Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[zerinus]

I understand the idea that the people of the Old Testament were in a very different situation (and under a different law) than people today. I'm curious if either of you believes that God commanded the slaughter of infants in Old Testament times (as recounted e.g. in 1 Sam 15).

Yes, He did. But that proves what exactly?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

My research is that BY ordered the killings,

No, the militia did this under John D. Lee's orders. John D. Lee was in charge of men in Cedar City because the territory was under martial law and his orders were "[t]hat all the forces in said Territory hold themselves in readiness to March, at a moment's notice, to repel any and all such threatened invasion" (Arrington, p. 254). John's orders, being ready to repel any threatening invasion was the only order he had. Further John D Lee was acting against orders, considering Brigham had sent a letter back to Ceder City ordering the southern Utahns not to meddle with the emigrants. Sir, conspiracy theorist.

I have a hard time believing that religion had little influence in the MMM

Except there is nothing that points to persecution of non-Mormons. Non-Mormons passed through Utah many times before unharmed. It was this [particular] train. They did it because they were getting ready for an invasion, they felt the train was a threat.

Due to insults were made by the members of the train, caused the city to refuse to sell supplies to the wagon train. So, the wagon train members told the Mormons that they hoped the invading army killed or imprisoned them, etc. Also threatened that they would raise an army when they got to California and would come back and "settle the score." Which is when they stopped them at Mountain Meadows and sent a rider to Salt Lake to seek Brigham Young's advice and counsel. Utah was allied with the local Paiutes Indians, their treaty was they would give them cattle so they would not attack Utahns and non-Utahns' herds as they passed, and because of the invasion, they had removed their protection of non-Utahns from them. Which gave the Paiutes the freedom to attack the herds of the trains as they passed. So before a response could be returned from Brigham Young. The Paiutes saw the train that was stopped, and so they attacked some of the train's herds. Three of the Fancher left the camp for California for help and so were killed by a combination of Mormons and Indians. The Indians helped make up their minds, they decided not wait for Brigham Young's advice, as they'd surely fulfill their promise to build an army in California. Religion had nothing to do with it.

They told Brigham that the Paiutes had done it, but when Brigham was replaced as governor, he told the new governor, Albert Cumming from Tennessee, that he wasn't satisfied with what he'd been told and that the affair should be investigated. Cumming responded that he thought it would be covered by the Utah War amnesty. Others, including I think the NY Times, concurred with that view.

While anti-Mormon propaganda may pretend that Brigham was behind it; its utterly false. If that's what you call sufficient "research", then you are pretending too.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III

[ldsfaqs]

No, the early denials were not true.

The RLDS Historian, Richard P. Howard published the correct historical information that Joseph Smith and the brethren had been practicing polygyny long before the death of Smith. Howard published this information in the official RLDS Church magazine at the behest of the RLDS Church Presidency. This was only one of the factors leading to schism within the Reorganization, since RLDS members had long held to the false story that Brigham began polygyny.

Nope.... They were practicing the sealing ordinance of Plural Marriage, not Polygamy.

I once left the Church over plural marriage and two other issues, so you're not going to out intellect me on the issue.

Of course, I'm not saying there wasn't a little "over-lap", that there weren't a couple of Polygamous marriages before the leaving. But, when Joseph said the Church wasn't practicing it, and Emma said Joseph wasn't practicing it, they weren't lying. That's my only care.

[Robert F. Smith]

Nope.... They were practicing the sealing ordinance of Plural Marriage, not Polygamy.

I once left the Church over plural marriage and two other issues, so you're not going to out intellect me on the issue.

Of course, I'm not saying there wasn't a little "over-lap", that there weren't a couple of Polygamous marriages before the leaving. But, when Joseph said the Church wasn't practicing it, and Emma said Joseph wasn't practicing it, they weren't lying. That's my only care.

Emma lied. It was a very personal, embarrassing matter, and she wanted to forget it. However, the work of professional historians makes it clear that full scale polygyny was indeed being practiced by the brethren in Nauvoo. We have their diaries, and it is abundantly clear that this is not some matter of self-justification. The upshot for you should be that even Reorganization historians had to swallow hard and finally admit the truth.

