Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, yes, actually.

Well, your "curiosity" didn't—and doesn't—strike me as genuine. Sorry.

I find this quite an interesting analysis of the past few posts here. I happen to agree with your analysis.

[stevedallas]

Well, yes, actually.

No, actually. I am sorry that you are unable to contain rudeness. Had I known, I would not have said anything.

You already knew that "officers throughout history...have told soldiers to do their duty." Yet you originally professed to be ignorant of the fact that the phrase was a "standard piece of military phraseology." Then, when people responded to your ridiculous CFR, you dismissed their examples outright, insisting that they didn't "prove" that the phrase "was common among military personnel in 1857 Frontier America." When Civil War officers were mentioned (who certainly qualified as "military personnel in 1857 frontier America") you waved them aside as some "people made famous by a war in the 1860s"—as if Civil War examples of "do your duty" had no evidentiary value for 1857.

Not true, sir. Though aware of duty as it relates to military, the quote by Pahoran was specific to a certain time. I had not heard of any specific accounts dealing with 1857 before, so I was curious. I have explained this more than once. I am sorry you either have not read my explanations, or did not understand them.

That is why I said you were "being obtuse" (i.e., playing dumb). But your subsequent rant indicates I may have given you too much credit. See below:

I know what "obtuse" means. As an investigator, you are teaching me that Mormons are actually not as principled and God-fearing as I was led to believe.

Where did I threaten to "preach about military duty" or "the military"? I didn't even mention the military in my post.

You did not threaten. You did, however, deign to preach.

I can only assume this was another clumsy attempt to arrogate authority or elicit sympathy for your posts by appealing to your resume. Yes, we know you profess to be a lawyer and ex-military. You mention it in nearly every other post.

I ask you for a references. I have about 107 posts now. According to you, there should be over 50 references to my background. I would like you to show me 50 posts or admit you have born false witness against me

Well, your "curiosity" didn't—and doesn't—strike me as genuine. Sorry.

No, I am sorry. I have treated everyone here with respect. I have not argued or fought with anyone. I have been honest in my attempts to gain a testimony. I am amazed that you would so readily presume bad intent on my part. I have sided with LDS posters regarding MMM. I have asked serious questions and listened to the answers. I did not come here to gain a testimony, but rather, to learn from those who have studied and lived this faith in an effort to help me find my testimony (along with study, etc.). Instead, there are people like you who make me believe that, when looking for where God wants me and for a Church where people love God and try to aspire to practice what they preach, perhaps that cannot be found in the LDS Church.

[Pahoran]

Not true, sir. Though aware of duty as it relates to military, the quote by Pahoran was specific to a certain time. I had not heard of any specific accounts dealing with 1857 before, so I was curious. I have explained this more than once. I am sorry you either have not read my explanations, or did not understand them.

I related it to that period because I have read a fair amount of literature from that period. The expression "do your duty" was so common as to virtually amount to a cliche, and it was especially common in a military context. Indeed, from my reading it appears that the use of it in non-military contexts seem to rely upon an implied military metaphor.

I know what "obtuse" means. As an investigator, you are teaching me that Mormons are actually not as principled and God-fearing as I was led to believe.

I fail to see that Nevo said anything that was either unprincipled or ungodly. Whether it was kind and considerate is perhaps a different matter, but in the cut and thrust of internet debate it is a little bit precious to expect everyone else to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules unless you are likewise prepared to be bound by them.

I did not come here to gain a testimony, but rather, to learn from those who have studied and lived this faith in an effort to help me find my testimony (along with study, etc.). Instead, there are people like you who make me believe that, when looking for where God wants me and for a Church where people love God and try to aspire to practice what they preach, perhaps that cannot be found in the LDS Church.

And again, I fail to see what, if any, relationship there can be between how anonymous participants on an Internet message board relate to other anonymous participants, and how people love God and aspire to practice what they preach.

As such, your above statement looks less like a sober conclusion about the way Latter-day Saints live their lives than an attempt to deflect cricitisms and questions away from yourself by means of manipulation.

And manipulation is always insincere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

No, I am sorry. I have treated everyone here with respect. I have not argued or fought with anyone. I have been honest in my attempts to gain a testimony. I am amazed that you would so readily presume bad intent on my part. I have sided with LDS posters regarding MMM. I have asked serious questions and listened to the answers. I did not come here to gain a testimony, but rather, to learn from those who have studied and lived this faith in an effort to help me find my testimony (along with study, etc.). Instead, there are people like you who make me believe that, when looking for where God wants me and for a Church where people love God and try to aspire to practice what they preach, perhaps that cannot be found in the LDS Church.

