What are the best sources available to the general public that indicate the extent of mobbing and murders of Mormons specifically on account of their religion?

[Navidad]

I am drawing this question from some comments made in another thread that I do not wish to hijack with this question. As some of you may know I have a great interest in the study of religion as conflict. That study is sociological, historical, and theological in its nature. It is a question that is not isolated in any way to Mormon history. For example, academic study over the past few years has radically changed the "story" behind the Cristero Wars and conflicts here in Mexico. I believe that religion as an antecedent to human conflict is a fascinating area of study. There is a beautiful big building that I am told was built via the donations of an LDS family at ASU that is named The Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict. It interacts with ASU's philosophy, history, and religion departments. They use some of my material in classes and I have spoken there as a keynote speaker on the history of Catholic/Government conflicts here in Mexico.

My question as in the title of this thread is, "what are the best sources available to the general public that indicated the extent of mobbing and murders of Mormons specifically on account of their religion or religious beliefs? If this were a Mennonite forum, I would ask the same question of the Mennonites because religious persecution is a common thread in Mennonite self-identification, as it is in others. I have a rather large Mormon (used in the broad sense) history library in my home. I have very few documents that have analyzed Mormon/general population conflicts in any detailed unbiased way, including the Illinois and Missouri situation. I once sat on a panel with two LDS researchers talking about the Missouri situation. They had radically different viewpoints. If you read their books on the subject you would think they were writing about two completely different events. This question as it relates to Mormon (again, used in its broad sense) is a fertile field (in my thinking) for additional research.

I once wrote in an article that after a lot of research I knew of no Mormons who were killed as a result of the Mexican revolution. I received a blistering email from a sitting US senator who assured me that his ancestor was killed in a violent conflict with revolutionaries. I looked into it and sure enough he was killed, but it was by a tax collector who arrived on his front porch to recoup some unpaid taxes. They got mad, drew on each other and the tax collector shot the LDS fellow dead. It had nothing to do with the revolution even though it occurred during the revolutionary years. One of the common themes in religion as conflict (instead of religion and conflict) studies is that someone was Mennonite and was killed, therefore he or she was killed because she  or he was Mennonite. Adherents, in this case Mennonite get very passionate about this subject for a number of reasons. It is complicated. Many Jews in Ukraine were killed during the 1930s some even by Mennonites. Were they killed because of the Jewish faith? That is complicated too. It appears many were killed because they were judges, tax collectors who were seen as unjust in their carrying out of their work. Was the anti-Jewish sentiment being stirred up by the press, authorities, etc. and that led to their deaths? Sure, but were they killed because of their Jewish identity? That is a much more complicated question, one in which I have great interest.

Thanks for your thoughts and input.

Edited March 26, 2022 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

I don't have a good answer to your question, but I wanted to congratulate you for creating the longest topic heading I've ever seen on this board.  I'm seriously impressed

I think it will be hard to sift the political motives for persecution from the religious ones (but in some ways they may be one in the same).  Many outside the church try to claim that the persecution was entirely for political reasons, or because leaders like Joseph Smith broke the law.  My Anabaptist friend has said that the "Mormons" brought it on themselves to some degree, by escalating the conflict in taking up arms to defend themselves, or even in taking the offensive in some cases, and there is some truth to that.  But it's really hard to rule out religious persecution in every situation.  It is a complicated question.

Unfortunately almost all of my books are packed and in the garage at the moment in preparation for a move, or I'd try to give you a better answer.  When I was searching in Google, I did find an interesting history thesis that I haven't finished reading completely, here:  Stefanie M. Vaught, Georgia State University - Religious Intolerance in the Second Great Awakening: The Mormon Experience in Missouri, (2013).  I'll try to finish reading it after I do a few chores today.   

[The Nehor]

Many of those who drove the Mormons out gave other reasons for what happened so we can’t assume it had a religious motivation. Just like we are told that racial violence isn’t really racial. Unless they make it explicitly clear that was the root motive we have to give the offender the benefit of the doubt.

While I don’t doubt that sometimes the facts are wrong as in the case you cite when the target of the violence is so often a minority, a Jew, or whatever you are left to wonder if that tax standoff would have ended in shooting if the person wasn’t Mormon. That is where it gets murkier.

