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

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I've looked back at the last several posts she has made including an even earlier one with you. I don't see it. Are you sure you're addressing the right thread?

Seriously...report me to the mods if you think I'm off-base, but I know how I interpreted her responses to me as well as the implications of her responses. and I know where I'm going with my part of the discussion. I feel no need to alter my post. And, once again, I'm pretty sure she can respond for herself.

ETA: The post you keep attacking is directly responsive to this part of her post that I quoted.

Quote

I don't think anyone is trying to ignore those teachings, only keep them in context and paint a picture that works with the actual incidents of historical violence in the name of the church.  I think that many here are also still trying to confront the accusation that "mormonism breeds dangerous men" when there is no evidence to support that, and some evidence that contradicts it (which Cal I believe has provided, IIRC).

It's a given that good things can also be warped and used as an excuse to do evil things.  It really doesn't matter what the "things" are.  I don't know that anyone needs to acknowledge that, but I guess people can spend time arguing that that should be happening whenever something bad happens in the name of something good (like love, for example).

Edited April 27, 2022 by ttribe

[Vanguard]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Seriously...report me to the mods if you think I'm off-base, but I know how I interpreted her responses to me as well as the implications of her responses. and I know where I'm going with my part of the discussion. I feel no need to alter my post. And, once again, I'm pretty sure she can respond for herself.

No, you're not off base and no reason to report you. However, I'm going to go as far as to say she had not made such an argument at all. You've either mistakenly quoted someone who is making the argument or you're attempting a strawman for your own purposes. As for me, I will retract such a claim should I be shown where I am wrong. It's better to admit an error at the onset before things get waaaaay out of hand. Know what I mean? 🙄 Carry on. : ) 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

No, you're not off base and no reason to report you. However, I'm going to go as far as to say she had not made such an argument at all. You've either mistakenly quoted someone who is making the argument or you're attempting a strawman for your own purposes. As for me, I will retract such a claim should I be shown where I am wrong. It's better to admit an error at the onset before things get waaaaay out of hand. Know what I mean? 🙄 Carry on. : ) 

Perhaps you didn't see my edit before you responded, but I re-quoted her post to emphasize the portion to which I am responding. Namely, her assertion that evil men exploit good things and it's no different in this instance. The point of my response was that evil men didn't need to exploit good things here because these teachings aren't good things in the first place. Now do you follow?

[Vanguard]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps you didn't see my edit before you responded, but I re-quoted her post to emphasize the portion to which I am responding. Namely, her assertion that evil men exploit good things and it's no different in this instance. The point of my response was that evil men didn't need to exploit good things here because these teachings aren't good things in the first place. Now do you follow?

I think I had already posted before you made the edit. But I got it and I appreciate the clarification. : )

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Bluebell is making a compelling case. I had not considered her angle. How can a religion with as many millions of members/former members as we have not have at least a list a few out-of-control examples? For sure, several examples are horrible but what - 6 examples? 10? 20?

Does Ammon Buddy count as one of those, or was that just political. Either way, he is LDS and there was plenty of gun fire.

[sunstoned]

On 4/25/2022 at 10:06 PM, strappinglad said:

If we were to make a list of the most dangerous men ever recorded in history, a Mormon would be found on that list where? First ? 100th place? the 1,000,000th place ? 

 

You don't have to go back very far in history to see what dangerous religious men are capable of.  On September 11th, 1857 (the first 9/11) Mormon men committed mass murder on at least 120 men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher wagon train.  It was the largest massacre committed on US soil until Islamic religious extremist drove plains into the trade center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You don't have to go back very far in history to see what dangerous religious men are capable of.  On September 11th, 1857 (the first 9/11) Mormon men committed mass murder on at least 120 men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher wagon train.  It was the largest massacre committed on US soil until Islamic religious extremist drove plains into the trade center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

According to wiki, there are a number of other massacres that resulted in higher number of deaths or possible (number of deaths is debated).  Got to wonder why these are ignored by media (race of victims perhaps? Or was the timing what grabbed attention?)

Possible:  Wilmington Massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_1898

Quote

It is estimated that by the end of the day (November 10), Waddell's orders led to the killing of between 60 and 300 black people, and to the banishment of about 20 more.

