tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 (please read the editing to my previous post)your opinion, please:a) what are the lessons of the MMM for us today (any?) Why is the MMM (by and large) not known now by the LDS?
Zakuska Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Playing devils advocate:Even If BY "ordered" it... would it in anyway be "religously" driven?Second hand gossip that the Gun that killed JS was in the wagon train and all.IMHO... The plot was revenge pure and simple.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 (for the record)I believe Juanita Brooks, what she wrote in her books.I believe that BY covered up the MMM, regardless of his testimony. He did not want it resolved until many, many years later (else it would have been!)JDL was a scapegoat, that is obvious to most everyone (why?)church presidents ALWAYS favor a half-truth or a lie to 'protect the church'. That's the way things are...who put the PR in p r o p h e t?In truth, I don't know SQUAT about covington or the S. C. M. I admit (I guess) you know more about it than I do....
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Here's what BY said...(according to the web ref. you provided...)Answer -- Within some two or three months after the massacre he called at my office and had much to say with regard to the Indians, their being stirred up to anger and threatening the settlements of the whites, and then commenced giving an account of the massacre. I told him to stop, as from what I had already heard by rumor, I did not wish my feelings harrowed up with a recital of details.ME: when the going gets tough, the tough...GET GOING!There you have it, from BY's own pen/mouth....He just didn't want to be bothered about it (although he was BOTH governor & Prophet-President of the LDS)I seems (conveniently) that the information that came to him..which might have tended to show him irresponsible...was 'rumor'... (did he bother to ferrit out the truth?)so...If you believe this...he just didn't want to know about the details (of who was responsible)...Some guy, huh?
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 That's why these people are called apologists...They want to Apologize for these things (rather than face them head-on), which puts off accountability/responsibility. That's it in a nutshell.Please refresh my memory...(exactly) What did I attribute to BY (that he cross-answered or testified about).as I have said many, many times....the BY / MMM relationship is MOSTLY about the cover-up that followed ( for now, anyway) We (including myself) just don't have enough period documents to show, much less 'prove', that BY before hand DIRECTLY ordered that the MMM be done.. That he 'set the stage' for it is beyond dispute, I believe.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 JR:even if I accept it as 'shameless butchery' (which it may well have been/probably was)....that still doesn't indicate that it was a 'religious' event incident...(or does it?)
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Why is the MMM (by and large) not known now by the LDS? Because they haven't been reading the Ensign?Davis Bitton,
Outshined Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 One thing Paul Hutton finds most fascinating about the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre is that almost no one knows about it. The History Channel already had an hour-long special on this a couple of years ago. After that, it would be surprising if "almost no one knows about it". Every LDS member I know does know about the MMM, as well as Haun's Mill...of course I live in Tennessee.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 pseudo, et tu?the MMM has Very Important lessons for Christians & LDS today: LDS participation would have been ZERO if the people had said NO instead; (about) 110 people & their goods would have made it through Utah, and we today would NOT be falling all over ourselves trying to apologize for, ratify, explain, and excuse this Awful Tragedy.That lesson is: Not harming others is more important / a greater value than Loyalty.That is the lesson, that is the reason the LDS church does not make knowledge of the MMM a part of the curriculum for 99% of the church members, most of whom will never even set foot on a YBU campus- Even there, Many (I know some) graduate without hearing about it.... The GA's want us to learn LOYALTY & CONFORMITY instead.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 That is the lesson, that is the reason the LDS church does not make knowledge of the MMM a part of the curriculum for 99% of the church members, most of whom will never even set foot on a YBU campus- Even there, Many (I know some) graduate without hearing about it.... The GA's want us to learn LOYALTY & CONFORMITY instead. Do you suppose 10 years from now the LA Lakers will make the Kobe Bryant incident part of their curriculum for the team? You can't seem to understand that there are more reasons than mere conspiracy theories and allegations of desire for control over the masses when it comes to designing Church curriculum.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 ...most of whom will never even set foot on a YBU campus- Even there, Many (I know some) graduate without hearing about it.... And yet I imagine that you know many people, even college graduates, who have been through years of schooling that still aren't very knowledgeable about basic geography, history, et al.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 (just me?) I find any parallels between (pro) sports teams and the 'only true church' at best a stretch, at worst, inane (sorry).conspiracy? read the chapter about the MMM in "Essentials in Church History" by joseph Fielding Smith (used as my textbook at Ricks, mid 60's) (I have) Then, let's chat more.BTW...what does D&C 42:27 say to us today? what do you glean from it, How do you benefit from it's being included in scripture?
