Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, not what I said. Again, a straw man.

This isn't a straw man. It's basic inference from the CFR you requested. You are all over the place here, Smac- You called for a CFR when Hope claimed there was still debate amongst historians about Brigham's involvement. Do you agree there is some debate among historians about Brighams' involvement or not? If not, I stated your position correctly. If you do agree you would seem to be calling for a CFR to be difficult?

You guys are trying to do a hatchet job on Hope with this thread, accusing him of making all kinds of accusations which he hasn't made and then playing coy when called on it. Here are examples from a few other posters.

Quote

  23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Were the missionaries aware of anything outside the really basic misinformed apologetics like Indians were a catalyst and Brigham Young had absolutely nothing to do with it?  

Cdowis said- You are accusing BY for complicity in the MMM.  This is a formal CFR to substantiate your assertion.

FYI, it has been demonstrated that he sent an urgent letter telling them to leave them alone, but arrived too late.

Quote

Hope for Things- Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.  

  

Danzo- CFR that any historian has any evidence that the Massacre was specifically ordered by Brigham Young.

At least can you point me to the debate by these historians on Brigham

Quote

Hope For Things- Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.  

SMAC97- CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Which historians

It's ironic that you are claiming that I'm creating a strawman when you, Danzo and Cdowis are calling for CFR's based on a strawman.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have posted extensively on this here.  I would suggest you simply go to the search function on this board and search "deflationary theory of truth" and you will find multiple threads where this is discussed further.

I recognize that I could be wrong.  I have these discussions with the hope that someone might be able to change my position. I have a certain uncomfortableness with the conclusions I come to.  But I think there in some virtue in uncertainty. I care what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.  With the right evidence I will change my belief.  But I wonder if you approach this the same.  You seem to be certain you are correct, which given your philosphy seems a little ironic.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So why should I accept your testimony as "true" if I disagree with you?  How do you show that "God exists" is true??  Where is your "reality" for that??  It is totally subjective, not objective. 

I haven't given you testimony.  I don't ask you to accept anything on testimony.  Testimony is a poor way of distinguishing what is justified belief from opinion.

I don't claim to know that god exists.  I take the position of weak atheism.  However, I am a skeptic first and an atheist second.  Given the right evidence I would change my mind.  Belief in God is only considered subjective because the religious fought and lost battles about objectivity long ago.

 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You feel it in your heart and have no scientific evidence for it.

You're making an awfully lot of assumptions that are not correct about me.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You can claim all day long that spiritual matters are "true" but prove it.  

I haven't made that claim in many years.  Although at one time I did. 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your theory cannot answer that question, mine can. I can.  That is the difference.

Not having an answer to everything is no fault.  I claim I don't know the answer to most things.  Just because a theory provides an answer doesn't make the theory useful or the answer correct.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There really is no point in carrying this on- I would suggest you read this, but most likely you will not because "that is for philosophers" as if that makes it irrelevant.   That is like saying that we should all believe in a 6000 year old earth because anything else is "for scientists".   Either you value education or you want to remain uneducated.  I can't help anyone with that.

I see some value in this conversation.   I think many people on this forum ignore your posts.  I see many threads where no one engages you at all.  I don't think that is a good thing.  You put a lot of thought into you position and it warrant discussion, although I struggle with how to approach it.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And the method I use- which philosophers use-  is how you show that "I know the church is true" actually means something and gives that statement meaning.  You don't realize it but your view of truth actually makes the idea that "the church is true" is meaningless!!  

I do realize that!  The phrase the "church is true" in an utterly meaningless platitude.  I don't say the "church is true" or "the church is not true".  I prefer to say the church is not what it claims to be.   It was Joseph Smith that started the whole business with saying that an institution could be true or false.  The D&C talks about a "true church".  Joseph also recounted in the first vision story that he then knew that "Methodism wasn't true".  You are right.  Joseph Smith did hold a meaningless position on that.  He should have probably said that Methodism's claims are incorrect.  But then he would have had to should a burden of proof, and he didn't seem to keen on doing that.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If that phrase means "I have tried living the principles of the gospel and found that it has changed my life immeasurably for the better and I have had personal experiences which show me, as suggested in Alma 32, that the church is true" you have just defined "truth" in a way which is perfectly acceptable both to philosophers AND to church members.