Also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre

Quote

The Lawrence Massacre, also known as Quantrill's raid, was an attack during the American Civil War (1861–65) by Quantrill's Raiders, a Confederate guerrilla group led by William Quantrill, on the Unionist town of Lawrence, Kansas, killing around 150 unarmed men and boys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opelousas_massacre
 

Quote

While estimates of casualties vary widely, several sources number the deaths between 150 and 300 black people and several dozen whites. 

Possible:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre

Quote

An estimated 62-153 black militia men were killed while surrendering to a mob of former Confederate soldiers and members of the Ku Klux Klan. Three white men also died in the confrontation…

Estimates of the number of dead have varied over the years, ranging from 62 to 153; three whites died but the number of black victims was difficult to determine because many bodies were thrown into the Red River or removed for burial, possibly at mass graves.^[3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
 

Quote

A 2001 state commission examination of events was able to confirm 39 dead, 26 Black and 13 White, based on contemporary autopsy reports, death certificates, and other records.[21] The commission gave several estimates ranging from 75 to 300 dead

Then there were the massacres involving Native Americans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres_in_North_America

Bear River, for example:

Quote

There was a large difference between the number of Indians reported killed by Connor and the number counted by the citizens of Franklin, the latter being much larger. The settlers also claimed the number of surviving women and children to be much fewer than what Connor claimed.[67] In his 1911 autobiography, Danish immigrant Hans Jasperson claims to have walked among the bodies and counted 493 dead Shoshone.[68] In 1918, Sagwitch's son Be-shup, Frank Timbimboo Warner, said, "[H]alf of those present got away," and 156 were killed. He went on to say that two of his brothers and a sister-in-law "lived", as well as many who later lived at the Washakie, Utah, settlement, the Fort Hall reservation, in the Wind River country, and elsewhere.[69]

Based on a variety of sources, Brigham D. Madsen estimates about 250 killed in the definitive history of the massacre.[70]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre

Edited April 27, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Don’t remember seeing this posted and search didn’t bring it up, so hopefully I or someone else hasn’t already given it.  There are 8 articles linked to so far.

https://juvenileinstructor.org/krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven-critical-responses/

Quote

For many, Banner is the only thing they would ever read about Mormon fundamentalism. Folks saw the YFZ raids, read Banner, and considered themselves experts. Fundamentalist history and historians continue to be underrepresented in Mormon history communities. The scholars and activists whose work appears in this series seek to correct gaps, half-truths, and falsehoods in Krakauer’s narrative and provide context that he overlooked in Banner’s narrative. …

While we are not responding to the miniseries, many of the critiques offered here will apply to the miniseries. Part of that is the nature of trying to tell a compelling story through prestige television. Much of that is the flawed text that the organizers drew from. Another aspect is that filmmakers do not have the same ethical responsibility to tell the truth that historians, anthropologists, social workers, and others have in their respective fields. We are grateful to the historians whose consultation made the series better (though they are not responsible for the successes or failures of the series as individuals). We know that those historians see their efforts as a labor of love. 

As editors of the series, Cristina and I felt a professional and personal duty to add more information and context to the histories and individuals in Under the Banner of Heaven. Because many of the articles that will respond to the book and series in other venues will focus on Latter-day Saints,  many of the authors’ critiques respond to portrayals of fundamentalist Mormons.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

There is also Wild Bill Hickman.

Wild Bill" Hickman and the Mormon Frontier

 

 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Mountain Meadows Massacre (MO)

illegal destruction of printing press (Ill)

Governor Boggs assentation attempt (not proven)

Missouri Mormon War (Utah)

Walker War (Utah)

Black Hawk War (Utah)

Battle Creek Massacre (Utah County)

Battle of Fort Utah (Provo)

CircleVille Massacre (Utah)

William McBride Massacre (Utah)

Porter Rockwell Massacre (Skull valley, Utah)

Many killings by Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, etc.)

