Episcopalians Flounder..Will Lds Follow?

[selek1]

No seeping changes? Are you joking? Starting polygamy, and then ending polygamy....were not sweeping changes?

Allowing blacks the priesthood, and admitting female and male blacks into the temple were not sweeping changes?

1) Polygamy remains still a doctrine of the Church, despite the fact that it is not currently practiced.

2) The LDS Church did not start polygamy nor end it- not even on the American continent. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy, as did a number of European mountain men long before Joseph Smith, Jr. was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. the Church There is evidence that some Native American tribes continued the practice into the 20th century. Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.

So contrary to popular belief, polygamy in the Americas was neither a Mormon invention, nor particularly unprecedented.

3) As far as the Blacks and the Priesthood nonsense goes, it was always taugth that they would one-day receive the Priesthood. It is only through careful quote-mining or willful ignorance that one can pretend otherwise.

More specifically, from roughly ~400A.D. until 1836, no "black" of any sort was authorized to receive the Priesthood- through no fault of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints For over 1400 years, no "black" man was authorized to exercise the keys of the Priesthood- regardless of his worthiness.

From 1836 to 1978, a limited number of exceptions were allowed. Instead of addressing the 14 centuries, you choose to kvetch about the 14 decades when exceptions were made.

There's something wrong with that logic.

More specifically, in 1978, Latter-day Saints the world over rejoiced over the fact that all worthy men could once again partake of the Priesthood.

But because it was always anticipated, it does not constitute a sweeping change.

As of today, there are fewer than seven million authorized preisthood holders- out of an eligible population of roughly 3.5 billion.

Thats roughly 2/10ths of one percent.

Rather than worrying about the other 99.98% and bringing them to the fold, you kvetch about the .2%

There's something wrong with that logic, too.

[selek1]

I did read a book about J. Lee and that he was the adopted son of BY. Poor fella was the fall guy for all of the others, which included a stake president. I think it looks better for these men if it is blood atonement, instead of just cold blooded killers.

Actually- the fault for the lack of prosecutions lies with the non-Mormons, not with the Saints.

As anyone not trolling (and passably familiar with the history) will understand, Bishop Klingensmith and roughly a half-dozen others were arrested for the crime. They escaped prosecution through a combination of judicial malprudence, incompetence, and complicity. Klingensmith himself escaped prosecution by turning state's evidence (and by many accounts) perjuring himself.

Had the prosecutors been as diligent in punishing the guilty as in making political hay, Lee would have been joined on the gallows by many others.

And anyone who believes Lee was a victim in this situation is not to be taken seriously.

Additionally, as has already been demonstrated, there is little evidence to indicate the other alleged incidents actually took place, and zero evidence tying them to the teachings or practices of the Church.

[selek1]

In my opinion it was practiced, in a meadow somewhere.

Have you been there. Tacenda? Have you walked the Meadow in question?

Have you touched the marker?

Have you knelt and offered prays for the dead and lost at the site?

Have you studied any of the historical data regarding the atrocity?

Have you read the diaries of those waiting for Johnston's army to descend on Utah?

Or are you just flashing a smug and offensive ignorance because it makes you feel all warm and superior inside?

Edited July 17, 2012 by selek1

[Tacenda]

Have you been there. Tacenda? Have you walked the Meadow in question?

Have you touched the marker?

Have you knelt and offered prays for the dead and lost at the site?

Have you studied any of the historical data regarding the atrocity?

Have you read the diaries of those waiting for Johnston's army to descend on Utah?

Or are you just flashing a smug and damnable ignorance because it makes you feel all warm and superior inside?

Yes, I made my family take a detour on a family vacation,this year in fact, first time having been there. We saw the funniest thing, a squirrel sat high up top on the memorial and stayed there the entire time. I took a pic of it , if you'd like to see it. It sounds to me like you've made a much more thorough search than I have and you definitely display sympathy for the Fancher Party and the tragedy of their story. Edited July 17, 2012 by Tacenda

[cwald]

1) Polygamy remains still a doctrine of the Church, despite the fact that it is not currently practiced.

2) The LDS Church did not start polygamy nor end it- not even on the American continent. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy, as did a number of European mountain men long before Joseph Smith, Jr. was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. the Church There is evidence that some Native American tribes continued the practice into the 20th century. Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.