Stevedallas: You are on a discussion board where the LDS posters are almost constantly under bombardment of one sort or another. Also, I think I have mentioned it before, your posting style does not come across as particularly friendly at times. Finally, do not expected anyone to be at their best on an adversarial discussion board. If you really want to see what LDS people and religion is like a discussion board is not the place to do it. Find a church near you and mingle with the 98% of LDS people who don't frequent the boards nor do they want to. On the other hand if you want strong discussion the boards are OK. just do not get hurt feelings over the exchanges you encounter, especially with a posting style that is sometimes confrontational.

Edited October 31, 2011 by ERayR

[why me]

And please do not lower yourself to standards of rudeness. It does not speak well of you or the faith you represent. As a military guy, I was simply asking for a reference to someone asserting facts about military history. Do not let a person;s curiosity force you to rudeness. I have been nothing but gracious in my time here and in my search.

People are only human beings. Mormons never claim to be perfect. I think that you have made many posts on this thread. The problem is: there seems to be no progress in your opinions about MMM. After 21 pages, the thread has run its course and people's nerves are getting frayed. Its only natural.

[Nevo]

I ask you for a references. I have about 107 posts now. According to you, there should be over 50 references to my background. I would like you to show me 50 posts or admit you have born false witness against me

Hmm. I guess I have to admit to having "born [sic] false witness" against you since it turns out that only 10 percent of your posts mention your professional and military credentials:

1. "I am an attorney very familiar with the rules of evidence." (22 Oct)
   
2. "As a prosecutor, you rarely get evidence that cut and dried." (23 Oct)
   
3. "As a former prosecutor AND criminal defense attorney, I look at evidence and proof different than most." (23 Oct)
   
4. "I will admit that my 21 years as an attorney have given me a litigation-style way of communicating." (24 Oct)
   
5. "As a prosecutor, I had a 99.9 % conviction rate." (24 Oct)
   
6. "I am a managing attorney. I was an officer in the Army." (26 Oct)
   
7. "I served in Panama, Honduras, Ft. Sill, and Ft. Hood. I left the Army as a Captain. I am a Major in the State Guard." (27 Oct)
   
8. "As an attorney, I see a story full of holes. I see so many issues with the surrounding climate that make it difficult for my legal mind to accept." (27 Oct)
   
9. "Were you to walk into my office at the law firm, you would see a large Bible on a stand, Christian Artwork, and other tell-tale signs." (29 Oct)
   
10. "I am ex-military and enjoy military history." (31 Oct)
    
11. "I served my country proudly and am a disabled vet (due to a knee injury). I am currently in the Guard and hold the rank of Major" (31 Oct)
    

Frankly, your posting style strikes me as distinctly trollish (and, I must say, not very lawyerly). And reading over all of your posts here has only confirmed that impression.

For example, in your fourth post on the board, you wrote: "I loved being LDS and will always miss it. I wish it were true. But it isn't." But a few days later, the story changed: you were never LDS, but you almost got baptized two years ago, and now you're here "to learn from those who have studied and lived this faith in an effort to help me find my testimony."

If you are who say you are, then please keep posting and prove me wrong.

Best wishes.

[stevedallas]

Hmm. I guess I have to admit to having "born [sic] false witness" against you since it turns out that only 10 percent of your posts mention your professional and military credentials:

1. "I am an attorney very familiar with the rules of evidence." (22 Oct)
   
2. "As a prosecutor, you rarely get evidence that cut and dried." (23 Oct)
   
3. "As a former prosecutor AND criminal defense attorney, I look at evidence and proof different than most." (23 Oct)
   
4. "I will admit that my 21 years as an attorney have given me a litigation-style way of communicating." (24 Oct)
   
5. "As a prosecutor, I had a 99.9 % conviction rate." (24 Oct)
   
6. "I am a managing attorney. I was an officer in the Army." (26 Oct)
   
7. "I served in Panama, Honduras, Ft. Sill, and Ft. Hood. I left the Army as a Captain. I am a Major in the State Guard." (27 Oct)
   
8. "As an attorney, I see a story full of holes. I see so many issues with the surrounding climate that make it difficult for my legal mind to accept." (27 Oct)
   
9. "Were you to walk into my office at the law firm, you would see a large Bible on a stand, Christian Artwork, and other tell-tale signs." (29 Oct)
   
10. "I am ex-military and enjoy military history." (31 Oct)
    
11. "I served my country proudly and am a disabled vet (due to a knee injury). I am currently in the Guard and hold the rank of Major" (31 Oct)
    

Frankly, your posting style strikes me as distinctly trollish (and, I must say, not very lawyerly). And reading over all of your posts here has only confirmed that impression.