I don’t feel obligated to assume it didn’t play a part when a pattern emerges.

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't have a good answer to your question, but I wanted to congratulate you for creating the longest topic heading I've ever seen on this board.  I'm seriously impressed

I think it will be hard to sift the political motives for persecution from the religious ones (but in some ways they may be one in the same).  Many outside the church try to claim that the persecution was entirely for political reasons, or because leaders like Joseph Smith broke the law.  My Anabaptist friend has said that the "Mormons" brought it on themselves to some degree, by escalating the conflict in taking up arms to defend themselves, or even in taking the offensive in some cases, and there is some truth to that.  But it's really hard to rule out religious persecution in every situation.  It is a complicated question.

Unfortunately almost all of my books are packed and in the garage at the moment in preparation for a move, or I'd try to give you a better answer.  When I was searching in Google, I did find an interesting history thesis that I haven't finished reading completely, here:  Stefanie M. Vaught, Georgia State University - Religious Intolerance in the Second Great Awakening: The Mormon Experience in Missouri, (2013).  I'll try to finish reading it after I do a few chores today.   

Sorry for being so wordy. Motivation is always hard to sift through. As you note, it is indeed a complicated question. That is why I asked it. I have Vaught's thesis. Interesting stuff! BTW what your Anabaptist friend told you is what they have said for centuries. It is a consistent part of Anabaptist theology. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Many of those who drove the Mormons out gave other reasons for what happened so we can’t assume it had a religious motivation. Just like we are told that racial violence isn’t really racial. Unless they make it explicitly clear that was the root motive we have to give the offender the benefit of the doubt.

While I don’t doubt that sometimes the facts are wrong as in the case you cite when the target of the violence is so often a minority, a Jew, or whatever you are left to wonder if that tax standoff would have ended in shooting if the person wasn’t Mormon. That is where it gets murkier.

I don’t feel obligated to assume it didn’t play a part when a pattern emerges.

I don't think we can afford to give either the offender or the offended the benefit of the doubt. We have to work hard to figure it out. Hey, that rhymes! The most interesting racial violence to study is intra-racial violence. That violence seems to be often highly ideological. I think there is also a strong ideological component of interracial violence as well, but that is a different topic.

You are also right about the murky part. The Anglo Mormons here in Mexico rode into a culture that was strongly anti-Anglo, especially those perceived as American. While the LDS folks who came here represented in reality 14 different countries and spoke many different languages, they were more or less greeted as armed Americans within the lifetime of many who either had, or whose parents had suffered during the US invasion of the 1840s. They also rode into the anomic north of Mexico depending on the good will of the federal government. The local (Galeana district) and state (Chihuahua) authorities knew very little about their coming. It was the Galeana leaders that issued the expulsion order to them. The interim governor was also caught completely off guard and was strongly anti-US. His father was made an invalid during the 1840s invasion. When we study this kind of history/sociology/religious stuff, we do our best not to assume, so I agree with you. Identifying the pattern is never easy. Thanks for your reply.

[CV75]

On 3/26/2022 at 10:24 AM, Navidad said:

I am drawing this question from some comments made in another thread that I do not wish to hijack with this question. As some of you may know I have a great interest in the study of religion as conflict. That study is sociological, historical, and theological in its nature. It is a question that is not isolated in any way to Mormon history. For example, academic study over the past few years has radically changed the "story" behind the Cristero Wars and conflicts here in Mexico. I believe that religion as an antecedent to human conflict is a fascinating area of study. There is a beautiful big building that I am told was built via the donations of an LDS family at ASU that is named The Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict. It interacts with ASU's philosophy, history, and religion departments. They use some of my material in classes and I have spoken there as a keynote speaker on the history of Catholic/Government conflicts here in Mexico.

My question as in the title of this thread is, "what are the best sources available to the general public that indicated the extent of mobbing and murders of Mormons specifically on account of their religion or religious beliefs? If this were a Mennonite forum, I would ask the same question of the Mennonites because religious persecution is a common thread in Mennonite self-identification, as it is in others. I have a rather large Mormon (used in the broad sense) history library in my home. I have very few documents that have analyzed Mormon/general population conflicts in any detailed unbiased way, including the Illinois and Missouri situation. I once sat on a panel with two LDS researchers talking about the Missouri situation. They had radically different viewpoints. If you read their books on the subject you would think they were writing about two completely different events. This question as it relates to Mormon (again, used in its broad sense) is a fertile field (in my thinking) for additional research.