I agree with you there.  However, members oscillate back and forth between the way they use the word truth without being conscious of it.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But your way is susceptible to Dawkins types coming along and asking your for evidence the "church is true" which they can observe and debate with you.   People who hold your position do not even realize that their own position on truth gives atheism the perfect argument to defeat them.  It's just a very naive way to view it which plays directly into their hands.

I don't know about Dawkins in particular. But plenty of atheists would also argue that the phrase the "church is true" is a bad construct.  

Shouldn't epistemology come first and conclusions second?  We ought not to pick our epistemology to suit a pre-chosen conclusion.

What is wrong with moving toward atheism?  I want to believe as many truth things as possible and as few false things as possible.  Atheism seems like a good fit for that, but I am willing to abandon that if evidence warrants it.   I dare say that for many doubters atheism is a position which could answers a lot of their questions and concerns about Mormonism.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Rorty is himself an atheist, but he knows that he cannot argue against God through his own conception of truth.  Another atheist philosopher who understands this has said he "hopes" that God does not exist- but he essentially has "FAITH" that God does NOT exist.  He understands the problem with ANY truth claims about God

My position is different. I hope there is a God, but I hold the weak atheist position. I don't see any reason anyone should argue against the existence of God.  Instead, the burden of proof is on those who argue that there is a God.  The time to belief something is after it has been demonstrated.  If one doesn't adhere to that they can end up accepting many contradictory beliefs. 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I cannot believe that any believer would actually affirm positions which atheists take to prove that belief in God is absurd.

No worries. Its just a misunderstanding about my position.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I use the word "true" all the time.   I perfectly well know what it means to most people.  I stand up in church and say "I know the church is true" because I do and because it is.

But don't you agree that it is a meaningless phrase to say in the first place?  Aren't you contributing to the problem?

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How is it "true" that killing babies is wrong?   How does that correspond to reality?

Atheism is just a position on one issue;  is there a God or not?  That is it.  Atheism is boring.  While many people (including myself) will often attribute other things to atheism, it is not really accurate to do so.  Atheism is just one position among many positions that a person may hold.  To answer your question about baby killing I would have to bring in ideas from secular humanism or from the enlightenment.

As you phrased it, you are right that that proposition about the truthfulness or falseness of killing babies makes little sense.  Instead I would say that it is true that killing babies does not promote human well being and flourishing.  It is true that killing babies violates our laws.  It is truth that killing babies causes a great loss for all those affected.  It is true we humans live better and cooperate much better when killing babies is prohibited.  It is even true that moral codes and societal norms promote human well being and flourishing.  It is true that religious belief has done some good in providing those codes.  And it is also true that such codes do not need to be derived from a belief in one God or many Gods. 

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I get exercised about this, because every time someone speaks that way, atheism gets stronger and more believers lose their beliefs.  Don't blame the messenger.

The present state of belief in the church and the the way we are moving toward secularism proves I am right.  We are losing members by the hour especially among Millenials.

And that doesn't need to be a bad thing.  The world is secularizing and becoming a better place at the same time.  I'm not certain those to things are correlated.  But at least it can be said that secularization isn't the end of the world. For one reason or another things are getting better.  I recommend the book: 

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

It is absolutely fascinating just how much our world has change in these past few centuries.  I hope we have turned a corner, but I leave much room for uncertainty.

As much as Mormons laments over the state of the secular world there are a lot of reasons to be hopeful.  There are reasons to find good and to do good without a belief in God, if one is willing to look.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This isn't a straw man. It's basic inference from the CFR you requested. You are all over the place here, Smac- You called for a CFR when Hope claimed there was still debate amongst historians about Brigham's involvement. Do you agree there is some debate among historians about Brighams' involvement or not? If not, I stated your position correctly. If you do agree you would seem to be calling for a CFR to be difficult?

You guys are trying to do a hatchet job on Hope with this thread, accusing him of making all kinds of accusations which he hasn't made and then playing coy when called on it. Here are examples from a few other posters.

It's ironic that you are claiming that I'm creating a strawman when you, Danzo and Cdowis are calling for CFR's based on a strawman.