You may want to explore this further by reading:

Richard P. Howard, "The Changing RLDS Response to Mormon Polygamy: A preliminary Analysis," JWHA Journal, 3:14.

Alma Blair, "RLDS Views of Polygamy: Some Historiographical Notes," JWHA Journal, 5:15.

Linda King Newell, "Emma Hale Smith and the Polygamy Question," JWHA Journal, 4:3.

Roger D. Launius, "Politicking Against Polygamy: Joseph Smith, III, The Reorganized Church, and the Politics of the Antipolygamy Crusade, 1860-1890," JWHA Journal, 7:35.

[citizen28]

For the record, you still haven't established that these early Mormons were "extremely religious" as compared to their neighbors or their descendants. While that may be a conceit of your argument, it remains to be established as fact.

The early pioneers were people who crossed the plains, lost family members and property, and endured persecution at every turn, all in the name of their religion. Surely you've read some of these people's journals. They saw the world a lot differently than you or I. To early Mormons, the Second Coming was NIGH AT HAND and God was gathering his people, separating them from Babylon and the Gentiles in preparation for the imminent Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord. In my lifelong experience in the church, I've seen very little resembling the over-the-top religious zeal displayed by early church members (and by the way, I consider this a good thing). It was in reading the actual writings of these people that the disconnect became very clear to me.

I'm actually quite surprised to find that the party-line here is that the MMM lacked religious motivation. I believe that the perpetrators were generally good men with misplaced religious zeal. Certainly, there was bad blood between the Fancher train and the local Mormons, but I believe these men would not have acted if they didn't believe their actions were justified by God. My original point was that there exists biblical precedent for God-sanctioned mass slaughter, including that of innocents.

[citizen28]

I understand the idea that the people of the Old Testament were in a very different situation (and under a different law) than people today. I'm curious if either of you believes that God commanded the slaughter of infants in Old Testament times (as recounted e.g. in 1 Sam 15). So far, it seems like most people here do not.

Yes, He did. But that proves what exactly?

It proves that in your mind, God is capable of commanding righteous men to slaughter innocents. I reject this idea completely.

[selek1]

The early pioneers were people who crossed the plains, lost family members and property, and endured persecution at every turn, all in the name of their religion. Surely you've read some of these people's journals.

I have, though I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that my reading on the matter is sufficiently exhaustive to paint a picture of all of the Saint in question.

For all that they endured in the name of their religion, the historical evidence is that they were largely passive in their travails.

No pogroms, no massacres, no pitched battles in which unarmed innocents were routinely slaughtered. Even the "guerilla war" waged against Johnston's army as it crossed the plains was bloodless.

That's part of why the Mountain Meadows Massacre was so shocking- because it was so out of character for the Mormons.

Surely, if your supposition is true, then Mountain Meadows cannot have been an isolated incident, now can it? And yet, outside of the fervid imaginations of the muckrakers and tabloid journalists of the day, such lurid, sensational tales about the Mormons have no basis in reality, now do they?

They saw the world a lot differently than you or I.

And how, precisely do you know how I see the world? Is it the same mind-reading tricks you used on the perpetrators of the Massacre?

You've yet to present any evidence supporting your opinion.

Your train of logic thus far can be summed up in this fashion:

• God condoned massacres in the distant past.
  
• Mormons believe in God.
  
• Some Mormons commited a massacre.
  
• 
  
• Therefore, Mormons believe God condoned their particular massacre.
  

That train of logic is no more sound- let alone proven- than this:

• There was a President in America named Jefferson Davis.
  
• The President lives in Washington D.C.
  
• The President lives in a building called the White House.
  
• 
  
• Therefore, Jefferson Davis lives in the White House in Washington, D.C.
  

No matter how tight a web of mind-reading, innuendo, and pure supposition you care to weave, it is still only supposition until you can back it up with facts.

To early Mormons, the Second Coming was NIGH AT HAND and God was gathering his people, separating them from Babylon and the Gentiles in preparation for the imminent Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord.

