooded murder that would: (1) get him lethal injection in the state of Texas or Utah, and simultaneously (2) be hailed as an act of obedience and faith.

PS. Manslaughter was aloud in Bible times. What do you think the refuge cities were for?

Duet 19

2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.

...

8 And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers;

9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to awalk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:

10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

11 ¶But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:

12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt aput away the bguilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Under biblical law Nephi was justified. He didn't lie in wait for Laban but happend upon him God delivering him uinto him.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Zakuska

[Pahoran]

And likewise, the Utah Territory was a theocracy at the time of the Mountain Meadows massacre. The law of God reigned supreme, above the law of the United States. So in their minds, cold-blooded murder--which would get you hanged under US law--could be justified if the murder was based on the promptings of the Spirit, like it was with Nephi.

But make no mistake, Welch's valiant attempt at apologetic hair-splitting notwithstanding, Nephi would have been executed under Hebrew law for what he did, had he been caught. Almost every commentator and translation interprets Ex. 21:12-14 differently than does John Welch (as Welch, to his credit, basically admits). In ancient Israel, if somebody steals your property and chases you out of his home, and then later that night you behead him with a sword while he sleeps, and then burglarize his house and kidnap his servant, you can bet you are going to be executed under Biblical law.

But this is all immaterial: presumably, if Mormon notions of morality are not to be taken as relativistic and culturally defined, what Nephi did would be no more morally culpable, under Texas law today, than it would be under Hebrew law, or under U.S. law that governed the Utah Territory during the Mountain Meadows massacre. If a Mormon Texan were in the same position as Nephi, he would be justified in committing cold-blooded murder that would: (1) get him lethal injection in the state of Texas or Utah, and simultaneously (2) be hailed as an act of obedience and faith.

Hugh W. Nibley, "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," Rule 1: Your target is Mormonism!

And thus we see that Cobalt has abandoned any pretense that he is discussing the MMM as an actual historical event. Rather, he is exploiting that particular tragedy for cheap polemical propaganda purposes.

Sorry, Cobalt. Notwithstanding the skill you have brought to bear in your attempt to demonise an entire population group, you have nonetheless failed.

There is no record of any Latter-day Saint ever attempting to argue from the Nephi case as justification for a modern act of murder.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

PS. Manslaughter was aloud in Bible times. What do you think the refuge cities were for?

Under biblical law Nephi was justified. He didn't lie in wait for Laban but happend upon him God delivering him uinto him.

Nephi was not justified under Hebrew law, because (1) Laban and Nephi were considered to be enemies, and (2) after Nephi discovered Laban, he not only intentionally killed him with a sword (considered to be evidence of murder as opposed to manslaughter), but robbed him of his weapon and clothing, burglarized his house and kidnapped his slave. Hebrew law didn't let you get off Scott free simply because you believed that God told you to intentionally murder your enemy. The people who wrote Hebrew law were not that stupid. If that were the case, anyone could get away with murder simply by saying that "God made me do it." The idea of God "delivering" someone "into his hands" reflects the Hebrew belief that accidental deaths, including unplanned deaths in the heat of a confrontation, are "acts of God." It doesn't mean that Hebrew law gave a man a license to behead his enemy and take his belongings merely because the opportunity to do so miraculously presented itself.

[Cobalt-70]

And thus we see that Cobalt has abandoned any pretense that he is discussing the MMM as an actual historical event. Rather, he is exploiting that particular tragedy for cheap polemical propaganda purposes.

Sorry, Cobalt. Notwithstanding the skill you have brought to bear in your attempt to demonise an entire population group, you have nonetheless failed.

There is no record of any Latter-day Saint ever attempting to argue from the Nephi case as justification for a modern act of murder.

No, I'm just trying to explain the kind of thinking that what was going though these people's minds as they killed the Fancher party. Cold, calculated murder in the name of God is enshrined in Mormon scripture, so I think maybe it is a little ingenuous of us when we get on our high horses and judge the perpetrators of the massacre, or Brigham Young for that matter, so dismissively. It was an atrocity, and it was diabolical, but the roots of Mormonism (like Judaism and even Christianity) are a bit violent. A little bit of John D. Lee is in each of us. So get over it. As Mormons today, we can believe that we have evolved, at least a little bit, from the Mormonism of the 1850s.

[Zakuska]

Nephi was not justified under Hebrew law, because (1) Laban and Nephi were considered to be enemies, and (2) after Nephi discovered Laban, he not only intentionally killed him with a sword (considered to be evidence of murder as opposed to manslaughter), but robbed him of his weapon and clothing, burglarized his house and kidnapped his slave. Hebrew law didn't let you get off Scott free simply because you believed that God told you to intentionally murder your enemy. The people who wrote Hebrew law were not that stupid. If that were the case, anyone could get away with murder simply by saying that "God made me do it." The idea of God "delivering" someone "into his hands" reflects the Hebrew belief that accidental deaths, including unplanned deaths in the heat of a confrontation, are "acts of God." It doesn't mean that Hebrew law gave a man a license to behead his enemy and take his belongings merely because the opportunity to do so miraculously presented itself.