I once wrote in an article that after a lot of research I knew of no Mormons who were killed as a result of the Mexican revolution. I received a blistering email from a sitting US senator who assured me that his ancestor was killed in a violent conflict with revolutionaries. I looked into it and sure enough he was killed, but it was by a tax collector who arrived on his front porch to recoup some unpaid taxes. They got mad, drew on each other and the tax collector shot the LDS fellow dead. It had nothing to do with the revolution even though it occurred during the revolutionary years. One of the common themes in religion as conflict (instead of religion and conflict) studies is that someone was Mennonite and was killed, therefore he or she was killed because she  or he was Mennonite. Adherents, in this case Mennonite get very passionate about this subject for a number of reasons. It is complicated. Many Jews in Ukraine were killed during the 1930s some even by Mennonites. Were they killed because of the Jewish faith? That is complicated too. It appears many were killed because they were judges, tax collectors who were seen as unjust in their carrying out of their work. Was the anti-Jewish sentiment being stirred up by the press, authorities, etc. and that led to their deaths? Sure, but were they killed because of their Jewish identity? That is a much more complicated question, one in which I have great interest.

Thanks for your thoughts and input.

"Funny" you should mention this as there is an excerpt from Saints Vol. 3 in this month's Liahona: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/04/11-martyrs-who-kept-the-faith?lang=eng

"The soldiers brought the two men to a tall tree and slung ropes over its strong limbs. Then they placed nooses around their necks. If Rafael and Vicente would abandon their religion [our Church] and join the Zapatistas, the soldiers said, they would be freed."

Perhaps the footnotes in this article will lead you to sources and other scholars you are looking for.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/26/2022 at 11:42 AM, InCognitus said:

I don't have a good answer to your question, but I wanted to congratulate you for creating the longest topic heading I've ever seen on this board.  I'm seriously impressed

Actually, at only five lines long, his thread title come in behind Daniel2’s six-line* title, “Request for balanced, non-proselytizing but LDS-affirming "Intro to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism)" book recommendations”. 
 

But don’t mention the length of Daniel’s thread title; it’s a sore point with him. 
 

*Added later: Oops, I miscounted and misremembered. They are tied at five lines each. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/27/2022 at 6:58 AM, Navidad said:

Sorry for being so wordy.

I take it as something of a challenge to condense such things. If I may, I’ll take a crack at this one:

Seeking best available sources regarding religion-based mobbing, murders of Mormons

Eleven words, reduced down from 26. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take it as something of a challenge to condense such things. If I may, I’ll take a crack at this one:

Seeking best available sources regarding religion-based mobbing, murders of Mormons

Eleven words, reduced down from 26. 

Excellent job. However I feel that my reputation may then be at risk. If there is anything in life I am known for, it is my wordiness, in both speaking and writing. I would hate to surrender that title to someone else. My other fame is related to my puns, which have been characterized as the "lowest form of humor!" My badges of dishonor! I have to speak this Friday at a gathering of a historical society from El Paso. The coordinator of the event said she was inviting me back by popular request (I spoke to them last year) but added 1/2 hour to the schedule for questions and answers, most of which I asked and answered myself! Ha!

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

"Funny" you should mention this as there is an excerpt from Saints Vol. 3 in this month's Liahona: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/04/11-martyrs-who-kept-the-faith?lang=eng

"The soldiers brought the two men to a tall tree and slung ropes over its strong limbs. Then they placed nooses around their necks. If Rafael and Vicente would abandon their religion [our Church] and join the Zapatistas, the soldiers said, they would be freed."

Perhaps the footnotes in this article will lead you to sources and other scholars you are looking for.

Hi my friend. Thanks for the link to this story. I regret it has made its way into Saints, Vol. 3. The event certainly occurred, but the details of what happened are far more historical fiction than history. Most of the church-related telling of the story comes from a single source who was not present at the shootings. There were no eyewitnesses to the shootings. There were no earwitnesses to the shootings. That they were shot by a firing squad and not hung, or simply killed indicates a military aspect to the their killing.