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I find any parallels between (pro) sports teams and the 'only true church' at best a stretch, at worst, inane (sorry). Team sports and organized religion are very similar in my book.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 conspiracy? read the chapter about the MMM in "Essentials in Church History" by joseph Fielding Smith (used as my textbook at Ricks, mid 60's) (I have) Then, let's chat more. "CHAPTER 44: The Mountain Meadows Massacre
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 More conspiracy on behalf of the CES. See p. 371 of the "Religion 341-343 - Church History in the Fulness of Times" institute manual @ http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHs...32502000_32.pdfM O U N TA I N M E A D O W S M A S S A C R EThe same week that Captain Van Vliet appeared in Salt Lake City, atragic event took place nearly three hundred miles to the south; it can bestbe understood in the context of the war hysteria surrounding the approachof federal troops to Utah. As soon as it was known that an army wascoming, George A. Smith, who was responsible for the southernsettlements, went to southern Utah to mobilize troops and put that regionon war alert...
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 the MMM was WRONG, BAD, and (very,very) SAD. I have been to the site (have you?)...it presents an erie specter ...the wrong that was done there seems to hang over the place...Just as it will at 'ground zero' in NYC. Also read 2 Ne 15:20...." wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"What percent of the church population would you estimate Ever take religion 34x?me: less than 1%
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Also read 2 Ne 15:20...." wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" So, what are you saying, that you believe the Book of Mormon?
urroner Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 Apparently tapped holds the Church and its members to a higher standard then he holds himself and other religions to. Interesting.Did the MMM occur simply because the wagon train were simply not Mormons or did it occur because of uncontrolled anger for past events. I say the latter, so I don't think that it was a "religious massacre." Well, tapped may say that the murderers of the MMM were all Mormons and that would be a good point, but were the people involved in Sandcreek probably all Christians?As for the double standard espoused by tapped, apparently, in the standard he fold the Church and its members up to, we need to know all the "shady" events that occured in Church history and know them all in great detail and agree with his interpretations of the events, else the Church is guilty of a coverup. I wonder what other group of people he holds upo to this standard and I also wonder if he holds himself up to this lofty standard?BTW tapped, I first learnt about the MMM in seminary about 35 years ago. So much for a coverup.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 What percent of the church population would you estimate Ever take religion 34x?me: less than 1% The point is that it isn't covered up like you at first seemed to be falsely accusing the Church of doing.
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 people are people, GBH is GBH. (who put the PR in P R O P H E T ?)there is no double standard in what I say....right is right, wrong is WRONG. When the two are mixed-up, confused, when the line is blurred...That's an excuse or problem for people to understand the difference.have YOU read that chapter in "Essentials..."?I think...that had it not been for Juanita Brooks...our 'understanding' of the MMM would be about ZERO today...have YOU been to the MMM site?
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 there is no double standard in what I say.... You have got to be kidding. You are the one making false accusations about the Church. Is it or is it not a standard of yours to not make false accusations?
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 I think...that had it not been for Juanita Brooks...our 'understanding' of the MMM would be about ZERO today... And notice how I showed you that Juanita Brooks was mentioned in the Ensign. That sure is some cover up job by the Church.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 have YOU been to the MMM site? No, I haven't. Your point being?
tapped Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 (fortunately) there MAY be some more 'enlightenment' about the MMM since I was in college....BUT: had I not applied myself to learning about this...I would have been left with what I 'learned' at Ricks...Request: that every one who posts to this subject a) Read "Essentials in Church History" by Joseph Fielding Smith (+ other available books/materials) and (if possible) Visit the site of the MMM...it's Awesome!Face it! BY (I'm certainly NOT perfect, neither was he!) (and a lot since then-him) 'screwed up' on this one!Alt: Get in touch with Eugene Sessions at Logan. Ask him his view of MMM & the cover-up.
pseudogratix Posted February 9, 2005 Posted February 9, 2005 (fortunately) there MAY be some more 'enlightenment' about the MMM since I was in college....BUT: had I not applied myself to learning about this...I would have been left with what I 'learned' at Ricks... Well, that is the same for about most things of this nature. Unless a member applies him/herself to learning, there isn't a whole lot the Church can do. It's about all I can do to get my kids to stay interested in anything slightly related to Church teachings, let alone Church history. Likewise, it is about all the Church can do to get the members (as a whole) focused on the basic principles of the Gospel.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.