Des News Article Re: "Under the Banner of Heaven" Mini Series

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

What are you claiming exactly?  Mental health issues that cause people to hear voices, like schizophrenia, are more prevalent in Mormonism? Or are you saying that schizophrenics Mormons are more dangerous?  

Neither. How in the world did you read either of those things into what I said, especially when I specifically emphasized that what I was mentioning was not unique to Mormonism?

Edited April 26, 2022 by ttribe

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This makes me curious.  Are you aware of studies that demonstrate those who do not hold beliefs of personal revelation are less susceptible to responding to internal voices, are less likely to believe they are real?

This hasn't been my experience with the very few schizophrenics that I personally know who deal with voices.  So I'm curious as well. 

I would not be surprised if the number of atheists/agnostics/non-religious who followed the voices in their heads and did horrible things is about the same as for those who did so who had a belief in a God who spoke to them.

 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

There is also Wild Bill Hickman.

Wild Bill" Hickman and the Mormon Frontier

 

So maybe two members (with one possible not following any theology when he did the violent things)?

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Neither. How in the world did you read either of those things into what I said, especially when I specifically emphasized that what I was mentioning was not unique to Mormonism?

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe it was this:

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, come on. I think you know that there are people with diagnosable mental illnesses for whom the voices are much more 'audible' than the experience you are highlighting. The elements you are referring to frequently feed into those illnesses and legitimize the messages of the illness-related voices in those individuals' heads. 

You seem to be claiming that our teachings "feed into" these mental illnesse making them more dangerous.   I was genuinely caught off guard by the mental illness angle though.  Who said anything about mental illness?  

And this:

Quote

but is especially acute in any belief system which encourages people to listen to the voice(s) in their head for revelation. The problem is further compounded when those voices are murderous and these ill people are presented with stories from scripture of people listening to such voices to engage in so-called righteous killing (e.g. Nephi).

"Especially acute" and "further compounded" in Mormonism.

Call me "crazy" but that is what it sounds like you are saying.  Maybe it is just my inner voices deceiving me. 

If that is not what you are saying.  What the heck are you suggesting?

Edited April 26, 2022 by pogi

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

This makes me curious.  Are you aware of studies that demonstrate those who do not hold beliefs of personal revelation are less susceptible to responding to internal voices, are less likely to believe they are real?

 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This hasn't been my experience with the very few schizophrenics that I personally know who deal with voices.  So I'm curious as well. 

I would not be surprised if the number of atheists/agnostics/non-religious who followed the voices in their heads and did horrible things is about the same as for those who did so who had a belief in a God who spoke to them.

 

Apparently, the interaction between religious influence and schizophrenia can go either way; it can be a stabilizing force or it can be a catalyst - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia

[ttribe]

Just now, pogi said:

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe it was this:

You seem to be claiming that our teachings "feed into" these mental illnesse making them more dangerous.   I was genuinely caught off guard by the mental illness angle though.  Who said anything about mental illness?  

And this:

"Especially acute" and "further compounded" in Mormonism.

Call me "crazy" but that is what it sounds like you are saying.  Maybe it is just my inner voices deceiving me. 

Get back to me when you are willing to not be a jerk about the discussion.

[ttribe]

Let me be clear - I don't think Mormonism is unique in 'breed[ing] dangerous men.' I also don't think 'dangerous men' come only from religion. I do think John Williams had a good point about religions which refer to listening to voices being a place where such dangerous people can find both a safe haven and a justification for their actions.

I also don't think 'Under the Banner of Heaven' is saying ONLY Mormonism 'breeds dangerous men'  or that it breeds MORE dangerous men. I think what the Mormon community does need to recognize, however, is that there are teachings, scriptures and doctrines in its past and current practices which have been and will continue to be used as justification for horrible crimes. Again, there is NOTHING unique about that, but the Mormon community shouldn't simply respond with a 'there's nothing potentially harmful' in our teachings or culture which could lead to bad acts. That simply isn't true.

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So maybe two members (with one possible not following any theology when he did the violent things)?

John Doyle Lee and whomever else from the Mormon church who was involved in MMM

And are we limiting the "violent things" to violence against white people or do we want to include what the Mormons did to the indigenous population of the Great Basin?

  

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

John Doyle Lee and whomever else from the Mormon church who was involved in MMM

And are we limiting the "violent things" to violence against white people or do we want to include what the Mormons did to the indigenous population of the Great Basin?

  

Don’t forget Nephi and Laban. 

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Don’t forget Nephi and Laban. 

Lol.

Or Pursue, Retake & Punish”: The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush

 

And I suppose we could include Mark Hoffman in the discussion.

Edited April 26, 2022 by CA Steve

[Chum]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

This makes me curious.  Are you aware of studies that demonstrate those who do not hold beliefs of personal revelation are less susceptible to responding to internal voices, are less likely to believe they are real?

Maybe indirectly relevant.  A study on how voices vary in different cultures:

Stanford anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann found that voice-hearing experiences of people with serious psychotic disorders are shaped by local culture – in the United States, the voices are harsh and threatening; in Africa and India, they are more benign and playful. This may have clinical implications for how to treat people with schizophrenia, she suggests.

ref: https://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann-071614/

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

You have never seen "crazies" until you have been to a Phish concert  WOW!!!

😂

I didn't expect Phish to make an appearance on the board! You never know what to expect at a jamband show and you just gotta roll with it. 

[ttribe]

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Lol.

Or Pursue, Retake & Punish”: The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush

 

And I suppose we could include Mark Hoffman in the discussion.

I don't know that Hoffman's violence was rooted in any religious teaching. He was just a straight up criminal. I wouldn't hang this one on Mormonism.