There are at least five versions of what Monroy said prior to his death and what the soldiers said to him (them). It has become a part of what is often called sacred history. It is a stirring and validating account of men who defended and proclaimed allegiance to their faith prior to their death at the hands of those who were against their faith. Whoever the soldiers were (Zapatistas or Villistas), they most likely shot the men because they were accused Carrancista sympathizers and thought to be hiding arms, as indeed were most Protestants at that time. It is highly unlikely that the soldiers could or would have distinguished in 1915 between Protestants and members of the LDS church. There were Protestant officers up to the rank of general in both Zapata's and Villa's army, as well as serving in the Carrancista armies. Venustiano Carranza's brother,  General Jesus Carranza married the daughter of a Protestant (Presbyterian) pastor and donated the land for one of the first Presbyterian churches in northern Mexico. There were even more Protestant generals, including one of the most famous, Pascual Orozco among the rebels who at one time or another fought against one or more of the armies. Orozco was Methodist and his father a colonel under him was a Methodist deacon. When General Orozco was killed in Texas, he had a Methodist funeral at Trinity Methodist in El Paso.

We know for sure that the men were arrested because the soldiers thought they were Carrancista sympathizers or officers and that they had an arms cache. The Monroys were a rather affluent family and therefore were a target. It would not be a surprise that they were harassed by their neighbors and other faithful Catholic locals for being "Protestants," but probably not by the soldiers who were most likely illiterate, hungry, and looking for arms - especially in the summer of 1915 when there were three armies in the area (Carrancista, Villista, and Zapatista), all looking to control it. I will look forward to reading this in volume 3. I hope there is some caveat language therein since I know some of the editors and their desire for a readable and accurate history of the church. We will see. Best, Navidad

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. Thanks for the link to this story. I regret it has made its way into Saints, Vol. 3. The event certainly occurred, but the details of what happened are far more historical fiction than history. Most of the church-related telling of the story comes from a single source who was not present at the shootings. There were no eyewitnesses to the shootings. There were no earwitnesses to the shootings. That they were shot by a firing squad and not hung, or simply killed indicates a military aspect to the their killing.

There are at least five versions of what Monroy said prior to his death and what the soldiers said to him (them). It has become a part of what is often called sacred history. It is a stirring and validating account of men who defended and proclaimed allegiance to their faith prior to their death at the hands of those who were against their faith. Whoever the soldiers were (Zapatistas or Villistas), they most likely shot the men because they were accused Carrancista sympathizers and thought to be hiding arms, as indeed were most Protestants at that time. It is highly unlikely that the soldiers could or would have distinguished in 1915 between Protestants and members of the LDS church. There were Protestant officers up to the rank of general in both Zapata's and Villa's army, as well as serving in the Carrancista armies. Venustiano Carranza's brother,  General Jesus Carranza married the daughter of a Protestant (Presbyterian) pastor and donated the land for one of the first Presbyterian churches in northern Mexico. There were even more Protestant generals, including one of the most famous, Pascual Orozco among the rebels who at one time or another fought against one or more of the armies. Orozco was Methodist and his father a colonel under him was a Methodist deacon. When General Orozco was killed in Texas, he had a Methodist funeral at Trinity Methodist in El Paso.

We know for sure that the men were arrested because the soldiers thought they were Carrancista sympathizers or officers and that they had an arms cache. The Monroys were a rather affluent family and therefore were a target. It would not be a surprise that they were harassed by their neighbors and other faithful Catholic locals for being "Protestants," but probably not by the soldiers who were most likely illiterate, hungry, and looking for arms - especially in the summer of 1915 when there were three armies in the area (Carrancista, Villista, and Zapatista), all looking to control it. I will look forward to reading this in volume 3. I hope there is some caveat language therein since I know some of the editors and their desire for a readable and accurate history of the church. We will see. Best, Navidad

Given that you didn't specify that you wanted only primary sources without scholarly interpretation or opinion and only emphasized availability to the general public, this is the best I have immediately available. Reader beware!

 

[Navidad]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given that you didn't specify that you wanted only primary sources without scholarly interpretation or opinion and only emphasized availability to the general public, this is the best I have immediately available. Reader beware!