For example, in your fourth post on the board, you wrote: "I loved being LDS and will always miss it. I wish it were true. But it isn't." But a few days later, the story changed: you were never LDS, but you almost got baptized two years ago, and now you're here "to learn from those who have studied and lived this faith in an effort to help me find my testimony."

If you are who say you are, then please keep posting and prove me wrong.

Best wishes.

You can be as rude as you feel you need to be. And I accept your apology for bearing false witness. 11 out of 108 posts is not nearly "almost every other post". It is true that I was LDS many years ago. It is also true that, two years ago, I almost was rebaptized. I attended Sac meetings and studied and everything else I said. I feel a very strong pull to come back. People like you are certainly a deterrent. Your Leaders have warned LDS members against acting like you act. I encourage you to read your recent General Conference. Read the Talk "Charity never Faileth" by Silvia Allred. Even more, I suggest you read L. Tom Perry's talk. he is speaking to you. What does he say? he speaks specifically about the internet. He, your apostle, says you should approach the internet conversations with love. You should be respectful and civil "regardless of the response of others." You should "avoid arguing or becoming defensive in any way."

He is one of your leaders. One of the men you believe is directly called of God. If you cannot comply with what he says to do, and/or if the internet causes you to lose your way, as it appears to do, I suggest you step away and pray. Your conduct does more to hurt the church, and your ignoring of the guidance of your apostles is something that should concern you. You have a unique opportunity to follow your leaders, follow God, and perhaps bring others to the LDS Church.

[Cobalt-70]

I agree with you. MMM happened. Get over it. It proves nothing. It does not prove Mormons are bad people any more than the heavily-influenced-by-the-Baptists KKK proves that Baptists are bad. I could also care less if BY ordered it. Had I gone thru what he did, and what he watched his leaders and people go thru, I might have jumped the gun on it too. So whether he ordered it or not proves NOTHING.

I agree.

Also, not ever racist American would actually lynch a black man, although they might be able to empathize with those that would. Not every devout pro-lifer would actually murder a gynecologist, though they might understand what goes through the mind of someone who would. What separates the radical from the merely devout is that diabolical willingness to actually set aside their personal conscience and sense of morality and do what their brain tells them is most consistent with their theology.

With modern Mormons, despite what they know about Nephi's murder of Laban, most of them could not even imagine a situation where their theology would compel them to commit cold blooded murder. I strongly believe that 99.9% of even the most fanatical Mormons, even if they felt that the Spirit told them, or a priesthood leader told them, that they had to murder someone, that they would not do so. Mormons, and most other people, have a basic sense of decency and empathy. Most of us know when something is just too radical and wrong for us to participate. This is no different from other Christians or Jews. The Bible is replete with examples of "justified" cold-blooded murder and genocide. Long ago, most Jews and Christians learned not to take these things too seriously. The MMM was in a different time and a different place, when for various historical reasons Mormon fanaticism was at its apex. We have never again seen a situation like that again in Mormon history.

[Pahoran]

I agree.

Also, not ever racist American would actually lynch a black man, although they might be able to empathize with those that would. Not every devout pro-lifer would actually murder a gynecologist, though they might understand what goes through the mind of someone who would. What separates the radical from the merely devout is that diabolical willingness to actually set aside their personal conscience and sense of morality and do what their brain tells them is most consistent with their theology.

With modern Mormons, despite what they know about Nephi's murder of Laban, most of them could not even imagine a situation where their theology would compel them to commit cold blooded murder. I strongly believe that 99.9% of even the most fanatical Mormons, even if they felt that the Spirit told them, or a priesthood leader told them, that they had to murder someone, that they would not do so. Mormons, and most other people, have a basic sense of decency and empathy. Most of us know when something is just too radical and wrong for us to participate. This is no different from other Christians or Jews. The Bible is replete with examples of "justified" cold-blooded murder and genocide. Long ago, most Jews and Christians learned not to take these things too seriously. The MMM was in a different time and a different place, when for various historical reasons Mormon fanaticism was at its apex. We have never again seen a situation like that again in Mormon history.