So contrary to popular belief, polygamy in the Americas was neither a Mormon invention, nor particularly unprecedented.

3) As far as the Blacks and the Priesthood nonsense goes, it was always taugth that they would one-day receive the Priesthood. It is only through careful quote-mining or willful ignorance that one can pretend otherwise.

More specifically, from roughly ~400A.D. until 1836, no "black" of any sort was authorized to receive the Priesthood- through no fault of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints For over 1400 years, no "black" man was authorized to exercise the keys of the Priesthood- regardless of his worthiness.

From 1836 to 1978, a limited number of exceptions were allowed. Instead of addressing the 14 centuries, you choose to kvetch about the 14 decades when exceptions were made.

There's something wrong with that logic.

More specifically, in 1978, Latter-day Saints the world over rejoiced over the fact that all worthy men could once again partake of the Priesthood.

But because it was always anticipated, it does not constitute a sweeping change.

As of today, there are fewer than seven million authorized preisthood holders- out of an eligible population of roughly 3.5 billion.

Thats roughly 2/10ths of one percent.

Rather than worrying about the other 99.98% and bringing them to the fold, you kvetch about the .2%

There's something wrong with that logic, too.

Really? You can believe what you want....I'm sure there are MANY MANY black LDS members who disagree with you.

[selek1]

Really? You can believe what you want....I'm sure there are MANY MANY black LDS members who disagree with you.

Pity you can't cite any....

...but then again, why bother with facts when race-baiting will do?

[Areabird]

Huh? No. I think prosperity is the fruits of curches who cling to orthodoxy.

If that is the case, then wouldn't all the polygamy sects be growing and prospering? They're much more orthodox than we are....

[cwald]

Pity you can't cite any....

...but then again, why bother with facts when race-baiting will do?

You expect me to cite a black LDS member who would consider the lift on the priesthood ban, and allowing black men and women access to the endowment, as a "sweeping" change? Really? And then say I am race-baiting.

PS - I am in an interracial married btw.

Selek, I'm not interested in your illogical rhetoric and offensive banter. Go pester somebody else please.

[why me]

I did read a book about J. Lee and that he was the adopted son of BY. Poor fella was the fall guy for all of the others, which included a stake president. I think it looks better for these men if it is blood atonement, instead of just cold blooded killers.

Are we speaking about MMM? If so, we need to put this into context. The saints ended up in Utah because of persecution. Many saints lost loved ones because of this persecution and not one cold blooded killer was every tried. Mormons were not considered human. And then when we consider the home burnings, press burnings, the loss of life during the trek westward etc, we see a people who most likely were experiencing shock. It wasn't easy. Putting that into context and MMM what we see is a group of mormons who definitely overreacted to the group that was crossing to california and who were suspicious of outsiders. Not to mention the fact that californians were hostile to the mormons in utah and threatening to come to utah to take care of the mormon problem. And not to mention the problems the lds were having with the US army.

Context is important for the mindset of those saints that were involved in the crime.

[why me]

Yes, I made my family take a detour on a family vacation,this year in fact, first time having been there. We saw the funniest thing, a squirrel sat high up top on the memorial and stayed there the entire time. I took a pic of it , if you'd like to see it. It sounds to me like you've made a much more thorough search than I have and you definitely display sympathy for the Fancher Party and the tragedy of their story.

I think that context in the story is important. For example if a mormon parent says: a tragedy occurred here and it was the fault of church members who murdered the fancher party in cold blood. And leave it at that would be making a mistake. The historical context becomes very important by filling in the details of the persecution experienced in church history, why the saints ended up in utah, the psychological abuse experienced from the persecution, the over reaction of these saints, the new persecution threatened by the army and by some californians etc before that event. would be a plus in an example of intolerance and what can happen when there is intolerance.

Edited July 17, 2012 by why me

[Zakuska]

I think that context in the story is important. For example if a mormon parent says: a tragedy occurred here and it was the fault of church members who murdered the fancher party in cold blood. And leave it at that would be making a mistake. The historical context becomes very important by filling in the details of the persecution experienced in church history, why the saints ended up in utah, the psychological abuse experienced from the persecution, the over reaction of these saints, the new persecution threatened by the army and by some californians etc before that event. would be a plus in an example of intolerance and what can happen when there is intolerance.

Oh now you've went and done it!!!