 

I certainly appreciate your pointing out this story. I researched it some years ago when Dr. Tullis' book came out. Certainly both primary and secondary sources are welcome. Assigning narrative to folks who no one heard speak is perhaps another matter. We are now back to a popular concept on the forum lately - that of interpretation. Most historians strive for objectivity, yet almost inevitably consciously or unconsciously assign their own interpretation to events, people, and places, perhaps based on their own research, knowledge, experience, biases, or beliefs about what happened. That is what has happened in the case of these deaths. Were these folks two of millions who suffered during the revolution because of the violence, hunger, taking sides, etc.? Or were they martyrs going to the death because they would not renounce their faith at the hands of soldiers who were anti-Mormon? Or both, or neither? Not only historians face these challenges. Interpreters of the Scriptures have the same issues, with perhaps the added benefit of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, which also might be the validation of apriori beliefs. It is all complicated and why I enjoy both history and the study of faith so very much.  Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Error

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

"Funny" you should mention this as there is an excerpt from Saints Vol. 3 in this month's Liahona: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/04/11-martyrs-who-kept-the-faith?lang=eng

"The soldiers brought the two men to a tall tree and slung ropes over its strong limbs. Then they placed nooses around their necks. If Rafael and Vicente would abandon their religion [our Church] and join the Zapatistas, the soldiers said, they would be freed."

Perhaps the footnotes in this article will lead you to sources and other scholars you are looking for.

Yes but there are secrets in the photograph in the link.

I love this!

Find the woman in white at the far right, and blow up the shot to as much magnification as you can get and then pan down to the women's left wrist.

Look slightly right of that left wrist, and you will see half of a little face peering out of the window to see the excitement going on outside!

Now THAT is history!! 

I want to hear THAT baby's story! 

I love old photos- I have one of my grandfather, a farm boy, from western New York who was in the army at the time, clowning around with troops in Laredo Texas, sent there to "Keep America Safe" from all the shenanigans going on at that time in that neck of the woods.

He never got into Mexico, and remained in Laredo

I'm happy he made it back, or I wouldn't be here.  

Edited March 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I certainly appreciate your pointing out this story. I researched it some years ago when Dr. Tullis' book came out. Certainly both primary and secondary sources are welcome. Assigning narrative to folks who no one heard speak is perhaps another matter. We are now back to a popular concept on the forum lately - that of interpretation. Most historians strive for objectivity, yet almost inevitably consciously or unconsciously assign their own interpretation to events, people, and places, perhaps based on their own research, knowledge, experience, biases, or beliefs about what happened. That is what has happened in the case of these deaths. Were these folks two of millions who suffered during the revolution because of the violence, hunger, taking sides, etc.? Or were they martyrs going to the death because they would not renounce their faith at the hands of soldiers who were anti-Mormon? Or both, or neither? Not only historians face these challenges. Interpreters of the Scriptures have the same issues, with perhaps the added benefit of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, which also might be the validation of apriori beliefs. It is all complicated and why I enjoy both history and the study of faith so very much.  Thanks!

It's a short article. Would you bold/highlight the statements made in teh article that you interpret as false?

[CA Steve]

On 3/26/2022 at 10:24 AM, Navidad said:

My question as in the title of this thread is, "what are the best sources available to the general public that indicated the extent of mobbing and murders of Mormons specifically on account of their religion or religious beliefs? If this were a Mennonite forum, I would ask the same question of the Mennonites because religious persecution is a common thread in Mennonite self-identification, as it is in others. I have a rather large Mormon (used in the broad sense) history library in my home. I have very few documents that have analyzed Mormon/general population conflicts in any detailed unbiased way, including the Illinois and Missouri situation. I once sat on a panel with two LDS researchers talking about the Missouri situation. They had radically different viewpoints. If you read their books on the subject you would think they were writing about two completely different events. This question as it relates to Mormon (again, used in its broad sense) is a fertile field (in my thinking) for additional research.

Have you read The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri by Stephen C. LeSueur?

Probably the best treatment on that particular conflict.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Have you read The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri by Stephen C. LeSueur?

Probably the best treatment on that particular conflict.