On the other hand, anti-Mormon fanaticism never seems to abate. The fanaticism that drives some people to attempt to locate the causes of the MMM in LDS life and teaching, despite the fact that that foul accusation is supported by no facts, is still alive and well.

The MMM was not the result of "Mormon fanaticism." That is a standard anti-Mormon canard, produced by anti-Mormon canard merchants. The MMM was the result of a number of unique factors, not least of which being the inability of the Cedar City leaders to get current information and advice from their leaders in Salt Lake City.

That particular excuse is not available to those who so sumptuously try to exploit it in the 21st century.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

What separates the radical from the merely devout is that diabolical willingness to actually set aside their personal conscience and sense of morality and do what their brain tells them is most consistent with their theology.

I seem to have missed that the first time around. This also has no connection to the MMM, since that event was in no sense "consistent with their theology."

With modern Mormons, despite what they know about Nephi's murder of Laban,

Nephi was, in every possible way, a better man than you could ever even imagine yourself being.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[stevedallas]

I seem to have missed that the first time around. This also has no connection to the MMM, since that event was in no sense "consistent with their theology."

Nephi was, in every possible way, a better man than you could ever even imagine yourself being.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly how would you know that?

I encourage you to follow the instructions of L Tom Perry, or perhaps denounce him as an Apostle you choose to ignore. There is no need to be abrasive if you have the truth. Be a leader here.

You appear to be very, very knowledgeable about the LDS Church. You could be a strong voice for the Church. But your need to be rude detracts from that. Charity Faileth Not. I urge you to follow the instructions of the leaders you claim to follow.

Edited November 1, 2011 by stevedallas

[sethpayne]

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.

Wait..... the slaughter of innocent unarmed men, women and children may have been part of an "inspired move?"

Please tell me I am misunderstanding you here.

[Pahoran]

Exactly how would you know that?

Oh, that's easy. Nephi left behind a fairly considerable written legacy. The notion that he would engage in the Cobalt-70 technique of damnation with faint praise and accusation by innuendo is simply inconceivable. Such dirty tricks are so far beneath him as to be unworthy of mentioning in the same sentence as his name.

I encourage you to follow the instructions of L Tom Perry, or perhaps denounce him as an Apostle you choose to ignore. There is no need to be abrasive if you have the truth. Be a leader here.

You appear to be very, very knowledgeable about the LDS Church. You could be a strong voice for the Church. But your need to be rude detracts from that. Charity Faileth Not. I urge you to follow the instructions of the leaders you claim to follow.

How is it rude to point out a simple fact?

If Cobalt-70 could refrain from slimy attempts to smear ancient prophets, or to foist the MMM on the Church by fair means or foul (preferably foul) then I would have no quarrel with him. But I've always taken the view that substance trumps style on any day of the week. If C-70 wants to clean up his substance, he'll find my style much more palatable.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek1]

I encourage you to follow the instructions of L Tom Perry, or perhaps denounce him as an Apostle you choose to ignore. There is no need to be abrasive if you have the truth. Be a leader here.

Put a sock in it, board nanny.

You've done nothing but troll since you came in here- and your mask has slipped one too many times.

You're awfully fond of telling Mormons how they should behave, but seem remarkably incapable of practicing what you preach.

You came in here and began pronouncing anti-Mormon dogma as self-supporting fact, have repeatedly slandered our leaders, and have assiduously avoided backing up any of your allegations with facts or even with references to your sources.

You STILL haven't answered the numerous CFR's or requests for evidence given you.

For all your whining about our lack of "Christian charity", you seem to forget two things: first, we haven't attacked your faith or those whom you hold in reverence. Second, Christ himself and his biblical apostles didn't mince words with lying Pharisees and hypocrites,

For starters:

Matthew 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why ^atempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

We, too, perceive your wickedness- and like Christ himself, aren't afraid to speak truth to lies.

You demand that we adhere to standard of discourse you yourself decline- so why tempt us to meet you in kind?

Why tempt thou us?

Proverbs 11:9 An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.

We fight your attempts to demean and destroy by speaking the truth. And then listen to you whinge about being "offended".

Matthew 15:7-9 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their ^amouth, and ^bhonoureth me with their lips; but their ^cheart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do ^aworship me, teaching for ^bdoctrines the ^ccommandments of men.

These verses could have been written with you in mind. Despite all your protestations to the contrary, you've offered nothing but derision and criticism.

You have not tried to uplift a single time in your tenure here- only to undermine, to sap, and destroy.