Morrisite War (Utah)

The Aiken party Executions (Utah)

Ervil Lebaron Murders (Utah, FLDS, but from the same tree)

Lafferty Murders (Utah) 

Bundy Standoff and shooting (OR, 2018)

Violent teachings: Blood Oaths, Law of vengeance, 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence#cite_note-Gregor2006-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_of_the_Prophets

[webbles]

46 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You don't have to go back very far in history to see what dangerous religious men are capable of.  On September 11th, 1857 (the first 9/11) Mormon men committed mass murder on at least 120 men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher wagon train.  It was the largest massacre committed on US soil until Islamic religious extremist drove plains into the trade center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

It was the largest religiously motivated massacre in the US soil before 9/11, not the largest massacre.  There were a lot of massacres between MMM and 9/11 that were much larger.

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

It was the largest religiously motivated massacre in the US soil before 9/11, not the largest massacre.  There were a lot of massacres between MMM and 9/11 that were much larger.

Thank you for the correction.

[strappinglad]

45 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You don't have to go back very far in history to see what dangerous religious men are capable of.  On September 11th, 1857 (the first 9/11) Mormon men committed mass murder on at least 120 men, women, and children of the Baker-Fancher wagon train.  It was the largest massacre committed on US soil until Islamic religious extremist drove plains into the trade center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001.

 

While two wrongs don't make right and it may be silly to compare massacres, if we take all the deaths by religious men over the past 500 years, they fall far short of all the deaths committed by irreligious/non-religious/ atheist men over the same time frame. Deaths done by Stalin and Mao alone are in the tens of millions. That said, all men are potentially dangerous , that's why society has laws ... and wars. 

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

 

Mountain Meadows Massacre (MO)

illegal destruction of printing press (Ill)

Governor Boggs assentation attempt (not proven)

Missouri Mormon War (Utah)

Walker War (Utah)

Black Hawk War (Utah)

Battle Creek Massacre (Utah County)

Battle of Fort Utah (Provo)

CircleVille Massacre (Utah)

William McBride Massacre (Utah)

Porter Rockwell Massacre (Skull valley, Utah)

Many killings by Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, etc.)

Morrisite War (Utah)

The Aiken party Executions (Utah)

Ervil Lebaron Murders (Utah, FLDS, but from the same tree)

Lafferty Murders (Utah) 

Bundy Standoff and shooting (OR, 2018)

Violent teachings: Blood Oaths, Law of vengeance, 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence#cite_note-Gregor2006-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_of_the_Prophets

I wouldn't consider most of those to be signs of violent Mormon history.  The Black Hawk and Walker wars were really normal interactions between settlers and Native Americans.  I would actually say that they were slightly better than the normal interaction.  But if non-mormons had entered the Salt Lake valley, similar wars would have happened.  A lot of the entries as well are just subparts of those wars (CircleVille, Battle Creek, Battle of Fort Utah).

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

He might have (I really have not looking into those sources so I have no idea if they are seen as legitimate or not).  He lived through a pretty hard time with a lot of persecution and suffering and that would not surprise me at all if it tainted his view of things.  I don't think anyone could come through something like that and not have it warp them a little on some topics.  That's not an excuse for his sins (whatever they may have been), just an observation.

I'm guessing that BY was familiar with the idea that God uses the wicked to punish the wicked (since it's a theme throughout scripture) so it would not surprise me if he believed the MMM was a result of that (if he did, I would disagree with him).

I would also add that Brigham Young is the prophet who added the Oath of Vengeance to the endowment ceremony.

It's fine to say he was a product of his times and life experience. My point isn't to personally judge him. Rather, it's to understand the relationship between what the Church then taught and the violence that existed. 

I don't think it's a coincidence that Quakers never committed a massacre.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

A handful of examples over 200 years and millions of members?  That percentage doesn't equal a history "replete with violence".  The percentage of violent acts that are a part of the history of the church and committed by members in their capacity as members is miniscule. 

No statistician would categorize an organization with a percentage that small as being 'replete' with anything.

 

 

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

[sigh] I'll just point out the part where I said - "...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." My sense in reading comments by many defenders both here and on Facebook is that they are trying to paint a picture which ignores the ugly teachings of Brigham Young and others upon which the Lafferty brothers relied to justify their crimes.

On another current/active thread there is a debate about whether or not its appropriate for an apostle to condone a missionary hitting a companion and dropping him to the floor for flirting. Yes, there are potentially problematic teachings that can cause harm and create an acceptance of violence under the "right circumstances".