Proving that BY ordered MMM is not going to happen.  That he was involved in its "Cover-up" and personally profited from MMM is not in doubt

Edited December 8, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I recognize that I could be wrong.  I have these discussions with the hope that someone might be able to change my position. I have a certain uncomfortableness with the conclusions I come to.  But I think there in some virtue in uncertainty. I care what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.  With the right evidence I will change my belief.  But I wonder if you approach this the same.  You seem to be certain you are correct, which given your philosphy seems a little ironic.

I haven't given you testimony.  I don't ask you to accept anything on testimony.  Testimony is a poor way of distinguishing what is justified belief from opinion.

I don't claim to know that god exists.  I take the position of weak atheism.  However, I am a skeptic first and an atheist second.  Given the right evidence I would change my mind.  Belief in God is only considered subjective because the religious fought lost battles about objectivity long ago.

 

Your making an awfully lot of assumptions that are not correct about me.

I haven't made that claim in many years.  Although at one time I did. 

Not having an answer to everything is no fault.  I claim I don't know the answer to most things.  Just because a theory provides an answer doesn't make the theory useful or the answer correct.

I see some value in this conversation.   I think many people on this forum ignore your posts.  I see many thread where no one engages you at all.  I don't think that is a good thing.  You put a lot of thought into you position it warrant discussion, although I struggle with how to approach that.

I do realize that!  The phrase the church is true in a utterly meaningless platitude.  I don't say the "church is true" or "the church is not true".  I prefer to say the church is not what it claims to be.   It was Joseph Smith that started the is whole business with the language that a institution could be true or false.  The D&C talks about a "true church".  But even before that Joseph recounted in the first vision story that he then knew that the Methodism wasn't "true".  You are right.  Joseph Smith did hold a meaningless position on that.

I agree with you there.  However, members oscillate back and forth between the way they use the word truth without being conscious of it.

I don't know about Dawkins in particular. But plenty of atheist would also argue that that the phrase the "church is true" is a bad construct.  Shouldn't epistemology come first and conclusions second?  We ought not to pick our epistemology to suit a pre-choosen conclusion.

What it wrong atheism?  I want to believe as many truth things as possible and as few false things as possible.  Atheism seems like a good fit for that, but I am willing to abandon if if evidence warrants it. 

My position is different. I hope there is a God, but holds the weak atheist position. I don't see any reason anyone should argue against the existence of God.  Instead, the burden of proof is on those who argue that there is a God.  The time to belief something is after it has been demonstrated.  

No worries. Its just a misunderstand about my position.

But don't agree that it is a meaningless to say in the first place?  Aren't you contributing to the problem?

Atheism is just a position on one issue;  is there a God or not?  That is it.  Atheist is boring.  While many people (including myself) will often attribute other thing to atheism, it is not really accurate to do so.  Atheism is just one position among many positions that a person may hold.  To answer you question about baby killing I would have to bring in ideas from secular humanism or from the enlightenment.

As phrased it, you right that proposition about the truth of killing babies makes little sense.  Instead I would say that it is true that killing babies does not promote human well being and flourishing.  It is true that killing babies violates our laws.  It is truth that killing babies causes a great loss for all those affected.  It is true we human live better and cooperate much better when killing babies is prohibited.  It is even true that moral codes and societal norms promote human well being and flourishing.  It is true that religious belief has done some good in providing those codes.

And that doesn't need to be a bad thing.  The world is secularizing and becoming a better place at the same time.  I'm not certain those to things are correlated.  But at least it can be said that secularization isn't the end of the world. For one reason or another things are getting better.  I recommend the book: 

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

It is absolutely fascinating just how much our world has change in these past few centuries.  I hope we have turned a corner, but I leave much room for uncertainty.

As much as Mormon lament over the state of the secular world there is a lot of reason to be hopeful.  There are reason to do good without a belief in God, if one is willing to look.

 

And I recommend the book "The Future of Religion" written by atheists. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007QXW7SW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I have no problem with Pinker, at least not in the summary of his position provided.  Of course society functions well for peace, and I have no problem with secularism.  I am essentially a secularist Mormon who understand secularism and sees that knowing secularism is essential to BEING Mormon.

I joined the church BECAUSE I WAS a "secularist" and found Mormonism totally compatible with that view!