And yet Mormons believe the second coming in nigh at hand even to this day. As far as the separating them from Babylon and the Gentiles in preparation for the coming judgement, I don't believe that this is either a fair or accurate way to characterize the sum of Mormon thought on the matter- then or now.

In my lifelong experience in the church, I've seen very little resembling the over-the-top religious zeal displayed by early church members

Which you've yet to prove existed outside your own subjective opinion..

(and by the way, I consider this a good thing).

Really? Why?

It was in reading the actual writings of these people that the disconnect became very clear to me.

Let's be accurate here. The perceived disconnect.

I'm actually quite surprised to find that the party-line here is that the MMM lacked religious motivation.

Why?

As has been noted before, every faithful poster who's participated in this thread has taken ample time in familiarizing themselves with the facts. Are you truly surprised that we prefer learned analysis to your flights of fantasy?

The only religious factor involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was the bullseye painted on the back of the Utah settlers because of their faith.

Also, I reject your insinuation of "group-think". I find it distasteful and offensive.

There is no "party-line". Each of the faithful posters who has troubled to answer your thread has reached his or her conclusion independently.

If you want group-think, mindless adulation, and thoughtless obesiance to the party line, you'll have to look elsewhere.

I believe that the perpetrators were generally good men with misplaced religious zeal.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

I personally believe (and the facts seem to support) that they were generally good men terrified at being driven from their homes yet again, and seeing their families raped and murdered by an invading army that was not interested in facts or justice.

Certainly, there was bad blood between the Fancher train and the local Mormons, but I believe these men would not have acted if they didn't believe their actions were justified by God.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, the evidence does nothing to support your supposition- in fact, you've offered no evidence to support your reasoning at all.

Your entire argument thus far has been built upon the ever-sandy foundation of "I think/I feel/ I suspect".

You've offered nothing approaching facts to support what is essentially a game of mind-reading.

My original point was that there exists biblical precedent for God-sanctioned mass slaughter, including that of innocents.

Indeed there is.

What you've failed to demonstrate is that said precedent applied in any way to the actions and motivations of the murderers at Mountain Meadows.

The facts- and their actions during and after the Massacre- bely what you imagine the case to be.

As I did with Steve Dallas above, I offer you a challenge:

If you can provide an authenticated quote from any of the participants suggesting that they believed they were carrying out God's will, I will concede your point. I will accept a journal entry, a statment made in trial, or first-hand testimony.

Consider this a formal Call For References, if you like.

We know what your opinion is. Can you offer up some evidence to support it?

Until you provide such evidence, your accusation is mere fancy, and your fanciful Emperor has no clothes.

Edited October 23, 2011 by selek1

[selek1]

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?

As has been amply demonstrated on this and many, many other threads, there is NO credible evidence of complicity in the Massacre by the Church or its leadership.

Then and now, the facts clearly demonstrate that Brigham Young wished that the Fancher train be allowed to leave Utah peacefully.

There is no evidence whatever that either Brigham Young or the Church secretly condoned the Massacre, let alone that they taught that God condoned it.

Even Steve Dallas' inflammatory little aside is suspect, at best.

It proves that in your mind, God is capable of commanding righteous men to slaughter innocents. I reject this idea completely.

It seems to me that you've already made up your mind, citizen.

So why have you spent the last five pages insisting that the perpetrators must have believed their actions were sanctioned by God?

Clearly, you flatly reject the possibility that God did so.

In your mind, if they did believe it, they were mistaken.

So what's the point of this futile little exercise?

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.

In other words, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite a complete lack of evidene to support your supposition, you think the Church is lying about it.

All that stuff about God condoning the Massacre was just a smokescreen for your accusation.

Gee, that clears everything up right there, doesn't it?

How efficient: it lays out the agenda, establishes the burden of proof, and exposes your bias all in one fell swoop.

Edited October 23, 2011 by selek1

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Religious zeal doesn't explain why these people killed, since the religion provides an external set of moral standards, and thus provides less opportunity for self-delusion, reinforcing their innate beliefs on murder. You would have to explain how the religion specifically lead to this behavior, before you can even begin to blame it on something like "zeal".