Now the thread is going to turn into a discussion of how over blown the LDS persecution complex really is and the persecutions the saints indured was all a figment of their imaginations, and self caused, because LDS were such poor neighbors and deserved everything they got.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Zakuska

[Damien the Leper]

I wrote a paper on the MMM for my ENG102 class a few years ago.

No offense, Why Me, but the attack on the Fancher party is more than an overreaction. It was a dispicable act of violence. Empathizing with what the Saints endured only goes so far. Considering what Jesus taught about turning your cheek to be hit after the other had already been struck we are not wrong to conclude that this act was inspired by evil from first thought.

I am NOT diminishing or attempting to downplay the oppression the Saints experienced. That would be disrespectful. Instead, I recognize the guilt of all persons involved and refuse to excuse away any actions or emotions and maintain that they are ALL accountable for their actions.

[why me]

Oh now you've went and done it!!!

Now the thread is going to turn into a discussion of how over blown the LDS persecution complex really is and the persecutions the saints indured was all a figment of their imaginations, and self caused, because LDS were such poor neighbors and deserved everything they got.

I know. It is one of those interpretations that the critics love to spread. The lds deserved their persecution, they are suffering a persecution complex, it was all self caused, terrible bigoted people who could not get along with their neighbors etc is the take of the critics like to spread.

But context is always missings and historical facts also. If mormons would have been allowed to worship in peace we would be seeing a much different church today. The persecution of a religious group like the mormons is a stain on US history. The idea that the church survived at all is a miracle.

Thus, it will be around for a long time.

[why me]

I wrote a paper on the MMM for my ENG102 class a few years ago.

No offense, Why Me, but the attack on the Fancher party is more than an overreaction. It was a dispicable act of violence. Empathizing with what the Saints endured only goes so far. Considering what Jesus taught about turning your cheek to be hit after the other had already been struck we are not wrong to conclude that this act was inspired by evil from first thought.

I am NOT diminishing or attempting to downplay the oppression the Saints experienced. That would be disrespectful. Instead, I recognize the guilt of all persons involved and refuse to excuse away any actions or emotions and maintain that they are ALL accountable for their actions.

But context needs to be taken into account and the persecution that the saints were still threatened with is something that needs to be taken into account also. There is no question that past persecutions played a role. And the threats that were still coming out of nonmember circles need to be taken into account to. But of course there is no excuse for MMM but understanding is also important. For example:

MORMON STEREOTYPING AND THE CRUSADE AGAINST POLYGAMY (1847-1896). Settlement in the West provided welcome isolation for the Church, but public disclosure of the practice of polygamy in 1852 brought a new barrage of ridicule and a confrontation with the federal government.

The years from 1850 to 1890 were turbulent ones for the Church because reformers, ministers, and the press openly attacked the practice of polygamy. Opponents founded antipolygamy societies, and Congress passed antipolygamy legislation. Mormons were stereotyped as people who defied the law and were immoral. The clear aim of the judicial and political crusade against the Mormons was to destroy the Church. Only the 1890 manifesto, a statement by Church President Wilford Woodruff that abolished polygamy officially, pacified the government, allowing the return of confiscated Church property. Voluminous anti-Mormon writings, lectures, and cartoons at this time stereotyped the Church as a theocracy that defied the laws of conventional society; many portrayed its members as deluded and fanatical; and they alleged that polygamy, secret rituals, and blood Atonement were the theological underpinnings of the Church. The main motives were to discredit LDS belief, morally to reform a perceived evil, or to exploit the controversy for financial and political profit. The maligning tactics that were used included verbal attacks against Church leaders; caricatures in periodicals, magazines, and lectures; fictional inventions; and outright falsehoods.

http://eom.byu.edu/i...on_Publications

The whole link is worth a read.

Edited July 17, 2012 by why me

[Bernard Gui]

THEN IT DAWNED ON ME. Bernard was HOPING that the liberal membership could fall away from the church and form its own offshoot sect. I can make no other sense of asking this question by referencing the article about the Episcopals.

Think about It a little more and maybe something else may dawn on you.

Using ALL CAPS is a bit ummmm abrasive, don't you think?

Bernard

Edited July 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

Of course, MMM is a little off the topic. But on the other hand, members do leave the church over it because they read critic interpretations and become disappointed with that part of lds history. This may not be the only reason, but it can be one reason. The point is that when we look at church history in context, it helps with our understanding about what was going on during that time in church history.