I am confident because I have studied my position for nearly 50 years now and studied every position against Rorty and the pragmatists and have found no convincing argument against his- and therefore, my- position. 

I did not realize you were a "soft atheist", I thought you were defending Mormonism through the correspondence theory of truth, but instead you are defending Dawkin's position without know it as Dawkin's position.  I apologize for misunderstanding where you were coming from.  But really all I said also applies to you since you still believe in truth and facts in the way the man in the street and Dawkins does.

Essentially I think you are saying that a belief is not justified unless one has objective "evidence" for it.  Is that a fair statement?

I agree with you about morality so that might be a good start.  We call moral principles "true" if they promote peace in the community.  For me that is a microcosm for all "truth".

What if I told you that science also determined truth by "social consensus" and "what works"?  And suppose I told you that is what Alma 32 says and D&C 93 and President Kimball say as well?

We can get into epistemology if you like. Maybe play a little Socratic dialogue language game and see how that goes

No, I do not get a lot of people arguing with me, but I am not sure why.   I tend to get into protracted discussions with individuals who later acknowledge that I have taught them something, but I am sure you are right and will be able to perhaps convert me to atheism again (been there done that) and show me how I am wrong.

Since you like the word "opinion" instead of talking about testimony please tell me what differentiates truth from opinion or preference.  You seem to know the difference.

I am presuming you have a significant other, or know what that kind of feeling "love" is.

What evidence did you have for loving that person?  Are all important decisions in life made based on evidence?  What kind of evidence.?

Did you have evidence for choosing your occupation or was it based on what you were good at and liked?

Do you find life meaningful?   What gives it meaning?   Why do you get out of bed in the morning?  What makes you happy?

Suppose I told you religion is what makes you happy and that alone justifies belief in it?  People die for their country- why do they do that?   Is that "religion"?

Do you have political opinions?   What evidence do you have for those opinions?  How is your belief in those opinions justified?

I believe that the answers to those questions bear directly on your understanding of the function of religion.  Religion is not about scientific "facts", in fact there are no facts.

Yes the position is ironic.  In Rorty's book "Contingency Irony and Solidarity" in fact the greatest compliment he can pay to someone is to be an "ironist", or one who creates one's own "truth" knowing that his truth is contextual.  That in Mormon parlance is called "organizing matter unorganized"

Even relativism is only relatively true.  THAT is the whole point of relativism.

Saying something is "true" is exactly like saying "I agree with you!"  no more no less.  Science changes paradigms, there are no linguistic expressions which do not change with time- there is no other "truth" which can be defined.

You want epistemology- let's go there!

Trust me- we won't have anyone interrupt us!  It never happens!  This is as good as a PM!

Edited December 8, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Proving that BY ordered MMM is not going to happen.  That he ordered the "Cover-up" and personally profited from MMM is not in doubt

As I have mentioned before, my great grandfather participated in the MMM.  He was DIRECTED to do so...by whom?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I wonder if you had received a firm affirmation of just the opposite viewpoint if you'd feel so connected to the LDS Church? 

If the Lord had told me some other Church is true, no, I would not affirm the Church of Jesus Christ as representing the true gospel. But that is not the case. The Lord has affirmed various things to me, and they do not correspond to some widely accepted teachings. That just means the Lord will bring about change - not that the Church is not the restored church. So although frustrated, I have to accept my little part in the giant cog of the Lord.

Quote

I no longer attend, not because of the flaws of its leaders or of the policies and opinions they promote. I no longer attend because doing so is not emotionally or mentally healthy for me to do so.  The church of my youth, the one I served a mission for, paid my tithes to, served endless hours in callings for...was a figment of my imagination and never actually existed...and the actual church, the one based in its own little reality requires too much mind bending gymnastics to be believable (for me).  Its really better for everyone that I just don't attend... Church members, those that actually do want to attend, are entitled to a friendly, non threatening environment where they can be taught Truth as the Mormon Church sees it....and it is that version of truth that is so mentally caustic to me.

From what I know of you Johnnie, perhaps this is true. Until, and if, you experience a change in heart, it might be best if you do not speak up in church.