Yes I have and I have served on panels on the subject with him. He is a great guy, but took a lot of grief for what he wrote, which in a sense told a different story than the one told by another author who I also think is a great guy! Same or similar facts, but different interpretations.  I still think there is more to be said about the Missouri conflict in terms of interpretation of the conflict. Not long after the conflict Doniphan was down here fighting in Chihuahua in the US invasion of Mexico. Also Hawn was heading for Oregon to establish new mills there, among the Mennonites of all people. Hawn is a common Mennonite last name. I spent some time trying to figure out if the Hawn brothers who founded the Missouri mill were Mennonites, which might explain why he neither ran away nor took up arms. I never completed that research. Maybe I will talk one of my Mennonite historian friends into doing that. I just don't have time.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It's a short article. Would you bold/highlight the statements made in teh article that you interpret as false?

I would if you told me how to do that and then post it here. I want to make a distinction however between false and fictionalized narrative. I am suggesting that any conversations between the soldiers and the two men were fictionalized. There are significant variations between the accounts of the statements of Monroy before he died. F. Lamond Tullis in a footnote in his book comments on the varied statements attributed to the men. Over the years the story was told and retold. Old-time missionary and Mission President Rey Pratt had a lot to say about how the history of the central Mexican church was written. The statements that were selected facilitate the idea of martyrdom as opposed to random and common violence of the period in Hidalgo and Puebla. Perhaps one of the soldiers shared what was said, but I know of no record of that. It makes no sense to me that they would have arrested, interrogated, and tortured the two men as Carrancista spies, officers, and hoarders of arms and then offered to "let them go" if they renounced their faith. There were lots of Protestants in Hidalgo at this time; some Pentecostals as well, but not as many. I know of no large scale persecution of Protestants in Hidalgo in this time. It is also my observation that many Catholic or irreligious folks here still to this day make no distinction between members of the LDS Church, member of the fundamentalist Mormon churches, Mennonites, and Protestants. I can't imagine that distinction being made by common soldiers in 1915. There were few conversions to the LDS church in Mexico prior to 1892. And the area in which success was realized was rather localized to several states.

The only people at the spot who could have heard were the few soldiers and the two men who were summarily killed. The Monroy family was either in the house under guard or spread out in the town when the incident occurred. There were no eyewitnesses, reporters or the like. I have one historical nitpick with the article because it ascribes the soldiers as being Zapatistas. I think they may have been Villistas. In a rare incursion south at the prime of his power, Villa sent his most violent general - Rodolfo Fierro to central Mexico. He took his army from Puebla to Jalisco and back north again. He interestingly (to me anyway) is said to have drowned just a few miles from my house on his way back to join Villa. If I could ever find a reference pinpointing for who General Reyes Molina fought, I could know for sure if they were Zapatistas or Villistas. I haven't tracked him down yet to know for sure. So they may indeed have been Zapatistas, but the Zapatistas were not regularly very active as far north as Hidalgo. It is all very complex. Villa kept bugging Zapata to take Puebla, but he (Zapata) had little interest in making that much of an effort that far northeast of Morelos. He never did. Villa would have probably won the conflict had Zapata taken the state of Puebla and opened the corridor to Veracruz. But that is a different story.

As a whole the Zapatistas were more "Catholic" in their outlook than either the Villistas or the Carrancistas. Although as I said in another thread some of Zapata's top generals were Protestant, as were some Villista generals and many Carrancistas. The states of Puebla and Hidalgo changed sides like I change socks. At times in 1915 the three armies were within scant miles of each other. Pre-Celaya the Villistas were better equipped and armed. Post-Celaya (both battles in the same year as this account) they retreated back north and never were the same. The LDS had their greatest success in converting Mexican mestizos to the church in the state of Hidalgo. This is where all the action related these murders took place. I don't know for sure, but Hidalgo may still have the largest percentage of LDS converts of any state.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

We are now back to a popular concept on the forum lately - that of interpretation. Most historians strive for objectivity, yet almost inevitably consciously or unconsciously assign their own interpretation to events, people, and places, perhaps based on their own research, knowledge, experience, biases, or beliefs about what happened.

This is the key, and it is not only historians who have the problem in knowing "what happened", it's all of us, in everything.

There IS no "what happened", there is only interpretations of the causes of  human experience.

