Jeanne Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Why should something that somebody did over 150 years ago precipitate a faith crisis now?Because it has been white washed for umpteen years way before the apology. Why forget that..seriously.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Because it has been white washed for umpteen years way before the apology. Why forget that..seriously.CFR that it has been whitewashed. Who did the alleged whitewashing, and how long did said alleged whitewashing occur? And more to the point, why should it precipitate a faith crisis now? Your answer to the post was not responsive. 1
Analytics Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Everyone there who had their endowment after 1844 had taken that Oath. John D. Lee specifically said this was a central part of his and everyone else's motives.For my part, I pray that God will forgive. Therefore I don't have to.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 "contribute to the Mormons' concerns" Nicely downplayed. Look, if Buchanan doesn't order the expeditionary force dispatched, we're not having this conversation. Let's get some scale here. What is the greater threat to the peace and security of US citizens? A smallish frontier community and tinyish neighboring Indian tribe . . . or the largest US army in the field since the Mexican War, on the march, with no explanation given?Methinks stemelbow is minimizing Buchanan's blunder, even as he waxes indignant over what he thinks is the minimization of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Everyone there who had their endowment after 1844 had taken that Oath. John D. Lee specifically said this was a central part of his and everyone else's motives. I think USU78 has pointed out that this was more likely Lee's attorney endeavoring, along with other anti-Mormons of the day, to fix blame on the Church itself, much as you are doing now. For my part, I pray that God will forgive. Therefore I don't have to. I think you've turned the concept on its head. It is up to the individual to personally forgive while leaving it up to God to do what is just and right.
Danzo Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum.In the words of John D Lee, So I supposed that it was common for things like MMM to happen. Or were the saints just not keeping their covenants very well. 4
Guest Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 It is indeed a tragedy, and if we are to hold firm to our faith and doctrines..."all" who took part in this are fallen leaders and their fate is sure. It cannot be both ways, so my prayer is Brigham had nothing to do with the act itself. Now as I understand it he had John D Lee (as Governor of the territory) hanged. Can anyone tell me if this is correct? Have said that, no Latter-day Saint should ever find themselves defending the act not those who did it. To do so would do such harm.
thesometimesaint Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Everyone there who had their endowment after 1844 had taken that Oath. John D. Lee specifically said this was a central part of his and everyone else's motives.For my part, I pray that God will forgive. Therefore I don't have to. I had my endowment after 1844 in fact it was in 1972. No such oath was or is required.God will forgive whom he will. That doesn't mean I support or agree with MMM and/or John D. Lee and accomplices.
Danzo Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Because it has been white washed for umpteen years way before the apology. Why forget that..seriously. CFR. Show me the whitewashing.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) It is indeed a tragedy, and if we are to hold firm to our faith and doctrines..."all" who took part in this are fallen leaders and their fate is sure. It cannot be both ways, so my prayer is Brigham had nothing to do with the act itself. Now as I understand it he had John D Lee (as Governor of the territory) hanged.Can anyone tell me if this is correct? It's not accurate. With the coming of Johnston's Army to Utah not long after the massacre, Brigham Young was removed as governor of the territory. That was the intent of sending the army to Utah in the first place. The trials of John D. Lee were held many years afterward and were conducted by government courts with government prosecutors. Though Brigham Young cooperated, he did not have anything to do with Lee being executed. And Lee was not hanged. He was executed by firing squad while sitting on his coffin at the site of the massacre. Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 5, 2014 Author Posted September 5, 2014 I'm so glad I did not live in those times of mob mentality and oppression against the saints. We should all be thankful we live today.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I'm so glad I did not live in those times of mob mentality and oppression against the saints. We should all be thankful we live today.As Christ put it, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Or, as it is rendered in the Swedish language Bible (my own translation into English), "Today has enough of its own trouble."
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 5, 2014 Author Posted September 5, 2014 I agree today is tough for Mormons as well. But I'll take bashing on internet message boards over mobs killing my family and me any day.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I agree today is tough for Mormons as well. But I'll take bashing on internet message boards over mobs killing my family and me any day.Indeed.
USU78 Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Methinks stemelbow is minimizing Buchanan's blunder, even as he waxes indignant over what he thinks is the minimization of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Ironic, ain't it?
USU78 Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 It is indeed a tragedy, and if we are to hold firm to our faith and doctrines..."all" who took part in this are fallen leaders and their fate is sure. It cannot be both ways, so my prayer is Brigham had nothing to do with the act itself. Now as I understand it he had John D Lee (as Governor of the territory) hanged.Can anyone tell me if this is correct?Have said that, no Latter-day Saint should ever find themselves defending the act not those who did it. To do so would do such harm. Incorrect: BY was out of office long before the 2nd or even the 1st trial occurred.