The church never has been directed to accept all in its ranks. The early church was advised not to accept those who would not live by the laws of chastity, abstain from homosexual acts, adultery and the like. If those are your issues, it will be up to you to want to change. It does happen, in and outside this Church. 

If your reasons for not attending are purely historical and theological, I pray that one day that may change for you. I am trying to do my part to answer many of the historical and archaeological issues members have fallen to. Cheers

[RevTestament]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As I have mentioned before, my great grandfather participated in the MMM.  He was DIRECTED to do so...by whom?

I assume u r inferring not by the leader on site?

[Jeanne]

Just now, RevTestament said:

I assume u r inferring not by the leader on site?

By family who has done geneology, I have been told he was directed by ward members...I do not know what level of authority that would come from.  This is in Millard County.

[RevTestament]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

By family who has done geneology, I have been told he was directed by ward members...I do not know what level of authority that would come from.  This is in Millard County.

I do believe that BY may have been complicit in stirring up a general fervor against the feds. From his speeches he called them rascals, etc. It was just his style. 

However, I really have not seen credible evidence that he ordered the murder of these travelers. His beef was with the feds. He also seemed to favor resistance rather than direct confrontation. The whole plan seemed to be to wear out the will and resolve of the federal government - not to overcome them with brute force and stir up a hornets nest. So, I have real difficulty believing he would be stupid enough to order the killing of what plainly seemed to be average settlers passing through. 

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Proving that BY ordered MMM is not going to happen.  That he was involved in its "Cover-up" and personally profited from MMM is not in doubt

I would be interested in knowing how you think BY "personally profited" from MMM. He was faced with charges of treason, insubordination, etc for his part in defying the Federal government. It seems to me to really all have to do with the church's continuing desire to practice polygamy, and the efforts of the Feds to stamp it out rather than other personal motives.

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As I have mentioned before, my great grandfather participated in the MMM.  He was DIRECTED to do so...by whom?

That is kind of interesting, since usually members are taught to follow the prophet. Maybe BY did allude to doing something to these travelers and at the last minute changed his mind, but the letter didn't make it in time.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is kind of interesting, since usually members are taught to follow the prophet. Maybe BY did allude to doing something to these travelers and at the last minute changed his mind, but the letter didn't make it in time.

That is kind of what I think happened.  But this puts to my mind a question of discernment and prophecy.

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If the Lord had told me some other Church is true, no, I would not affirm the Church of Jesus Christ as representing the true gospel. But that is not the case. The Lord has affirmed various things to me, and they do not correspond to some widely accepted teachings. That just means the Lord will bring about change - not that the Church is not the restored church. So although frustrated, I have to accept my little part in the giant cog of the Lord.

Glad it works for you

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

From what I know of you Johnnie, perhaps this is true. Until, and if, you experience a change in heart, it might be best if you do not speak up in church.

Better to just not attend...I mean really why bother...

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The church never has been directed to accept all in its ranks. The early church was advised not to accept those who would not live by the laws of chastity, abstain from homosexual acts, adultery and the like. If those are your issues, it will be up to you to want to change. It does happen, in and outside this Church. 

Really?  Oh Brother... even the inference is offensive. This is a classic example of an unwarranted assumption fallacy that is so prevalent in Mormonism, used to marginalize and wall off those who leave from believers.   It has been my experience that people leave the church over intellectual reasons not out of a desire to engage in activity that Mormon's view as sin. 

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If your reasons for not attending are purely historical and theological, I pray that one day that may change for you. I am trying to do my part to answer many of the historical and archaeological issues members have fallen to. Cheers

My reasons are...to be blunt...that (in my opinion) the church is not what it claims to be.

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Glad it works for you

Better to just not attend...I mean really why bother...

So why do you bother in coming to this forum? I mean if you do not even have a desire to believe, what is behind your visits?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This isn't a straw man.

Your prior comments were a straw man.

Quote

It's basic inference from the CFR you requested.

Hope has made an affirmative assertion of fact which I find questionable.  Hence the CFR.  That's about it.

Hope has asserted that there is an an ongoing debate amongst competent historians regarding Brigham Young being complicit in the MMM,  I am asking him to substantiate that claim.  Which historians?  Where is this ongoing debate playing out?  What publications?  What venues?