Edited October 23, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III

[Calm]

Citizen, have you read the Turley, etc. book on the subject?

[Calm]

Thank you very much, Sister.

Here is the Ensign article: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

Again if you are interested in motivation, you've just got to read Massacre at Mountain Meadows. It is a thorough examination of the combination of events and attitudes that triggered this tragedy.

[stevedallas]

It is "research" that is the misnomer.

I don't doubt that you believe what you claim to believe- it's your methodology (and how you arrived at that conclusion) which I find questionable.

Two Ouija boards, the entrails of a live newt, an IRR article, and three Chick pamphlets simply don't count as "research" to any reasonable reader.

The smple fact of the matter is this: had you done any kind of academic research, you wouldn't be having so much difficulty in meeting the challenge I laid out for you. You would simply be better versed on the issues at the heart of the matter.

It goes without saying that Young's comment (if recorded accurately- and there's considerable doubt that this is the case) would be considered offensive and insensitive.

Yet even conceding that he said it, or that he ordered the destruction of the stone cairn, your riposte lacks any kind of evidence implicating Young in actually ordering the Massacre.

Rather than citing factual evidence, you are attempting to convict based solely on innuendo and whispers.

While this is a favored tactic of gossips, demagogues, and propogandists, it is not indicative of even a passing familiarity with the history of Mountain Meadows, or the facts regarding that horror and atrocity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I laid out a very simple challenge for you.

Do you have those five facts I asked for?

Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your guesstimates and Young's explicit statements and the official records?

Or are you still up to your chin in newt entrails?

I apologize for upsetting you. I had no intent in causing you to abandon the Christian love and respect the LDS Church claims to possess. I do not even own a Ouiji Board, nor do I know where to obtain entrails. I hope you can see how your conduct could be a deterrent to people finding the LDS Church a place of God.

The research is out there. One can look at the speeches of BY and his fiery, violent oratory. 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.

But then, one can look at his conduct AFTER the conduct to see his level of culpability. By going to the site and kicking over the CROSS that was placed there in respect speaks volumes. This, when taken with his words, when speaking of vengeance, said, "I have taken a little." Why desecrate the monument of the site of a horrible massacre?

Even Lee suspected BY.

But, I am curious. My post made two statements: One was my opinion, the other advising folks to drop it because every denomination has skeletons. Why did you focus so hard on my opinion and overlook the other comment?

[Calm]

The research is out there. One can look at the speeches of BY and his fiery, violent oratory. 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. ?

So why weren't there more acts of violence against nonLDS?

[stevedallas]

So why weren't there more acts of violence against nonLDS?

Irrelevant.

But, 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

[Calm]

Irrelevant.

But, 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

On the contrary if it was Brigham Young's speech that got people riled up enough to commit murder then it should have affected a lot more people since his speeches were not limited to just a few LDS in Southern Utah so violence of all sorts should have occurred with the less violent attacks being more common than the more violent, the smaller more vulnerable target more common than the large better protected and the very large the least common of all.

So why is the choice of violence only limited to massacre? Surely itis much more likely that some lesser form of violence would be common before someone worked up all the way to a massacre.

And why do the nonLDS have to be limited to only Arkansans? And why a very large party? Surely a smaller party would be a likely target to attack rather than one that might be able to fight back.

[thesometimesaint]

No it's to the point.

MMM is a one off embarrasing incident. NO other wagon trains were attacked by Mormons before, during, or after the MMM.

[zerinus]

It proves that in your mind, God is capable of commanding righteous men to slaughter innocents. . . .

It proves no such thing. I believe whatever God does is right. He knows a lot of things that I don't, and whatever He does, for reasons best known to Himself, is right. It is not for me to act as God's moral arbiter, and decide the rights and wrongs of His actions based on my limited understanding. Whatever God does is right, even though the reasons why He does them may not always be apparent to us. Were there no "innocent man, women, or children" who died in the Flood? Were there no such people who died in Sodom and Gomorrah? So what is the difference between that, and God commanding the Israelites exterminating whole cities? Do not such people get hurt in major hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis? I don't judge God by my limited understanding. Whatever God says or does is always right.