Matthew 15:11-13 Not that which goeth into the mouth ^adefileth a man; but that which cometh out of the ^bmouth, this defileth a man.

12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

The Savior didn't seem terribly upset at the idea that he might have offended those to whom he spoke truth.

Neither are we concerned with offending you- for precisely the same reasons.

Edited November 1, 2011 by selek1

[stevedallas]

Selek, my mask has not slipped. I am not wearing one. I feel a pull to the LDS Church and I am here to see issues. Instead, I have seen Mormons like you who disown their Apostles, or at least their teachings. Perhaps you missed general Conference. I encourage you to read L Tom's Talk. It was really very good. I have ignored no CFRs to points I wished to discuss. I am sorry if me not bowing to your will offended you. I have spoken from my heart regarding MMM (I still think it is in the past and should be left there). I have expressed my doubts on other points.

I am sorry that you and a few others here ignore the teachings of your Apostles and get angry at me when I point it out. I am no hypocrite. I ask you to follow your apostles. You refuse them. I am not bound by them as I am not LDS.

But the fact you ignore your Apostles speaks volumes.

[KevinG]

This sounds like the kids in the back seat poking each other until one loses it and starts yelling.

Have some more mini-candy bars and chill!

[KevinG]

Selek, my mask has not slipped. I am not wearing one. I feel a pull to the LDS Church and I am here to see issues. Instead, I have seen Mormons like you who disown their Apostles, or at least their teachings. Perhaps you missed general Conference. I encourage you to read L Tom's Talk. It was really very good. I have ignored no CFRs to points I wished to discuss. I am sorry if me not bowing to your will offended you. I have spoken from my heart regarding MMM (I still think it is in the past and should be left there). I have expressed my doubts on other points.

I am sorry that you and a few others here ignore the teachings of your Apostles and get angry at me when I point it out. I am no hypocrite. I ask you to follow your apostles. You refuse them. I am not bound by them as I am not LDS.

But the fact you ignore your Apostles speaks volumes.

In all seriousness the on-line world is a seething cesspool of anti-mormon trolling. It is hard not to get testy when we hear the same objections over and over again, despite our having answered them hundreds of times. I try to remember that for the person asking it is often the first time for them. It is hard to assume someone is genuine and having them lecture me on how I am behaving often makes me more defensive.

For what its worth.

BTW- I've met Elder Perry. Nice guy with big hands!

[KevinG]

You can be as rude as you feel you need to be. And I accept your apology for bearing false witness. 11 out of 108 posts is not nearly "almost every other post". It is true that I was LDS many years ago. It is also true that, two years ago, I almost was rebaptized. I attended Sac meetings and studied and everything else I said. I feel a very strong pull to come back. People like you are certainly a deterrent. Your Leaders have warned LDS members against acting like you act. I encourage you to read your recent General Conference. Read the Talk "Charity never Faileth" by Silvia Allred. Even more, I suggest you read L. Tom Perry's talk. he is speaking to you. What does he say? he speaks specifically about the internet. He, your apostle, says you should approach the internet conversations with love. You should be respectful and civil "regardless of the response of others." You should "avoid arguing or becoming defensive in any way."

He is one of your leaders. One of the men you believe is directly called of God. If you cannot comply with what he says to do, and/or if the internet causes you to lose your way, as it appears to do, I suggest you step away and pray. Your conduct does more to hurt the church, and your ignoring of the guidance of your apostles is something that should concern you. You have a unique opportunity to follow your leaders, follow God, and perhaps bring others to the LDS Church.

I was reading this thread backwards and just ran across this. We are often our own worst enemy when it comes to caring for the Saints. I have often been offended deeply - but allowing others behavior to dictate our response is a sure way to deny ourselves the blessings we desire. If you come back do it because God has called you or sure as shooting you will be offended and fall away again.

There is exactly one person who we can emulate and seek acceptance from who will never disappoint. Jesus Christ.

[stevedallas]

Daddy, thank you for your kind words. I did not think I acted like other non lds here. I have sided with lds on mmm, I have spoke of my love for certain lds doctrines and practices and tried to discuss certain areas that give me concern. My posts here and on social board have simply been me trying to learn.

[KevinG]

Daddy, thank you for your kind words. I did not think I acted like other non lds here. I have sided with lds on mmm, I have spoke of my love for certain lds doctrines and practices and tried to discuss certain areas that give me concern. My posts here and on social board have simply been me trying to learn.