That's why there has been no definition of truth in 2500 years of western philosophy that works consistently beyond hermeneutics and paradigms to explain the hermeneutics, and this is why religion is still rational, and faith is its cornerstone.

Faith is "the substance of things unseen" and HOPE for a paradigm that works! And that is the same in both science (Covid research anyone ?) AND religion; Alma 32!

I love this church!   Between Alma 32 and Moroni 10 we encompass and go beyond every philosophy of men western culture has produced.

Each of us is creating our own worlds, right here, right now, every day of our lives. We are all organizers of our own worlds both now, and in so doing, "practicing" for doing so in the beyond.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would if you told me how to do that and then post it here. I want to make a distinction however between false and fictionalized narrative. I am suggesting that any conversations between the soldiers and the two men were fictionalized. There are significant variations between the accounts of the statements of Monroy before he died. F. Lamond Tullis in a footnote in his book comments on the varied statements attributed to the men. Over the years the story was told and retold. Old-time missionary and Mission President Rey Pratt had a lot to say about how the history of the central Mexican church was written. The statements that were selected facilitate the idea of martyrdom as opposed to random and common violence of the period in Hidalgo and Puebla. Perhaps one of the soldiers shared what was said, but I know of no record of that. It makes no sense to me that they would have arrested, interrogated, and tortured the two men as Carrancista spies, officers, and hoarders of arms and then offered to "let them go" if they renounced their faith. There were lots of Protestants in Hidalgo at this time; some Pentecostals as well, but not as many. I know of no large scale persecution of Protestants in Hidalgo in this time. It is also my observation that many Catholic or irreligious folks here still to this day make no distinction between members of the LDS Church, member of the fundamentalist Mormon churches, Mennonites, and Protestants. I can't imagine that distinction being made by common soldiers in 1915. There were few conversions to the LDS church in Mexico prior to 1892. And the area in which success was realized was rather localized to several states.

The only people at the spot who could have heard were the few soldiers and the two men who were summarily killed. The Monroy family was either in the house under guard or spread out in the town when the incident occurred. There were no eyewitnesses, reporters or the like. I have one historical nitpick with the article because it ascribes the soldiers as being Zapatistas. I think they may have been Villistas. In a rare incursion south at the prime of his power, Villa sent his most violent general - Rodolfo Fierro to central Mexico. He took his army from Puebla to Jalisco and back north again. He interestingly (to me anyway) is said to have drowned just a few miles from my house on his way back to join Villa. If I could ever find a reference pinpointing for who General Reyes Molina fought, I could know for sure if they were Zapatistas or Villistas. I haven't tracked him down yet to know for sure. So they may indeed have been Zapatistas, but the Zapatistas were not regularly very active as far north as Hidalgo. It is all very complex. Villa kept bugging Zapata to take Puebla, but he (Zapata) had little interest in making that much of an effort that far northeast of Morelos. He never did. Villa would have probably won the conflict had Zapata taken the state of Puebla and opened the corridor to Veracruz. But that is a different story.

As a whole the Zapatistas were more "Catholic" in their outlook than either the Villistas or the Carrancistas. Although as I said in another thread some of Zapata's top generals were Protestant, as were some Villista generals and many Carrancistas. The states of Puebla and Hidalgo changed sides like I change socks. At times in 1915 the three armies were within scant miles of each other. Pre-Celaya the Villistas were better equipped and armed. Post-Celaya (both battles in the same year as this account) they retreated back north and never were the same. The LDS had their greatest success in converting Mexican mestizos to the church in the state of Hidalgo. This is where all the action related these murders took place. I don't know for sure, but Hidalgo may still have the largest percentage of LDS converts of any state.

To do that, copy-and-paste the text from the link into your reply, and then use the "B" function the upper left corner to bold the text.

There may be more to the story anyway, as there is a note at the bottom of the article, "When volume 3 is published, a complete list of works cited and the topic entries will be available at saints.ChurchofJesusChrist.org."  -- that is also a sample of how to do that

When I read volumes 1 and 2, I thought there was a good deal of fictionalization (e.g., "It was a bright sunny day, but something in the air...") and evidently an interpretation of people's feelings, etc. but lo and behold, when I delved into the footnotes, there is documentation that it was a bright sunny day (per a weather report or journal entry) and the journal writer did sense something ominous in the air, or otherwise expressed their feelings. 