[Bernard Gui]

Tacenda's problems have been beaten to death, so let's get away from discussing history.

I would like the thread to examine what lies ahead for conservative churches, by which I mean

those that hold to more traditional views of scripture, the existence of God, and the deity of Christ.

That is a broad definition that suits my purpose, so let's not quibble about what is traditional.

I believe powerful social changes and conditioning facilitated the change in priesthood ordinations.

My generation (born 1947) was prepared for the change to happen when it did. It would have been

much more tumultuous to have tried it during my parents' or grandparents' generations. I do not pass

judgment on them, by the way. I feel strongly the issue would have fractured the Church at an earlier time.

Mrs. Gui and I have noticed that equally strong cultural pressures have been brought to bear on

other issues, such as those mentioned in the OP. We see that our children are more receptive to such changesthan we are. Behaviors that were unacceptable to our generation are now heralded, espoused, and promoted with enthusiasm.

Other churches, for example, the Episcopalians, have imposed radical changes from the top down that have created angry schisms. Other churches have resisted change at various levels, for example, the Catholic and LDS support for Prop 8 in California. This resistance comes at a cost, however, which has included isolation, Intense scrutiny, public demonstration, and violent retribution. There is no reason to believe this is going to go away quietly.

We see strong external forces being brought to bear on conservative churches to give it up and join the crowd. There are also internal pressures brewing to force change from the bottom up.

For example, http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54478406-78/cover-illustration-lds-magazine.html.csp

Considering this in the context of Lehi's dream, how will we hold to the iron rod as the mists arise and

the tumult from the great and spacious building grows to storm proportions? Is change inevitable?

Is the slope too slippery?

Bernard

Edited July 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[djholmess]

It seems to me the issues come down to this; what is your ultimate authority. Speaking from my own context there is a clear dividing line between those who still hold the scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith and those who put culture/their own feelings above the word of God.

Same sex marriage is a perfect example, those who believe God has clearly spoken-and that his moral law is binding and unchanging, stand against same sex marriage. Those in favour do not get their beliefs from the Bible, they go elsewhere.

In the Lds context it seems the same kind of issues will be the determining factor. Do you believe that when God speaks through the Bible, the BoM and Prophets his word regarding moral standards is binding or is it just until another 'revelation' comes along? If it is the second then I would guess that over time the Lds church will morph to reflect culture-just as many evangelical groups have.

Out of curiosity does the BoM or any Porphet ever given an official teaching regarding same sex marriage?

[ERayR]

I wrote a paper on the MMM for my ENG102 class a few years ago.

No offense, Why Me, but the attack on the Fancher party is more than an overreaction. It was a dispicable act of violence. Empathizing with what the Saints endured only goes so far. Considering what Jesus taught about turning your cheek to be hit after the other had already been struck we are not wrong to conclude that this act was inspired by evil from first thought.

I am NOT diminishing or attempting to downplay the oppression the Saints experienced. That would be disrespectful. Instead, I recognize the guilt of all persons involved and refuse to excuse away any actions or emotions and maintain that they are ALL accountable for their actions.

No Offense Valentinus but no act, especially one like this, happens in a vacuum. You need to ask what turned these loving family men and church leaders to commit these heinous acts. yes it was more than an over reaction, it was an act borne out of fear and panic caused by what had happened, what was currently happening and what they feared would happen. I make no excuses for what they did, it was heinous but I can understand what fueled their actions.

[Tacenda]

No Offense Valentinus but no act, especially one like this, happens in a vacuum. You need to ask what turned these loving family men and church leaders to commit these heinous acts. yes it was more than an over reaction, it was an act borne out of fear and panic caused by what had happened, what was currently happening and what they feared would happen. I make no excuses for what they did, it was heinous but I can understand what fueled their actions.

I was really glad someone on here tried to get off this subject and back on the main topic. But I have to put my two cents in one last time.

In my studies, I've read that the "blood atonement" in BY's mind was that some people needed to atone for their own sins and that would be by them doing it themselves or by someone helping them do that. IMO I think the mormons were so devastated at the martydom of their prophet they thought this Fancher party from Arkansas was a threat. I think there were rumors to that affect. And I wonder if some of these men in the church felt it was their duty to have them atone for the death of Joseph Smith. This is totally my opinion. And it explains their actions in my mind. And then I found this below, just now...