Quote

You are all over the place here, Smac- You called for a CFR when Hope claimed there was still debate amongst historians about Brigham's involvement.

Yes.  I question that there is an ongoing debate amongst historians.  Hence the CFR.

Quote

Do you agree there is some debate among historians about Brighams' involvement or not?

I question whether there is an ongoing debate on that issue amongst competent historians.  Hence the CFR.

Quote

You guys are trying to do a hatchet job on Hope with this thread,

Baloney.  Presenting a CFR is not a "hatchet job."

Quote

accusing him of making all kinds of accusations which he hasn't made and then playing coy when called on it.

I have quoted him chapter and verse as to his claims with which I take issue.

And the only person being "coy" is the one refusing to respond to a CFR.

I will own that I have accused Hope of engaging in rank demagoguery by refusing to address the profound flaws in the evidence he keeps citing to inculpate Brigham Young, by ignoring the extant historical evidence that exculpates Brigham Young, and by instead resorting to rank, evidence-free, demagoguery of Brigham Young  ("I wouldn't be surprised if . . .").

Put yourself in my shoes.  Say that some random stranger came up to you and offered an unsolicited and evidence-free opinion that he "wouldn't be surprised" if your father (or even a more remote ancestor) was a child molester (or a rapist, or a murderer - you choose).  Would you possibly take exception to that?

And let's say that you expressed disagreement with this fellow and ask him to substantiate his evidence-free opinion, and then his friend suddenly pops up and accuses you of pulling a "hatchet job" on other guy.  Would you take that seriously?  Or would you perhaps be a bit impatient with the gall and effrontery and crassness of the whole thing?

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hope has asserted that there is an an ongoing debate amongst competent historians regarding Brigham Young being complicit in the MMM, 

 

Actually, Hope has asserted more than that Brigham Young was being complicit in MMM 

Hope has asserted that Historians are debating whether Brigham Young Specifically Ordered the Massacre.

On 12/7/2016 at 0:15 PM, hope_for_things said:

Whether Brigham Young specifically ordered the massacre continues to be debated by historians.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So why do you bother in coming to this forum? I mean if you do not even have a desire to believe, what is behind your visits?

In those rare times I do post here anymore it's to offer a counter viewpoint to the predominant one being expressed...remember there must needs be opposition in all things? 2 Nephi 2:11-13. Oh and in case you're wondering...I represent the good side of that opposition 😜

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Glad it works for you

Better to just not attend...I mean really why bother...

Really?  Oh Brother... even the inference is offensive. This is a classic example of an unwarranted assumption fallacy that is so prevalent in Mormonism, used to marginalize and wall off those who leave from believers.   It has been my experience that people leave the church over intellectual reasons not out of a desire to engage in activity that Mormon's view as sin. 

My reasons are...to be blunt...that (in my opinion) the church is not what it claims to be.

And how does one establish that it is NOT the restored church of Jesus Christ on the earth today?  What is your evidence?  I don't think evidence is necessary to justify the assertion that it IS the church of Christ and therefore there is no evidence against that position either.  

Yet you believe that truth is based on evidence so where is the evidence to justify your position? 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So by asking for a CFR to prove that there is still  some debate among historians about Brigham's involvement you're suggesting that ALL historians agree and have concluded that Brigham Young had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre and had no foreknowledge of it.

It's very bold to make such an absolute statement about what ALL historians agree on. Personally, I didn't think it was possible for ALL historians to agree on anything.

Yep.  And he has repeatedly recommended that interested parties read Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, since this is pretty much the key source for the allegation against Brigham Young.

And yet when I provided evidence and analysis showing that the key (only?) piece of "evidence" used by Bagley to inculpate Brigham Young turned out to be, well, a work of fraud by Bagley, Hope dismisses that analysis as a "rant" and refuses to address the issue any further.

And perhaps worst of all, Hope resorted to contemptible, evidence-free demagoguery of the worst, most hateful sort ("I wouldn't be surprised if he or other high ranking church leaders did order it.").

Imagine the (quite justified) outrage Hope would feel if someone blandly said similarly horrid and evidence-free claims about him or his forbears.  Something like "I can tell you I wouldn't be surprised if Hope's grandfather was a child molester who groomed neighbor kids for sexual exploitation."