History seems to be one big discussion board, not that there's anything wrong with that!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the key, and it is not only historians who have the problem in knowing "what happened", it's all of us, in everything.

There IS no "what happened", there is only interpretations of the causes of  human experience.

That's why there has been no definition of truth in 2500 years of western philosophy that works consistently beyond hermeneutics and paradigms to explain the hermeneutics, and this is why religion is still rational, and faith is its cornerstone.

Faith is "the substance of things unseen" and HOPE for a paradigm that works! And that is the same in both science (Covid research anyone ?) AND religion; Alma 32!

I love this church!   Between Alma 32 and Moroni 10 we encompass and go beyond every philosophy of men western culture has produced.

Each of us is creating our own worlds, right here, right now, every day of our lives. We are all organizers of our own worlds both now, and in so doing, "practicing" for doing so in the beyond.

You replied to @Navidad's quote, not mine, according to the primary source material, which was evidently miscopied by a well-meaning but fat-fingered scribe  -- creating a world quite by accident! Yet the content is perfectly useable. Is there a metaphor for the redemption of the big bang in there somewhere?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

You replied to @Navidad's quote, not mine, according to the primary source material, which was evidently miscopied by a well-meaning but fat-fingered scribe  -- creating a world quite by accident! Yet the content is perfectly useable. Is there a metaphor for the redemption of the big bang in there somewhere?

I thought I had fixed that- using my phone and a call came in, and I guess I did not hit "save" before taking the call... 🤔

I don't favor or disfavor using scientific paradigms in religious discussions but think they are irrelevant.  I see everything at least two ways, the old rabbit duck syndrome.   EVERYTHING!

But sure the big bang works if that is a concern, with a singularity it just recycles previously used materials.

And if Gods need more modeling clay to make a world, maybe they have to go ex nihilo for a while. It doesn't matter to me.

I believe God makes the rules that fit the needs, and decides if he needs ex nihilo, he does it, or stays immanent if he needs to.

I'm not about to tell HIM how to do His work, when it's the WHY questions we should be thinking about.

WHY does he make/organize ANYTHING??

THAT is the only life changing question I see here at all

And since we are discussing the big issues please tell me where the English idiom "over with" came from? 

I need to get that over with before I worry about the big boom shak-a-lak-a . I mean "OVER-WITH"?? WHAT the heck does that have to do with finishing a job?

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

To do that, copy-and-paste the text from the link into your reply, and then use the "B" function the upper left corner to bold the text.

On some devices.

We all experience things differently. 

Wanna try that on my phone?

Hey, I got it from a vending machine, it work just fine.... 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 3/26/2022 at 7:24 AM, Navidad said:

As some of you may know I have a great interest in the study of religion as conflict.

Life is conflict, we need to find our own peace thru religion, by hoping for things unseen.

There.

😇

Edited March 31, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I thought I had fixed that- using my phone and a call came in, and I guess I did not hit "save" before taking the call... 🤔

I don't favor or disfavor using scientific paradigms in religious discussions but think they are irrelevant.  I see everything at least two ways, the old rabbit duck syndrome.   EVERYTHING!

But sure the big bang works if that is a concern, with a singularity it just recycles previously used materials.

And if Gods need more modeling clay to make a world, maybe they have to go ex nihilo for a while. It doesn't matter to me.

I believe God makes the rules that fit the needs, and decides if he needs ex nihilo, he does it, or stays immanent if he needs to.

I'm not about to tell HIM how to do His work, when it's the WHY questions we should be thinking about.

WHY does he make/organize ANYTHING??

THAT is the only life changing question I see here at all

And since we are discussing the big issues please tell me where the English idiom "over with" came from? 

I need to get that over with before I worry about the big boom shak-a-lak-a . I mean "OVER-WITH"?? WHAT the heck does that have to do with finishing a job?

I was referring to the big bang one hears when a phone call abruptly gets over with.

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

On some devices.

We all experience things differently. 

Wanna try that on my phone?

Hey, I got it from a vending machine, it work just fine.... 

This reminds me of the George Carlin bit where he's selling the smooth taste of his cigarette but then lets it slip that he just found them in the subway toilet.