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

Mormons, such as John D. Lee, who participated in the Mountain Meadows massacre, felt justified by strident Mormon teachings during the 1850s.^{[citation needed]} However, historians debate whether that justification was a reasonable interpretation of Mormon theology.

For the decade prior to the Baker–Fancher party's arrival there, Utah Territory existed as a theodemocracy led by Brigham Young. During the mid-1850s, Young instituted a Mormon Reformation, intending to "lay[ing] the axe at the root of the tree of sin and iniquity", while preserving individual rights.^[44] Mormon teachings during this era were dramatic and strident.

In addition, during the prior decades, the religion had undergone a period of intense persecution in the American Midwest, and faithful Mormons moved west to escape persecution in midwestern towns. In particular, they were officially expelled from the state of Missouri during the 1838 Mormon War, during which prominent Mormon apostle David W. Patten was killed in battle. After Mormons moved to Nauvoo, Illinois, the religion's founder Joseph Smith, Jr. and his brother Hyrum Smith were assassinated in 1844. Just months before the Mountain Meadows massacre, Mormons received word that yet another apostle had been killed: in April 1857, apostle Parley P. Pratt was shot in Arkansas by Hector McLean, the estranged husband of one of Pratt's plural wives, Eleanor McLean Pratt.^[45] Mormon leaders immediately proclaimed Pratt as another martyr,^[46] and many Mormons held the people of Arkansas responsible.^[47]

In 1857, Mormon leaders taught that the Second Coming of Jesus was imminent,^[48] and that God would soon exact punishment against the United States for persecuting Mormons and martyring Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith, Patten and Pratt, all of whom were considered by Mormons to be prophets.^[49] In their Endowment ceremony, faithful early Latter-day Saints took an oath to pray that God would take vengeance against the murderers of the prophets.^[50] As a result of this oath, several Mormon apostles and other leaders considered it their religious duty to kill the prophets' murderers if they ever came across them.^[51]

The sermons, blessings, and private counsel by Mormon leaders just before the Mountain Meadows massacre can be understood as encouraging private individuals to execute God's judgment against the wicked.^[52] In Cedar City, the teachings of church leaders were particularly strident.^[53]

[Zakuska]

In my studies, I've read that the "blood atonement" in BY's mind was that some people needed to atone for their own sins and that would be by them doing it themselves or by someone helping them do that. IMO I think the mormons were so devastated at the martydom of their prophet they thought this Fancher party from Arkansas was a threat. I think there were rumors to that affect. And I wonder if some of these men in the church felt it was their duty to have them atone for the death of Joseph Smith. This is totally my opinion. And it explains their actions in my mind. And then I found this below, just now...

And you have your right to that opinion, however... If I may let me add my two cents to yours. Throw in an extra for context and we'll have a nickel.

"Blood Atonement" as described by BY was for covenant breakers and it was modeled after the law of Moses. So Non-LDS could not atone with their own blood because Christ's atonement took care of sins commited in ignorance.

If you notice in this discorse how BY models his blood atonement speach after ther law of Moses and in the context of Covenant breaking.

A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.

Again, suppose the parties are, not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their conscienes condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

He is of course eluding to Phinehas the Priest and his javelin in the matter of Zimri and Cozbi.

Numbers 25

6 ¶And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 ¶And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.

15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.

Theres even a line in a Hymn dedicated to him...

Pslam 106

29 Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.

30 Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.

31 And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

So here a man who has covenanted with God to not mingle his seed with the Midianites, and a Priest of God stands up and kills the covenant breaking brother and the women with whom he was breaking the covenant with, spills their blood and it is counted as a "Righteous act".

BY is right on as far as scripture goes.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

I was really glad someone on here tried to get off this subject and back on the main topic. But I have to put my two cents in one last time.

In my studies, I've read that the "blood atonement" in BY's mind was that some people needed to atone for their own sins and that would be by them doing it themselves or by someone helping them do that. IMO I think the mormons were so devastated at the martydom of their prophet they thought this Fancher party from Arkansas was a threat. I think there were rumors to that affect. And I wonder if some of these men in the church felt it was their duty to have them atone for the death of Joseph Smith. This is totally my opinion. And it explains their actions in my mind. And then I found this below, just now...

http://en.wikipedia....eadows_massacre

Mormons, such as John D. Lee, who participated in the Mountain Meadows massacre, felt justified by strident Mormon teachings during the 1850s.^{[citation needed]} However, historians debate whether that justification was a reasonable interpretation of Mormon theology.

For the decade prior to the Baker–Fancher party's arrival there, Utah Territory existed as a theodemocracy led by Brigham Young. During the mid-1850s, Young instituted a Mormon Reformation, intending to "lay[ing] the axe at the root of the tree of sin and iniquity", while preserving individual rights.^[44] Mormon teachings during this era were dramatic and strident.

In addition, during the prior decades, the religion had undergone a period of intense persecution in the American Midwest, and faithful Mormons moved west to escape persecution in midwestern towns. In particular, they were officially expelled from the state of Missouri during the 1838 Mormon War, during which prominent Mormon apostle David W. Patten was killed in battle. After Mormons moved to Nauvoo, Illinois, the religion's founder Joseph Smith, Jr. and his brother Hyrum Smith were assassinated in 1844. Just months before the Mountain Meadows massacre, Mormons received word that yet another apostle had been killed: in April 1857, apostle Parley P. Pratt was shot in Arkansas by Hector McLean, the estranged husband of one of Pratt's plural wives, Eleanor McLean Pratt.^[45] Mormon leaders immediately proclaimed Pratt as another martyr,^[46] and many Mormons held the people of Arkansas responsible.^[47]

In 1857, Mormon leaders taught that the Second Coming of Jesus was imminent,^[48] and that God would soon exact punishment against the United States for persecuting Mormons and martyring Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith, Patten and Pratt, all of whom were considered by Mormons to be prophets.^[49] In their Endowment ceremony, faithful early Latter-day Saints took an oath to pray that God would take vengeance against the murderers of the prophets.^[50] As a result of this oath, several Mormon apostles and other leaders considered it their religious duty to kill the prophets' murderers if they ever came across them.^[51]

The sermons, blessings, and private counsel by Mormon leaders just before the Mountain Meadows massacre can be understood as encouraging private individuals to execute God's judgment against the wicked.^[52] In Cedar City, the teachings of church leaders were particularly strident.^[53]

No offense Tacenda but you obviously have not studied this enough to know what you are talking about. In the first place blood atonement has nothing to do with MMM. For a decade before the Baker-Fancher party wagon trains had been traveling through Utah on their way to California. Nothing happened to any train before or after the MMM. This is not the thread for MMM and if you really want to know there was a couple of thread some time back on it or else start a new thread instead of dropping it in the middle of something else and trying to do a drive by on it.

You continuously go to the anti-sites and come back with their malicious rhetoric and when it is refuted you claim you are only trying to find your way back to faith and belief. Then it is right back out for something else to throw at the wall. That resonated at first but, for me, is now wearing a bit thin. If you are having faith issues you want to resolve, frequenting these anti sites is not going to help.

[Tacenda]

No offense Tacenda but you obviously have not studied this enough to know what you are talking about. In the first place blood atonement has nothing to do with MMM. For a decade before the Baker-Fancher party wagon trains had been traveling through Utah on their way to California. Nothing happened to any train before or after the MMM. This is not the thread for MMM and if you really want to know there was a couple of thread some time back on it or else start a new thread instead of dropping it in the middle of something else and trying to do a drive by on it.

You continuously go to the anti-sites and come back with their malicious rhetoric and when it is refuted you claim you are only trying to find your way back to faith and belief. Then it is right back out for something else to throw at the wall. That resonated at first but, for me, is now wearing a bit thin. If you are having faith issues you want to resolve, frequenting these anti sites is not going to help.

I am just getting a grip on why they did it the way they did. Didn't you read the article in WIKI? Is it false? I won't bring up any more anti site again. I'm just getting faithful LDS perspectives here. I've only had one sided perspectives from the non believing side. My feeling is that these particular church members made a terrible mistake and couldn't it be attributed to religious zealots in the day? Just like the Muslim attacks. They did the extreme measures also. I'm trying to give an out to these men. I feel like they were a product of their religious envirnonment at the time. Is that WIKI reference I used anti? Are the quotes by BY anti? I'm sorry if you feel I've come to this board with the agenda of putting down LDS. I'm not, I'm LDS too if you've forgotten. And I'm active in my callings etc. But since my struggles, I've had to turn down the most recent calling and that is of Primary Worker. But I'm holding onto my calling as a Visiting Teacher. Before, I was in the Relief Society Presidency for 3 years that ended last May. So I'm not anti. Just finding the truth from true believing members also. I've been hanging out far too long on the other boards, and needed a balance and came here. I'll refrain from bringing any anti site information on here again.

[SamIam]

Mrs. Gui and I have noticed that equally strong cultural pressures have been brought to bear on other issues, such as those mentioned in the OP. We see that our children are more receptive to such changes than we are. Behaviors that were unacceptable to our generation are now heralded, espoused, and promoted with enthusiasm.

Other churches, for example, the Episcopalians, have imposed radical changes from the top down that have created angry schisms. Other churches have resisted change at various levels, for example, the Catholic and LDS support for Prop 8 in California. This resistance comes at a cost, however, which has included isolation, Intense scrutiny, public demonstration, and violent retribution. There is no reason to believe this is going to go away quietly.

Considering this in the context of Lehi's dream, how will we hold to the iron rod as the mists arise and the tumult from the great and spacious building grows to storm proportions? Is change inevitable? Is the slope too slippery?

Bernard

I have pared down your refocus post to bring it to a point that I can speak to. Otherwise it is too much to address in this forum.

I think that the nebulous nature of your list has to be distilled to the levels of interactions that we have the greatest possibility of influencing accurately. When you discuss, groups responding in anger to certain issues, when you talk about embracing cultural changes that are against traditional conservative churches, when you see leaders of other religions caving in to social pressure in a large part in my opinion these can be greatly accelerated in society by parents that do not understand why the church holds that the family is the most important unit in society.

In one of my posts Tacenda, I noted what I consider several things very important to maintaining our children’s and our own testimonies and holding to the iron Rod. I'll use those thoughts as a template for a list. Judging from your ages this may not apply to you in an immediate sense but it is the most significant means I am convinced to prevent everything you point out as happening in society and religions today. It is concerning the rearing of our children. A list:

1.) Anger - this IMO is the most egregious offense in parent child relationships. Over the years any time I note that I have even the slightest sense of anger it is my immediate clue to examine myself and find out what I need to repent of or forgive another for. If I introduce or give into it, I must own it as originated in me and correct me first. Same with my response to society.

2.) It is my observation that one of the second most egregious offense parents make is they fail to comprehend not only agency but the profound significance of those opportunities where they/we make wrong decisions for learning. We can push and firmly insist to a point, but after all of the education is over the time for agency must prevail. I realize it is a very difficult thing to do but we h ave to do it God's way as the mandate option is Satan’s way. To mandate our children’s absolute compliance NOW when we interact over these things is ultimately a faithless act. We forget that God will assist them and it is incumbent to recognize that he is more concerned about their welfare than we have the capacity to be. If we wish his help we must do it upon his principles. He will never compel us against our agency until final judgment. If we exercise unrighteous dominion, and then they begin to rebel from a result of our actions and then we pray our hearts out for help, our practices have set our actions against God and instead of letting him assist us we have set ourselves as his adversary by failing to have faith in his rules. We have to repent first, exercise faith and then appeal to God for assistance. If we do all we can according to proper constraints and then we can call upon him from the get go before we have driven them further away with our bad behavior. Same with my response to societal changes that are a part of the process of learning between good and evil.

3.) Never permit excessive backbiting, sarcasm, bullying, amongst the children and never as a father tolerate disrespect of the mother. This is one of the most subtle ways a father provides. He provides the psychological impact of whatever it is that men have that tends to generate a natural respect for the father figure (of course on proper principles) when he sustains the mother one hundred percent before the children. Thus even in his absence, when at work or our and about, the mother can rule in the home with the same impact when dad is not around because the association exists in the children’s mind that the parents are one. In fact, whatever reaction a child might expect from me is contrived to be doubled if they disrespect their mother in the process of her parenting, so that it is learned that it is always better to work with her than me if I should find them mistreating her. Same with society - don't let them destroy the image of motherhood and it's great force for keeping all things right in our families.