I imagine he would be upset at such a charge.  And he would be entirely justified in being upset.  And the person making that accusation would very likely be suspended or banned from the board.  And that too would be appropriate.

Fortunately, Hope has not, on this board, encountered anyone so crass, so utterly lacking in basic decency and decorum and civility, as would make such public accusations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

By family who has done geneology, I have been told he was directed by ward members...I do not know what level of authority that would come from.  This is in Millard County.

It is known who pushed for and led the attack:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng

"On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done...

The conspirators were now caught in their web of deception. Their attack on the emigrants had faltered. Their military commander would soon know they had blatantly disobeyed his orders. A less-than-forthcoming dispatch to Brigham Young was on its way to Salt Lake City. A witness of white involvement had now shared the news within the emigrant corral. If the surviving emigrants were freed and continued on to California, word would quickly spread that Mormons had been involved in the attack. An army was already approaching the territory, and if news of their role in the attack got out, the conspirators believed, it would result in retaliatory military action that would threaten their lives and the lives of their people. In addition, other California-bound emigrant trains were expected to arrive at Cedar City and then the Mountain Meadows any day....

Ignoring the Council’s Decision

On September 9 Haight traveled to Parowan with Elias Morris, who was one of Haight’s two militia captains as well as his counselor in the stake presidency. Again they sought Dame’s permission to call out the militia, and again Dame held a Parowan council, which decided that men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace. Haight later lamented, “I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deciion of the council.” 5

Instead, when the meeting ended, Haight and his counselor got Dame alone, sharing with him information they had not shared with the council: the corralled emigrants probably knew that white men had been involved in the initial attacks. They also told Dame that most of the emigrants had already been killed in these attacks. This information caused Dame, now isolated from the tempering consensus of his council, to rethink his earlier decision. Tragically, he gave in, and when the conversation ended, Haight left feeling he had permission to use the militia.

On arriving at Cedar City, Haight immediately called out some two dozen militiamen, most of them officers, to join others already waiting near the emigrant corral at the Mountain Meadows. Those who had deplored vigilante violence against their own people in Missouri and Illinois were now about to follow virtually the same pattern of violence against others, but on a deadlier scale.

The Massacre

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack.

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing...."

The book this article is a summary of has additional details, but this article covers the instigation and who gave the orders well enough IMO.

[Calm]

Sorry about the format problem, just annoying when I specified not to carry any over and it still happens. Unfortunately I have yet to figure out how to view code with the most recent board updates, so can't edit it out.

Best to read the article itself for full context anyway.

Haight was a stake president if you hadn't picked that up, but he was acting in his militia role, not Church one (one can tell because Dame was the same in church hierarchy while higher in the militia and he was the one Haight was trying to win over).  I have no doubt Church standing added to the respect people had for these men and likely even more than it would today given the lifetime job many church callings were then.  It is impossible to separate out the influence each role people held as our brains don't work that way...we respond to people based on our whole experience with them and do not turn off our memories of what happens during the week when we sit in classes or the chapel on Sunday or the reverse, but it is best not to confuse the roles they were acting in as that confuses the picture IMO.  It was the militia that was called out, not the local ward or stake even if they overlapped in a huge way, the same people holding leadership roles in both.  That Haight was mayor, major, and stake president added to his influence, but he was acting as major at the time.  Would not be surprised though if his being 'top dog' in his other roles (mayor, stake president) contributed to his arrogance in ignoring the wishes/orders of his commanders.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And he has repeatedly recommended that interested parties read Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, since this is pretty much the key source for the allegation against Brigham Young.

And yet when I provided evidence and analysis showing that the key (only?) piece of "evidence" used by Bagley to inculpate Brigham Young turned out to be, well, a work of fraud by Bagley, Hope dismisses that analysis as a "rant" and refuses to address the issue any further.

And perhaps worst of all, Hope resorted to contemptible, evidence-free demagoguery of the worst, most hateful sort ("I wouldn't be surprised if he or other high ranking church leaders did order it.").

Imagine the (quite justified) outrage Hope would feel if someone blandly said similarly horrid and evidence-free claims about him or his forbears.  Something like "I can tell you I wouldn't be surprised if Hope's grandfather was a child molester who groomed neighbor kids for sexual exploitation."