[stevedallas]

On the contrary if it was Brigham Young's speech that got people riled up enough to commit murder then it should have affected a lot more people since his speeches were not limited to just a few LDS in Southern Utah so violence of all sorts should have occurred with the less violent attacks being more common than the more violent, the smaller more vulnerable target more common than the large better protected and the very large the least common of all.

So why is the choice of violence only limited to massacre? Surely itis much more likely that some lesser form of violence would be common before someone worked up all the way to a massacre.

And why do the nonLDS have to be limited to only Arkansans? And why a very large party? Surely a smaller party would be a likely target to attack rather than one that might be able to fight back.

Your questions attempt to prove innocence by lack of other incidents. That is a poor defense. Let's say, for example, that someone meets a young man and incites this person to kill someone using fiery speech and inflaming accusations. The young man then kills someone. Would he be acquitted at trial simply because he did not kill others? No.

If you knew the history, you would know why I specified Arkansas.

The fact other parties were not attacked is irrelevant.

[frankenstein]

Are children who have not reached the age of accountability innocent? It would seem clear from the lds perspective they are. Does the bible indicate that god commanded genecide ... Yes the bible does - it is not relevant whether one thinks such justification is post hoc .

Is there a theological basis for lds persons to murder in the name of god, yes there is, read section 98. So while it is entirely possible for god to command a massacre/genecide there is does not seem to evidence for such in mmm

Edited October 23, 2011 by frankenstein

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Note that I said "no". I offered reasons how that it might not be the case, but I was skipped over cause it didn't help your narrative. We are Christians and view God's character through the character of Christ.

Understand, zerinus, this is likely an non-Judaic religionist if not an atheist, and doesn't appeal to God as being a moral authority over his own morals.

zerinus is not a zealot, because we don't believe in blind faith, its based on his experience that testified to him the goodness of God. he was not taught to do what he is told and not question (Brigham greatly discouraged the Saints from following him blindly). What zerinus perhaps would argue, is that God is indeed ethical, any such a thing that God orders must be under some ethic. Where zerinus' examples could fall under a humanist ethical law of utility, deem it as an act of kindness. Part of the greater good. That if certain people had not died, then a greater number of injustices would have resulted. Some nations wiped out by God, for example, practiced child sacrifice. It was also an age where war was the norm and vengeance continued for many generations. And so on.

Of course, I didn't argue that. But you rather ignore that.

[Mudcat]

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.

So much for staying out of it...

I have been thinking about the OP, citizen28 and bear in mind I don't speak as an LDS, I am an evangelical.

Though I am an evangelical, I am not a Biblical literalist when it comes to ethical issues, such as the attribution of genocide to an injunction from God, as we see in Samuel. The malevolent slaughter of women and children, seems a far cry from the character of Christ that we see expressed in the NT. Quite a bit different than the notion that we are to love our enemies, don't you think.

I think it would be more likely that the Hebrews of the time wanted to vindicate their actions towards the Amalekites, by attributing this to God.

One has to be careful, when making such assumptions.

But I think it fair to ask ourselves, Would Christ have been a willing soldier in the army or Saul. Would the Savior himself, kill infants, children and women in cold blood with a sword?

I don't think Christ would, any more than he would slaughter a wagon train of families, or gun down people at mill, or lay assault to a small jail to murder the prisoners... and so on. Such actions are motivated by hatred and fear and I don't see any room for God in them at all. Rather, man fulfilling the worst that it is in him.

If LDS took the position that MMM was a divine command, I think they would be making the same mistake I believe the Hebrews made.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Calm]

Your questions attempt to prove innocence by lack of other incidents. That is a poor defense. Let's say, for example, that someone meets a young man and incites this person to kill someone using fiery speech and inflaming accusations. The young man then kills someone. Would he be acquitted at trial simply because he did not kill others? No.

If you knew the history, you would know why I specified Arkansas.