Oh but what you have explained is a murder of passion,

And the woman who, in the heat of the argument throws a knife at her husband and kills him can simply claim "God made me do it".

Was it lawful for Laban to send his Guards after Nephi in order to kill him and then steal all his Gold he had payed for the plates?

Edited October 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

No, I'm just trying to explain the kind of thinking that what was going though these people's minds as they killed the Fancher party. Cold, calculated murder in the name of God is enshrined in Mormon scripture, so I think maybe it is a little ingenuous of us when we get on our high horses and judge the perpetrators of the massacre, or Brigham Young for that matter, so dismissively. It was an atrocity, and it was diabolical, but the roots of Mormonism (like Judaism and even Christianity) are a bit violent. A little bit of John D. Lee is in each of us. So get over it. As Mormons today, we can believe that we have evolved, at least a little bit, from the Mormonism of the 1850s.

No what you are doing is attempting to smear by inuendo.

[Cobalt-70]

Was it lawful for Laban to send his Guards after Nephi in order to kill him and then steal all his Gold he had payed for the plates?

No, but past crimes (particularly crimes against property) are not a legal justification for murder, and never have been.

[Pahoran]

No, I'm just trying to explain the kind of thinking that what was going though these people's minds as they killed the Fancher party.

No. You are not.

You are inventing some "thinking" for which there is no evidence -- thinking that is going through your mind, and nobody else's -- and projecting it into the minds of people dead for over a century.

Question: Why are you doing this? Let's see:

Cold, calculated murder in the name of God is enshrined in Mormon scripture,

Answer: You are doing it in order to smear Mormonism.

so I think maybe it is a little ingenuous of us when we get on our high horses and judge the perpetrators of the massacre, or Brigham Young for that matter, so dismissively.

And thus you manage to make yourself seem like a splendidly magnanimous, tolerant fellow. But to what end?

It was an atrocity, and it was diabolical, but the roots of Mormonism (like Judaism and even Christianity) are a bit violent.

No. They are not.

But that's the falsehood you are trying to peddle.

Like every anti-Mormon CARM ever spawned, your only interest in any event in Mormon history is the extent to which it can be exploited for polemical purposes. You neither know nor care to know anything else about it.

A little bit of John D. Lee is in each of us. So get over it.

There might well be a little bit of him in you, but not in me.

As Mormons today, we can believe that we have evolved, at least a little bit, from the Mormonism of the 1850s.

I've got no idea what kind of a Mormon you think you are. But please note that I would be more than happy to count myself in the company of the Mormons of the 1850's who actually followed Brigham's counsel.

Unlike Mister Lee.

The spectacularly dishonest attempt to smear Mormonism by linking Lee to Nephi has justifiably failed. I recommend you step quietly away from it and start the process of trying to live it down.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

No, but past crimes (particularly crimes against property) are not a legal justification for murder, and never have been.

From my reading, it appears that robbery with violence (as opposed to theft by stealth or deception) was not considered as merely a crime against property. It was primarily a crime against the person; the seizure of the property in question was the means by which the attacker dramatised his victory over the victim. A violent response would have accordingly been justified.

You really are Theophilus07, aren't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

So, what are we now arguing here? Was there justification for MMM? No. Was there extenuating circumstances that could have caused it? Yes. Were the mormons in Utah battle weary and battle scared? Yes. Were some suffering from mental stress because of more antimormonism coming from california and the federal government? Yes.

Should Lee and his friends commited murder? No.

[citizen28]

So, what are we now arguing here? Was there justification for MMM? No. Was there extenuating circumstances that could have caused it? Yes. Were the mormons in Utah battle weary and battle scared? Yes. Were some suffering from mental stress because of more antimormonism coming from california and the federal government? Yes.

Should Lee and his friends commited murder? No.

Were the perpetrators likely affected by violent religious rhetoric? Yes. Did they likely believe their act was justified by God? Yes.

I can't see good, conscience-driven men taking part in such a vile, indefensible act without believing it had divine approval. Assuming Lee was a scoundrel, what better way to motivate his men to action than giving them the impression that their religious leaders had ordered the massacre. Lee himself insisted that he believed George A. Smith and Brigham Young approved it. I'm not convinced that Smith or Young actually DID approve the massacre, but I believe Lee was under the impression that they had.

Edited October 28, 2011 by citizen28

[thesometimesaint]

citizen28:

There was a lot of self deception going on.

[LeSellers]

Question: Why are you doing this? Let's see:

Answer: You are doing it in order to smear Mormonism.

I said once before that Cobalt-70 is radioactive.

Lehi

[ERayR]

Were the perpetrators likely affected by violent religious rhetoric? Yes. Did they likely believe their act was justified by God? Yes.

I can't see good, conscience-driven men taking part in such a vile, indefensible act without believing it had divine approval. Assuming Lee was a scoundrel, what better way to motivate his men to action than giving them the impression that their religious leaders had ordered the massacre. Lee himself insisted that he believed George A. Smith and Brigham Young approved it. I'm not convinced that Smith or Young actually DID approve the massacre, but I believe Lee was under the impression that they had.

Were the perpetrators likely affected by violent religious rhetoric? Yes. No Did they likely believe their act was justified by God? Yes. No