I imagine he would be upset at such a charge.  And he would be entirely justified in being upset.  And the person making that accusation would very likely be suspended or banned from the board.  And that too would be appropriate.

Fortunately, Hope has not, on this board, encountered anyone so crass, so utterly lacking in basic decency and decorum and civility, as would make such public accusations.

Thanks,

-Smac

You guys are so over the top on this. You are assigning the worst possible motives to Hope for a pretty benign statement about how historians disagree/debate Brigham Young's involvement in MMM. His involvement has been a matter of debate for a very long time. Merely mentioning the debate should not be taken as lacking basic decency, decorum and civility, or evidence-free demagoguery of the worst, most hateful sort. Nor should it be considered a direct accusation against Brigham Young.

You and the others I quoted previously are acting very ugly about this and overly emotional about it. You have chosen to be offended. That's your problem. No one else's. I'm done with this thread.

ETA- It's ironic that such bad behavior occurs on a thread titled "Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history". I would suggest that the responses and hostile accusations by those offended by the possibility that historians debate BY's involvement, are providing a great example of what not to do when dialoguing with people who may have doubts about Mormon history.

Edited December 8, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sorry about the format problem, just annoying when I specified not to carry any over and it still happens. Unfortunately I have yet to figure out how to view code with the most recent board updates, so can't edit it out.

Best to read the article itself for full context anyway.

Thanks Calm!

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In those rare times I do post here anymore it's to offer a counter viewpoint to the predominant one being expressed...remember there must needs be opposition in all things? 2 Nephi 2:11-13. Oh and in case you're wondering...I represent the good side of that opposition 😜

If you think that is giving advice to be contrary to the will of the Lord, I would disagree.

I am somewhat familiar with your posts and the fact that you got a limited status slapped on you(again) for a reason. Your posts seem to be in a similar vein to those of Consiglieri. I am not really interested in starting a debate with you. But it does seem that you post here maybe to vent? Perhaps you harbor a little resentment? Motivations of lurkers are curious things.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You guys are so over the top on this.

Objecting to evidence-free accusations of complicity in mass murder is "over the top?"  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

Quote

You are assigning the worst possible motives to Hope

We are quoting his/her statements on this board.  

Quote

for a pretty benign statement about how historians disagree/debate Brigham Young's involvement in MMM. 

There is nothing "benign" about evidence-free accusations of complicity in mass murder.

Quote

His involvement has been a matter of debate for a very long time.

And yet nobody seems capable of identifying any particulars about this ongoing debate.  Funny, that.

Quote

Merely mentioning the debate should not be taken as lacking basic decency, decorum and civility, or evidence-free demagoguery of the worst, most hateful sort.

You are right.  I was referring to his/her statement:  "I wouldn't be surprised if he {Brigham Young} or other high ranking church leaders did order it."

That is evidence-free demagoguery.  Straight up.  

Quote

Nor should it be considered a direct accusation against Brigham Young.

So "I can tell you I wouldn't be surprised if Hope's grandfather was a child molester who groomed neighbor kids for sexual exploitation" should not be considered a "direct accusation against" Hope's grandfather?

And on a related note, have you stopped beating your wife yet?  (No direct accusation there, either, I suppose?)

Quote

You and the others I quoted previously are acting very ugly about this and overly emotional about it.

Evidence-free demagoguery about men I admire is problematic to me.  I will own that.

Quote

You have chosen to be offended. That's your problem. No one else's. I'm done with this thread.

I am not sure I would characterize myself as "offended."  I am defending a historical figure whom I admire of rank, evidence free demagoguery.  That's about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 8, 2016 by smac97

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

If you think that is giving advice to be contrary to the will of the Lord, I would disagree.

I am somewhat familiar with your posts and the fact that you got a limited status slapped on you(again) for a reason. Your posts seem to be in a similar vein to those of Consiglieri. I am not really interested in starting a debate with you. But it does seem that you post here maybe to vent? Perhaps you harbor a little resentment? Motivations of lurkers are curious things.

Lurking is suspect? Now that is curious.

I find it curious that there are some who have opinions about everything, and choose to express their ideas about all of them. I read many topics but express myself only about those that I feel strongly about. Otherwise, I just "lurk"