thesometimesaint Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I agree today is tough for Mormons as well. But I'll take bashing on internet message boards over mobs killing my family and me any day. Agreed
ERayR Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I was chalking the disagreement, if there be any, to misunderstanding. Sometimes tying in every explanation as to why something happened overlooks the obvious. I don't think there's a great deal of complexity of the conditions and circumstances. It seems pretty simple. A group of Mormons felt it necessary to murder innocent unarmed men, women and children. If they feared these people or hated them or a combination of the two, doesn't matter. If they were mad about being mistreated or having family and friends mistreated in previous years, doesn't matter. I think it reasonable to say anywhere along the line as the events transpired a different decision could have been made and the massacre could have been stopped. But it happened, and if there was no hate in their hearts it would not have happened, as I see it. Nothing of that magnitude is ever simple. People are complex. Their thinking or lack of thought can not be reduced to black or white. Actions or lack of action is influenced by a lot of variables. Of course anywhere in the process a different decision could have been made but they were not. That they could have been but were not disputes your claim of simpleness. It is some what presumptuous of someone who lives in the ease of the twenty first century with a grocery store mentality, separated by 150 years to be so adamantly sure of the motives of the participants. 1
stemelbow Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Nobody here is denying that, that I can see. But any mention of motive, provocation, groupthink psychology, seems to set you off on yet another sanctimonious rant. I do apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for the ideas given.
stemelbow Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 "contribute to the Mormons' concerns" Nicely downplayed. Look, if Buchanan doesn't order the expeditionary force dispatched, we're not having this conversation. Let's get some scale here. What is the greater threat to the peace and security of US citizens? A smallish frontier community and tinyish neighboring Indian tribe . . . or the largest US army in the field since the Mexican War, on the march, with no explanation given? I'm fine with that addition. NO problem at all. Not sure we can safely say the massacre wouldn't have happened. After all the army is completely separate from the group the was trying to pass by.
ERayR Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 In LDS history the Journal of Discourses can be our own worst enemy, even though today many of our lessons still come from them, but usually only reference the "Discourses of Brigham Young" by John Widstoe who compiled so no one, IMO, would refer to the JoD. But at one time in history it was strongly urged for members to buy these JoD's to specifically learn our doctrine from. Why the big discrepancy from one dispensation to the next and does doctrine change so easily in this church? I think it does from one generation to the other, because men are doing the leading and not enough from the Lord. I think members today should be highly congratulated because they continually get more righteous, back then not so much, IMO. Maybe the lack of revelation is because mostly the church wants us to derive a lot on our own, through a relationship with Him, hey, you never know.I think the massacre stemmed from the Blood Atonement doctrine, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html "According to historian Juanita Brooks, "Young advocated and preached it without compromise." Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: "Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?" Some sinners, Young preached, who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty."When I made my post, which was #28 btw, you may have just skimmed, because I put at the end that even the Catholics had to apologize/say sorry for their members atrocities against people. And then our church doing the same thing and I think it's awesome for our churches to do this! If they didn't people wouldn't be aware so much, and maybe it would happen again. Our generation and the generations ahead need this information! So kudos for the church, we are much more civilized since the days of Adam!! And that is how it should be. Maybe even why we had scribes from the time of human existence. Whether it be on caves, rocks, scrolls, gold plates or boards like this and books by our leaders or historians. Our history whether good or bad should be exposed for the betterment of our people or people everywhere.That was my main point in posting. Not because of my faith crisis which as you put it, is "a misunderstanding of many aspects of the gospel, and "facts" she gleans from anti-Mormon sources". But of which I think are usually true facts, that are mostly referenced. Truth is truth no matter how you want to get around it.I still see the JoD being referenced a lot. It still contains good doctrine. What I see is the tendency of members to quickly denounce anything they don't understand and don't want to spend the time researching. I don't think you understand blood atonement very well. Again the Catholic Church can and does do whatever they want but you can not apologize for someone elses bad behavior. Such an apology is useless. To be of any effect an apology must come from the perpetrator of such behavior. Rather than try to apologize for someone elses behavior an expression of sorrow and sympathy is all you can validly do. Truth is truth but some truth is more relevant than other truth. It also depends on whose interpretation one chooses to believe. 2
Tacenda Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I still see the JoD being referenced a lot. It still contains good doctrine. What I see is the tendency of members to quickly denounce anything they don't understand and don't want to spend the time researching. I don't think you understand blood atonement very well. Again the Catholic Church can and does do whatever they want but you can not apologize for someone elses bad behavior. Such an apology is useless. To be of any effect an apology must come from the perpetrator of such behavior. Rather than try to apologize for someone elses behavior an expression of sorrow and sympathy is all you can validly do. Truth is truth but some truth is more relevant than other truth. It also depends on whose interpretation one chooses to believe.What don't I understand about the atonement? Would it help if I struck out "apology" and left "sorry"?
ERayR Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum. It is quite clear that you have no idea or understanding of the meaning of that ceremony or the covenants entered therein.
stemelbow Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Methinks stemelbow is minimizing Buchanan's blunder, even as he waxes indignant over what he thinks is the minimization of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I have not commented on the extent of the blunder. Why do you insist on suggesting I've minimized it, or downplayed it, as USU said?
ERayR Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 What don't I understand about the atonement? Would it help if I struck out "apology" and left "sorry"? Please read again. I did not write atonement I wrote blood atonement. That would be accurate and I think properly expresses your feelings. It just bothers me to that some think it is alright to speak for others, most of which are long dead.
Recommended Posts