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So maybe two members (with one possible not following any theology when he did the violent things)?

Don't forget the blood atonement teachings.
Despite what is sometimes taught, blood atonement was actually practiced on a couple of occasions.

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ve always felt it goes without saying that a religion that emphasizes personal revelation is going to attract and encourage the kind of folks who hear voices. 

Andthat is the point.  Joseph Smith tried to squelch this when I belive it was Hyrum Page started getting revelation through his own peep stone.  And int he modern church if you have revelation which is contrary to the LDS leaders they try to squelch it as well.  It is only true revelation if it agrees with what they say.  But people can think God is telling them all sorts of things that really and up being contrary just to common sense.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The church doesn't support extremism. 

I did not say it did.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Sure, extremists can blossom from any entity, even from liberals.  Like I said, I think you would have a hard time demonstrating that there are more extremists in Mormonism than anything else. 

Maybe. I have not done a study. I think any extreme views create, well extremists.  And there are extreme teaching in Mormonism that lends to things like the Lafferty's. Snuffer, Julie Rowe, Daybells, preppers, Conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, and the list could go on.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

People are crazy no matter what organization they belong to.

 

Not necessarily. But yes for extremist organizations. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Get back to me when you are willing to not be a jerk about the discussion.

I thought I was just mirroring your tone of "oh come on.  I think you know..." that started the downward trajectory.  I am ready to get back on track if you are. 

I am genuinely curious as to what you meant. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do we have other possible examples of a violent mormon religion in the past besides Porter Rockwell?

Yes. The #1 bestseller Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer explains it in some detail.

If you don't have time to read that book, there is a Wikipedia article called Mormonism and violence that is worth reading.

For me, the most poignant detail is the "Oath of Vengeance" that was added to the endowment ceremony in 1845 and remained in the ceremony until the 1920's or possibly early 1930's. Quoting from Wikipedia, the ceremony included the oath:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."

Praying for vengeance upon your enemies is different than praying that God will forgive your enemies.

To me, that sacred oath helps explain why Brigham Young said the marker at the Mountain Meadows Massacre site should be changed from saying "Vengeance is mine, sayth the Lord" to "Vengeance is mine, and I have taken a little."

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't forget the blood atonement teachings.
Despite what is sometimes taught, blood atonement was actually practiced on a couple of occasions.

References?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought I was just mirroring your tone of "oh come on.  I think you know..." that started the downward trajectory.  I am ready to get back on track if you are. 

I am genuinely curious as to what you meant. 

 

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

😂

I didn't expect Phish to make an appearance on the board! You never know what to expect at a jamband show and you just gotta roll with it. 

I am endlessly amused at every Phish show I have been to. 

I roll with the craziness most of the time, but when your female friend is urinated on by a dirty hippy standing behind her (true story)... that is hard to roll with.  Not even the phatty vegan burrito sold out of a bus made up for it!   

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

References?

Lots of them of varying historical reliability.  But more than enough smoke to indicate fire.

The most famous would be John D. Lee's account of Rosmos Anderson.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement#Properly-practiced_blood_atonement
Quinn includes a few accounts in his book Extensions of Power.

Even FAIR admits it happened, like with Bishop Warren Snow.  They seem to say it was justified, but still acknowledge it happened.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Utah/Crime_and_violence/Castration_in_the_1800's

This is an interesting article, especially the article about the young boy.  I did some research on him a while back - he died in full fellowship:
https://www.mappingslc.org/essay/item/244-blood-in-the-water-beck-street-and-blood-atonement

And this famous case:
Apr 5, 1858 - (or Apr 24 by some accounts) Bishop of Payson, his brother (the sheriff), and several members of their LDS congregation join in shooting to death twenty-two-year-old Henry Jones and is mother, Mrs. Hannah Jones Hatch, for committing incest by which she has a daughter. The men kill infant and also castrate brother/father. Perpetrators are indicted next year, but not brought to trial. When indicted again in 1889, DESERET NEWS article criticizes trial of this "antiquated Payson homicide" as anti-Mormon crusade against those who were justifiably "disgusted and greatly incensed" against "the brutal mother and son." Former sheriff is convicted of murder, former bishop is acquitted.
https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=1539623

 

 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They seem to say it was justified, but still acknowledge it happened.

CFR please.  I am reading it differently.  Not being surprised by the occurrence based on seeing similar incidents elsewhere is not the same as thinking it justified.  Or do you actually mean “not justified” (the “but” suggests that)?

For example:

Quote

These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment had not yet actually arrived, and was primarily hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow took things literally…

Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members. Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.

“Inflammatory” and “harsh are criticisms, are they not?

Edited April 26, 2022 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

 

Apparently, the interaction between religious influence and schizophrenia can go either way; it can be a stabilizing force or it can be a catalyst - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Don’t forget Nephi and Laban. 

In relation to both of these comments. I once had a schizophrenic member of my ward (about a month before she received her diagnosis) publicly state that that I should be killed because it is better for one man to perish than for a ward to dwindle in unrighteousness. This is the lady who thought I had NSA level surveillance going in every room of her home, her car, and following her in public. Voices told her that I was surveilling her constantly and she believed it, declared it and even broke into my home and left bullets on the nightstand as a warning.

So, at least for her as someone looking for signs and the spirit to direct her, she was able to meld the schizophrenia into her religious belief. It's some scary stuff.

 

*This was also the experience where my Stake President called me in for a meeting to ask if I really was doing all of those things (as if it is even possible). His lack of discernment of the crazy ramblings of this lady did not instill me with confidence  

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

References?

You might be interested in this:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3484&context=etd