The fact other parties were not attacked is irrelevant.

. Pattern of behaviour is used to establish guilt or innocence, its value depends on what other evidence there is. You have provided no evidence save for this one event as a demonstration of his direct responsibility prior to the event happening. You discount the concrete evidence of the letter instructing nonviolence as a plausible deniability move while ignoring other similar instructions given out prior to engagement at other times, such as with the case of Johnston's army where they were instructed to harass but not attack resulting in a remarkable limited amount of violence considering the number of encounters and the people involved, including those who listened to BY's fiery rhetoric who by your logic should have been primed for major violence.

Bottomline if the reason you believe BY is responsible for the attacks are his rhetoric promoting violence, then there should be other events due to the multiple occasions he spoke and the multitudes he was speaking to. OTOH, if you are just using his speeches to show he was in a vengeful mood so he ordered the attack, then you need to demonstrate how he managed to communicate to the settlers those instructions. Since it has been demonstrated that the only known communication involved instructions to leave them alone plus there are no examples of communications encouraging violence connected to other events to establish a pattern of behavior, I think you'll have a problem doing so.

But in your example here the person has talked to one man while in the case of Brigham Young he was talking to an entire territory. If his speech incited one group of individuals, why didn't it incite others. Simply saying it didn't doesn't explain the difference. Plus you have not provided evidence that all those involved even heard BY and if they didn't, you need to explain why his rhetoric was a cause when they didn't require his encouragement to commit murder.

I understand the significance of Arkansas (remember I'm the one who mentioned PPP). There were many, many wagon trains that passed through both northern and southern Utah both before and after the massacre, of varying sizes (you have yet to explain why you think only very large trains would be targets rather than smaller more vulnerable ones or even individuals). The most popular routes to the West went through Utah. I think it quite a stretch to assume there were no more wagon trains from Arkansas, large or small or individuals.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

I think it would be more likely that the Hebrews of the time wanted to vindicate their actions towards the Amalekites, by attributing this to God.

If you interpreted that scripture in that way, it would through the whole of the Bible out of sync with itself. It was Samuel the prophet who commanded Saul to go and exterminate the Amalekites:

1 Samuel 15:

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.s.s.

4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

Then Saul disobeyed Samuel in that he did not carry out the extermination to the full extent that God had commanded:

1 Samuel 15:

10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,

11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.

As a result of which Saul lost his kingdom, and David was anointed kind in his place, through whose lineage the Savior was born. And as a result of which we also have one of the most memorable verses in the whole Bible: “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). If your theory is true, it throws into confusion and disarray everything that is implied by the above. How can the Bible be trusted at all if one were to read into it anything one likes as you suggest?

Edited October 23, 2011 by zerinus

[stevedallas]

But in your example here the person has talked to one man while in the case of Brigham Young he was talking to an entire territory. If his speech incited one group of individuals, why didn't it incite others. Simply saying it didn't doesn't explain the difference. Plus you have not provided evidence that all those involved even heard BY and if they didn't, you need to explain why his rhetoric was a cause when they didn't require his encouragement to commit murder.

I understand the significance of Arkansas (remember I'm the one who mentioned PPP). There were many, many wagon trains that passed through both northern and southern Utah both before and after the massacre, of varying sizes (you have yet to explain why you think only very large trains would be targets rather than smaller more vulnerable ones or even individuals). The most popular routes to the West went through Utah. I think it quite a stretch to assume there were no more wagon trains from Arkansas, large or small or individuals.

Why does not everyone accept all the things Obama says? he speaks to large groups as well. You are trying to prove innocence in one incident by claiming an absence of similar incidents. That simply does not work.

[Calm]

Religious zeal doesn't explain why these people killed, since the religion provides an external set of moral standards, and thus provides less opportunity for self-delusion, reinforcing their innate beliefs on murder. You would have to explain how the religion specifically lead to this behavior, before you can even begin to blame it on something like "zeal".

I would assume myself if there was ever a time for religious zealotry leading to violent vengeance that this would have been demonstrated at the time when the Prophet and his beloved brother was killed.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah