Kevin Christensen Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 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.As a source in General, Wikipedia is useful and fun, but with caveats. In particular, the backstage goings on at Wikipedia relative to Mormonism are worth knowing about when considering any LDS themed articles placed there.http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-Something_Wiki_This_Way_ComesFor a serious understanding of the whys of Mountain Meadows, it helps to go to the best informed sources on the topic. That includes Robert Briggs, Robert Crockett, and the recent Tragedy at Mountain Meadows. FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA 1
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 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_massacreMormons, 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]I don't see the connection between blood attonement and MMM. What is the connection? What I see are a group of people who were traveling westward across mormon lands and they were massacred. I already gave you a theory for the massacre. Did you read the link from BYU? I gave you an historical perspective of the event and why the people involved perhaps did it. But blood atonement was not one of them. My account is simple: the mormons involved were 'shell shocked'. And the persecution the saints were experiencing while in Utah from the outside press and threats from the mobs was one catalyst for the massacre.
Calm Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 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. ......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.What I don't understand is why you've only had one side perspectives from the nonbelieving side so far with all the believing material that is out there and why you depend on this board to get faithful LDS perspectives but were willing to go to multiple anti sites on your own efforts. It really doesn't make sense to me that you have put so much effort into researching the anti side and yet so little into the proside before posting these kinds of comments even now.However that may be, here is a link that will be useful in balancing....http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-shining-new-light-on-the-mountain-meadows-massacre 4
ERayR Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 What I don't understand is why you've only had one side perspectives from the nonbelieving side so far with all the believing material that is out there and why you depend on this board to get faithful LDS perspectives but were willing to go to multiple anti sites on your own efforts. It really doesn't make sense to me that you have put so much effort into researching the anti side and yet so little into the proside before posting these kinds of comments even now.However that may be, here is a link that will be useful in balancing....http://www.fairlds.o...eadows-massacreIt does make one wonder a little.
Zakuska Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) 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.Which is intresting... You'd think that more people should leave the church over the scorched earth policies of Joshua in the OT which makes MMM look like kids in a sandbox. Edited July 17, 2012 by Zakuska 1
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 What I don't understand is why you've only had one side perspectives from the nonbelieving side so far with all the believing material that is out there and why you depend on this board to get faithful LDS perspectives but were willing to go to multiple anti sites on your own efforts. It really doesn't make sense to me that you have put so much effort into researching the anti side and yet so little into the proside before posting these kinds of comments even now.However that may be, here is a link that will be useful in balancing....http://www.fairlds.o...eadows-massacreI thought that I would get some sort of response when I linked the BYU site. But none came from tacenda. I have no idea why. The historical perspective of the massacre is quite revealing. And the constant persecution of the lds church in Utah is also never discussed on anti sites. The abuse from the government, the press, the threatening behavior from the gentiles in california etc all contributed to MMM. But she just can't accept it nor does it seem she wants to read the lds perspective. 1
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Which is intresting... You'd think that more people should leave the church over the scorched earth policies of Joshua in the OT which makes MMM look like kids in a sandbox.Here is my take on it. The critic sites are extremely powerful in presenting a powerful antimormon perspective and when someone gets caught up in it, it is difficult to shake. One reason is that the member may wish the critic site to be true because the mindset is already leaving the fold. When a different interpretation is presented, one in which has a more prolds interpretation, the person develops an hostility mindset as a defense mechanism. And the belief returns to the critic interpretation of blood atonement etc. But...MMM cannot be understood without the context of the time and what was going on outside utah at that time and what happened to the saints in the past.
Tacenda Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 What I don't understand is why you've only had one side perspectives from the nonbelieving side so far with all the believing material that is out there and why you depend on this board to get faithful LDS perspectives but were willing to go to multiple anti sites on your own efforts. It really doesn't make sense to me that you have put so much effort into researching the anti side and yet so little into the proside before posting these kinds of comments even now.However that may be, here is a link that will be useful in balancing....http://www.fairlds.o...eadows-massacreProbably because of trust issues. Sort of when you feel someone has lied or covered up something. You don't trust their words. Why is it that so many LDS that leave the church become anti? I think it's because of that concept. Maybe I'm also a rebellious soul. I know that I have a high sense of morals. I get upset at the abuses that women and children even some men in the FLDS church have endured and still endure. And it has planted some kind of hate seed for anybody that places authority over someone in the name of God, I don't know how to explain. I just want justice for those that were under Warren Jeffs. I feel that if polygamy hadn't been started, these crimes against them wouldn't have been committed. You asked, I answered. I admire the spiritual people that can see a bigger picture, and I hope to get back to where I was with that spiritual side. Right now I feel like stone.