4.) This fourth one just occurs to me as it has been an element of my analysis of my children’s behaviors. I have seen a couple of threads lately on being perfectly honest. I disagree with the general conclusions of interpretation of what it is to be honest. All of my children (5) have lied to me during various phases of their growing up but only one of them has proven to be a liar. This is a very difficult one to explain for the preconceived strictness of the judgments in our hearts. First we have to consider that what Abraham did in the Sarah story was a correct principle. What Joseph did in sharing with some about polygamy and protecting others is a correct principle. I'm not so sure in the Jacob deceiving Isaac story with the hairy arms is of the same genre so I do draw some distinctions; I won't explain my reasoning on that but the point is a true liar is a state of being. We can create them quicker by bludgeoning our children into believing they are one than by being wiser and understanding their motivations.

Sometimes in their immaturity our children lie for various reasons - to protect themselves if you are a fly off the handle kind of parent - I can’t blame them one bit for not wanting to avoid physical or psychological abuse. That parent

is the problem - less the child. Sometimes it is an overriding need to protect from disappointing the parents, not completely right but we must understand their motivations before we wholesale start labeling them as liars. It is a horrible label and in some cases one once you convince a child they are a liar you have done so much more damage to them as a person than may be undone in a lifetime. Still, there are times where their lie is motivated from a pure desire to create opportunity to commit acts of evil. They are protecting no one else, only contriving for opportunities to sin. A totally different issue is at hand here. Again from my observations, if a parent has taught their children well and been a fair, faithful to God's rules parent, and their child still becomes a genuine liar, then you will return to God over and over and over in long drawn out pleading. Once a person actually becomes a genuine liar in their heart, only God can provide the circumstances that parents, friends, and family may be involved in that will bring about a change. However, it is imperative that as a parent we do not get in the habit of condoning the acts of sin that the liar pursues in some false since of supporting the little darlings. Usually it is long and hard and difficult and sometimes unsuccessful process but God is the only way I am aware of to change a liars heart.

5.) I educate on one offense (if needed) I remind on a second offense, I correct on a third offense. We are here to learn the difference between good and evil. While it is difficult sometimes that entails watching our children make decisions that bring these two realities into focus so they can learn the difference. If they decide they want to pursue evil then that is an entirely different issue. Comparing the two is learning, choosing evil is wrong. I deal with each according to its intent. To over react on the first offense is once again an act of faithlessness, we don't trust Gods plan and so override the process. Again same with society, we are far too much knee jerk reactionaries on little things, and then too willing to embrace evil on the other side of the coin.

All of these points as applied to a family apply to grand parenting. They also apply to how we interact with society and even perhaps on this board. Our involvement in societies misbehaving is directly related in a large degree to how we manage or have managed the most significant roles we have as parents. Regardless, of whether we are done with the first stage and our children have left the home, we can still in much lesser degree exercise correct principles in how we interact with family, friends, and society. If the actions we respond to are from ignorance we respond with education. If they are from a need to determine good from evil we encourage agency. However, if the actions we respond to are the actions of evil we fight, with our time, talents and prayers according to the patterns for battle that God has instituted. All of this circumscribed by the principles of sharing the gospel and bringing people to Christ, when the message can/should be shared.

While I went to great length to try to explain the liar point above, the sad point is that what is mostly destroying society now is there are liars involved at all levels in trying to change society’s functions. Liars are typically beyond the reach of polite encouragements and niceties and require much more. I consider the Joseph Smith handling of WW Phelps as near perfect in example. While Phelps was in the state of mind of being a liar (stemming from using church funds to buy and sell property and keeping the profits) , Joseph and the members united and fought the efforts of those that were persecuting them, including Phelps and those who had been converted by his witness. However, when their prayers were answered and their enemy again turned to correct behaviors, Joseph was first to extend the hand of fellowship when he penned the response to Phelps when he requested forgiveness, “Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, for friends at first, are friends again at last.”

Do not construe my emphasis on recognizing this as a battle against societies ill advised direction as condoning the normal behaviors associated with battle. In some cases we must fight movements, but in others when we fight people who are evil sometimes the greatest weapon is love – other times it may be otherwise. However, there will possibly be far less need for battle at all if we protect the nucleus of society - the family.

Edited July 17, 2012 by SamIam

[Libs]

However, there will possibly be far less need for battle at all if we protect the nucleus of society - the family.

I feel the same way....all families, not just "traditional" families. All families need protection.