You may be paying for the sins of others whose "innocent" questioning turned out to be not so innocent. I've been guilty of jumping on people myself. Pahoran and Selek have been around a long time and have been hammered by wolves in sheeps clothing more than once. I'm sort of sympathetic to both sides here. Be patient with those of us who react badly to your inquiries. We are amateur apologists (defenders of the faith) and sometimes we crusade a bit hard for our own good.

[selek1]

Selek, my mask has not slipped. I am not wearing one. I feel a pull to the LDS Church and I am here to see issues. Instead, I have seen Mormons like you who disown their Apostles, or at least their teachings.

Thank you for bearing false witness yet again, stevedallas. You're racking up a nicely impressive tally.

Perhaps you should stand for elective office.

I have ignored no CFRs to points I wished to discuss.

Actually- board rules REQUIRE you to answer. You made the assertions, you are REQUIRED to back them up or face banning.

Whether or not you "wish" to discuss your slanders is irrelevant.

You made the claims, either back them or retract them.

I am sorry that you and a few others here ignore the teachings of your Apostles and get angry at me when I point it out.

Silly man- we're not ignoring our apostles or their teachings- no matter how often you throw out the spurious charge.

And Board Nannying- like ducking a CFR- is also a violation of the rules.

Edited November 1, 2011 by selek1

[selek1]

stevedallas-

Since you seem genuinely mystified as to why we think you're a troll, here's a small sampling of your "greatest hits":

To say the Book of Mormon is true or not true is the wrong answer to the wrong question. Is it true? ... The question is, is it what it purports to be? Is it the inspired Word of God? Is it a history book?

It is not what it purports to be. No reputable, non-LDS archeologist can claim there is any evidence of it. No reputable, non-LDS historian can accept it as history. Can a person learn about God's love from it? Yes. Just as they can from reading any Religious Fiction.

I loved being LDS and will always miss it. I wish it were true. But it isn't.

It proves that the Book of Mormon is a religious fictional book that talks about fictional places but has a great message, much like many of the books in the religious fiction genre

The Book of Mormon claims that a miracle occurred in Zarahemla. Well, where is it? How can we believe a miracle when the place is fictional?

You are not unimpressed. You are stymied. Yes, we both believe the "essential parts", the difference is, yours come from a book of fictional locations that you cannot even show on a map while mine come from a book of verified locations and events.

My research is that BY ordered the killings, but not God.

It is what my research has led me to believe. The self-serving "don;t touch them" after the fact means very little. Young's conduct afterwards in kicking over the memorial and claiming vengeance speaks volumes.

I suppose that the outrage was so great that it would have been foolish to have another massacre. But more likely, there were not very many large parties from Arkansas who put themselves in the LDS grasp

Most LDS will never admit there is even a chance he was guilty in the massacre. Many historians believe he was.

Frankly, I would be surprised if he was NOT involved. Read his speeches of vengeance and blood. Heck, the Mormons were harassed, killed, assaulted and chased from every home they had. They were finally in a position to push back.

While I believe he gave the order (followed by the CYA "don't touch" order") he actually did not need to. His violent oratory that demanded violence and retribution was heard by all. He was the prophet, so, coming from the prophet it carried the weight of God. That, in itself, makes him an accessory before the fact. In fact, the words shouted during the massacre were "do your duty!" Sounds like they were taking BY's Oath of Vengeance speeches seriously.

I did not come here to have you all give me a testimony. I did not come here in lieu of prayer and study. I came here because I thought it would be a good place to ask questions and express doubts.

Thank you, but your response it a little too simplistic.

I would dare think I am more intelligent than folks like Nephi, etc.

Edited November 1, 2011 by selek1

[stevedallas]

I can see that. All I can say is, I have trouble with certain doctrines, but am no anti. I just want to be where God wants me to be.

[stevedallas]

Sleek, a fair person would also post the positives. I admit the Book of Mormon is one of my issues, so I speak in a way that I hope gains me answers. I also have issues with Josph Smith. But why ignore my posts where I side with you on mmm, or when I praise GC, or when I speak of my love of eternal marriage? Look, label me if you think it is what your prophet would have you do and then just ignore me. I believe there are lds here who actually would rather help than hinder

[Nevo]

Wait..... the slaughter of innocent unarmed men, women and children may have been part of an "inspired move?"

Please tell me I am misunderstanding you here.

Hi Seth,

In case you're still reading, I can assure you that ERayR's post was intended to be ironic. His post was a reaction to certain far-fetched imaginary scenarios that were being floated by other posters.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Nevo