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Here it is again: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_PublicationsHow can one avoid context?
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Probably because of trust issues. Sort of when you feel someone has lied or covered up something. You don't trust their words. Why is it that so many LDS that leave the church become anti? I think it's because of that concept. I think that they are taught to be anti. The critic sites are very good teachers in spreading that message. They are very convincing. Members are taught not to trust the lds church, not to accept what the lds church says, taught that the lds church lies etc. It is an indoctrination that is very difficult to get out of. And the message is repeated often as you know.
Calm Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I admire the spiritual people that can see a bigger picture, and I hope to get back to where I was with that spiritual side. Right now I feel like stone.Effectively refusing to do research on prolds sites for yourself isn't a sign that this hope is managing to motivate you very much, I am afraid.Perhaps you should stop thinking from the POV of trust and start applying scholarship methods....which would include literature reviews of all the info that is out there, not just one side of it. You don't have to trust the proLDS sites, the idea is to simply collect data on what is being said first off and then going to the original sources to see what they have to say for oneself....then you can judge which site is most accurate if you care or just summarize all of the research for yourself at the original source level and don't even bother with going back to appraise accuracy. Edited July 17, 2012 by calmoriah 3
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) 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.http://eom.byu.edu/i...on_PublicationsNow let us imagine the reaction of the mobs and the government if the practice became public knowledge when the saints were in Nauvoo. Can we see why Joseph was a little shy to spread the word and acknowledge the practice to the outside world? The saints were in utah and they were experiencing more threats because of the practice, nevermind if they were closer to home. And can we see why Joseph and the town council wanted to close down the nauvoo expositor. Which of course is another contention that doubting members have once they read about that event from the anti sites. Edited July 17, 2012 by why me
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Effectively refusing to do research on prolds sites for yourself isn't a sign that this hope is managing to motivate you very much, I am afraid.Perhaps you should stop thinking from the POV of trust and start applying scholarship methods....which would include literature reviews of all the info that is out there, not just one side of it. You don't have to trust the proLDS sites, the idea is to simply collect data on what is being said first off and then going to the original sources to see what they have to say for oneself....then you can judge which site is most accurate if you care or just summarize all of the research for yourself at the original source level and don't even bother with going back to appraise accuracy.This does take time. Skimming the anti sites is quick and easy since the same message is repeated over and over again on different anti sites. And if one reads three or four anti sites about the nauvoo expositor and polygamy etc and the same message or details are being repeated, the doubter begins to think that it must be true. Not to mention the mocking of church sites and apologist sites that one can read from the antimormons. That also enters the mindset of the doubting members. Some do not want to believe the prolds sites.
Zakuska Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 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.Now let us imagine the reaction of the mobs and the government if the practice became public knowledge when the saints were in Nauvoo. Can we see why Joseph was a little shy to spread the word and acknowledge the practice to the outside world? The saints were in utah and they were experiencing more threats because of the practice, nevermind if they were closer to home. And can we see why Joseph and the town council wanted to close down the nauvoo expositor. Which of course is another contention that doubting members have once they read about that event from the anti sites.Which sites, conveniently forget to mention that it was a common practice of the time and that the Navuoo town council consulted a lawyer before carrying it out. Yes they might have over stepped the bounds of the laws on the books a little by actuall physically destroying the press. But it was a civil matter and could have been resolved on the peoples court.
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Which sites, conveniently forget to mention that it was a common practice of the time and that the Navuoo town council consulted a lawyer before carrying it out. Yes they might have over stepped the bounds of the laws on the books a little by actuall physically destroying the press. But it was a civil matter and could have been resolved on the peoples court.Yes, that is right too. But what is amazing is the lack of context on the critic sites. And the lack of an historical perspective. It just makes sense that if the saints were being threatened in utah because of the practice, they would have been perhaps massacred in Nauvoo. Joseph saved lives by closing the press down and in doing so, he lost his own life, along with Hyrum.
selek1 Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Probably because of trust issues. Sort of when you feel someone has lied or covered up something. You don't trust their words. Why is it that so many LDS that leave the church become anti? I think it's because of that concept. Maybe I'm also a rebellious soul. I know that I have a high sense of morals. I get upset at the abuses that women and children even some men in the FLDS church have endured and still endure. And it has planted some kind of hate seed for anybody that places authority over someone in the name of God, I don't know how to explain. I just want justice for those that were under Warren Jeffs. I feel that if polygamy hadn't been started, these crimes against them wouldn't have been committed. You asked, I answered. I admire the spiritual people that can see a bigger picture, and I hope to get back to where I was with that spiritual side. Right now I feel like stone.Has anyone else here noted the tendency for unreasonable hyperbole from this poster?Castrations, murders, and "Blood atonement" were "rampant"- yet when that theory is refuted with evidence, she goes directly to "Mountain Meadows".When Mountain Meadows is shown to have nothing to do with Blood Atonement, she goes to "Muslim terrorists".When she is called out for ignoring page after page of serious scholarship, she invokes "Warren Jeffs and the FLDS" and implies that any Church which sets up authority in the name of God is just like them.Because the LDS Church does not force-feed its members historical trivia in a fashion she likes, we are guilty of cover-up and conspiracy.Godwin's Law violations aside, it's always one excuse after another.By my lights, the only anti-Mormon talking point that Tacenda hasn't tried to prop up is the old "Moroni was Satan in disguise" trick.In point of fact, for all her protests about being a struggling member trying to regain her testimony, Tacenda hasn't given us any indication that that testimony ever existed in the first place.In my estimation, there are two possibilities here:The first is that we are being trolled. If that's the case, nothing more need be said.If it's the second...., I'd best keep my opinions to myself.... Edited July 17, 2012 by selek1 3
Chaos Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I get upset at the abuses that women and children even some men in the FLDS church have endured and still endure. And it has planted some kind of hate seed for anybody that places authority over someone in the name of God, I don't know how to explain. I just want justice for those that were under Warren Jeffs. I feel that if polygamy hadn't been started, these crimes against them wouldn't have been committed. .Do not compare any religion to criminals. It is a board violation and you will be thread banned if you do it again.
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Has anyone else here noted the tendency for unreasonable hyperbole from this poster?I would tend to give her some slack. I think that she has been indoctrinated into antimormonism and it is not easy to get her out of that mindset. Now whether she wants to get out of it, is a good question to ask. But at least she is trying to put up a defense...although weak, we still need to deal with it.I have to admit, this must be rather common for those members who have been indoctrinated into such a mindset. She is not alone and it is good that she is here. Edited July 17, 2012 by why me
ERayR Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Probably because of trust issues. Sort of when you feel someone has lied or covered up something. You don't trust their words. Why is it that so many LDS that leave the church become anti? I think it's because of that concept. Maybe I'm also a rebellious soul. I know that I have a high sense of morals. I get upset at the abuses that women and children even some men in the FLDS church have endured and still endure. And it has planted some kind of hate seed for anybody that places authority over someone in the name of God, I don't know how to explain. I just want justice for those that were under Warren Jeffs. I feel that if polygamy hadn't been started, these crimes against them wouldn't have been committed. You asked, I answered. I admire the spiritual people that can see a bigger picture, and I hope to get back to where I was with that spiritual side. Right now I feel like stone.You trust the anti sites even though you know they are full of lies? FLDS has nothing to do with LDS and you know it. So why are you conflating the two? 1
why me Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) You trust the anti sites even though you know they are full of lies? FLDS has nothing to do with LDS and you know it. So why are you conflating the two?I think her take on this issue is that if the Joseph didn't start polygamy, there would be no flds. The problem here is simple: If polygamy came from god, it needed to be practiced. And we certainly have the testimonies of some of joseph's wives who received powerful witnesses of its truth without of which, they would have not accepted the practice.How this practice becomes distorted by other groups is not the problem of the source but a problem with the distorters. Edited July 17, 2012 by why me 2
Lightbearer Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 As for the OP, no I do not believe the LDS church will follow the mistakes of the Episcopalians. I do believe that in the time before the Lord's return the Church will be sifted and many will be left without oil in their lamps and that no member of the Lord's Church will be able to stand on "borrowed light" but they must have the Holy Ghost or they will be decieved. This thread seems to bear that thought out. I do not intend on "beating the dead horse" however I find it interesting why people are so apt to believe what they know is a bare faced lie. Anti-Mormon literature is addicting, much like pornography. Why are talk shows that reach down to the lowest denominator of humanity so popular? Why are the sensational Gossip tabs so popular? It feeds an ugly urge to believe the worst of human nature... so also is Anti-Mormon rubbish so credible with some people. Blaming the Church for "originating polygamy" because of the crimes of apostates (FLDS) is rather ridiculous. The same mindset blames the entire Church for what some individual members did (MMM) and of course trys to implicate Brigham Young in the bargan. I find it sad those who cannot see the beauty of the Church and it's members and leaders. Who cannot see the great faith and sacrifice of those Saints who prepared the way for the rolling forth of the Kingdom of God? Who cannot see the wonder of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why on earth would anyone trust a contemptable Anti-Mormon site? The spirit of God does not confirm their slander and blasphemous attacks on the holy Church of God. Why not trust in God and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost for answers to so-called "tough questions of history"? The angel Moroni told Joseph that his name should be had for good and evil among all nations in the last days. This prophecy has been fullfilled and continues to be fullfilled to this day. The following scripture sums up my feelings about the Prophet Joseph and the restored Church: "THE ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand. And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors. And although their influence shall cast thee into trouble, and into bars and walls, thou shalt be had in honor; and but for a small moment and thy voice shall be more terrible in the midst of thine enemies than the fierce lion, because of thy righteousness; and thy God shall stand by thee forever and ever." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 122:1-4)
Pahoran Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 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.John D. Lee was, like rather a lot of men in the early Church, sealed to Brigham instead of to his own parents. That's an application of the Sealing ordinance that has disappeared now; but his "adopted son" status -- frequently reiterated by anti-Mormons trying to tie Brigham Young to the MMM -- does not represent a close personal relationship. Just so you know.And as for Lee being a "fall guy," let's review a few facts (ugh!) on that point:After Laban Morrill had talked Isaac Haight into holding off on the attack and sending a messenger to ask Brigham Young's advice about how to handle the deteriorating situation with the emigrants, it was Lee who personally recruited the Southern Paiutes to make the initial attack. Haight apparently failed to alert Lee that the attack was off.Lee was, by his own admission, the only white man on the ground during the early part of the attack.When the Paiute casualties got to the point that they were ready to abandon the attack, it was Lee who came up with the plan for the massacre.It was Lee who went into the emigrant camp under a flag of truce and negotiated their surrender with false promises of safe conduct.It was Lee who gave the order to start shooting.Lee personally shot several men himself, and would have shot more had his gun not jammed.Certainly there were other guilty parties who were never brought to justice. But Lee was unquestionably the guiltiest of the lot. He was nobody's "fall guy" or "scapegoat." The massacre was his project throughout.In my opinion it was practiced, in a meadow somewhere.Your opinion reflects no facts.The MMM was no more an instance of "Blood Atonement" than it was a "Danite" operation. It was a product of war hysteria caused by the approaching Federal army.When Bill Clinton's approval rating slipped, he could always bolster it by bombing Baghdad. James Buchanan, pro-slavery Yankee and southern sympathiser that he was, didn't have Baghdad available to him; but he did have Brigham Young and the Mormons, and he used them much as Clinton used Baghdad.The Utah War is widely known as "Buchanan's Blunder." And the MMM was a consequence of that blunder, and represents the bulk of the casualties of that war.Regards,Pahoran 3
Carborendum Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 No sweeping 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?Nope, not joking. Apparently you believe polygamy and blacks having the priesthood are part of the "roots in the soil". I don't.
Recommended Posts