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, filovirus said:

Does Ammon Buddy count as one of those, or was that just political. Either way, he is LDS and there was plenty of gun fire.

And don't forget about Captain Moroni at the Capital siege. Yes- they are political but I think they also meld with the religious.

In addition to the individual acts of violence (Laffertys, Mountain Meadows, Danites etc) and the specific teachings (blood atonement, Kill Laban, punch your flirty companion) I think it's also important to consider how many people support or excuse those kinds of events to assess the total impact of those teachings on the church. I think there are plenty of examples of violence either being perpetrated or taught as acceptable based on the situation. As long as violence is taught to be a viable option under the "right circumstances" then there will be some religious culpability when members decide for themselves what those "right circumstances" are.

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Since you insist on pushing this, perhaps you can help me with the following -

• What good, wholesome, uplifting thing came from the Oath of Vengeance against the United States which was once in the Endowment?
• What good, wholesome, uplifting thing came from the oaths and penalties in the pre-1991 Endowment (which were mimicked by the Laffertys in the murders)?
• What good, wholesome, uplifting thing came from Brigham Young teaching the doctrine of Blood Atonement?
• What good, wholesome, uplifting thing came from Brigham Young's teachings on race?
• What good, wholesome, uplifting thing came from Brigham Young's 'javelin through the heart' teaching about adultery?

When you have a church with a prophet at its head, who then teaches violence, it gets interpreted by some as being from the church. When certain rites and rituals include images and symbols of violence, it gets interpreted by some as being from the church. The resulting use of those teachings, images and symbols for actual violence by some is a foreseeable outcome. Like it or not, the Laffertys are part of the legacy of such teachings. Like it or not, so are the LeBarons. Like it or not, Warren Jeffs is part of the legacy of the early teachings on polygamy. All of those things may have been abandoned by the modern church, but they are part of the legacy of its history. That's the story being told, in my opinion.

ETA: The concept of Mormonism is broader now that it was in the earliest days of the church. There are many offshoots from the main church which are still part of 'Mormonism' and which trace their roots to the same place(s).

Vanguard is right about what my point was.  It's not that there aren't things that can be interpreted in bad ways (or produce bad acts).  But they don't produce more bad acts than we find in the community at large.  In fact, our teachings seem to produce less bad acts than the community at large.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

[sigh] I'll just point out the part where I said - "...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." My sense in reading comments by many defenders both here and on Facebook is that they are trying to paint a picture which ignores the ugly teachings of Brigham Young and others upon which the Lafferty brothers relied to justify their crimes.

Any system of philosophy, thought or belief is "potentially harmful," so this phrase means virtually nothing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And don't forget about Captain Moroni at the Capital siege. Yes- they are political but I think they also meld with the religious.

In addition to the individual acts of violence (Laffertys, Mountain Meadows, Danites etc) and the specific teachings (blood atonement, Kill Laban, punch your flirty companion) I think it's also important to consider how many people support or excuse those kinds of events to assess the total impact of those teachings on the church. I think there are plenty of examples of violence either being perpetrated or taught as acceptable based on the situation. As long as violence is taught to be a viable option under the "right circumstances" then there will be some religious culpability when members decide for themselves what those "right circumstances" are.

As a missionary in Taiwan I witnessed something of a scandal involving a missionary companionship (elders) who, while serving in a remote little town by themselves apparently went off and did a bit of "riotous living."  They were sent home.  The branch in that city was, as I recall, decimated.  The missionary work in that city came to a complete halt for quite a while (there may have been a sort of "Corianton Effect").  The members elsewhere on the island spoke about it for months afterwards.  There were snickers, jokes, and so on.  It was embarassing.  It hindered the work for a while.

I remember at the time feeling frustrated that the misconduct of these two missionaries overshadowed all the good and hard work most of the other 150+ or so missionaries were doing.  We were viewed with some ridicule and scorn because of the misconduct, even though we had not shared in it.  The reputation of missionaries generally, and even the Church, took a substantial hit, even though the misconduct in question was a gross violation of the mission rules and the doctrines of the Church.

If the Church and our mission had taught its missionaries and members to engage in licentious conduct, then I could see some real justification for criticism and condemnation.  But that's not the case.  Instead, the Church was criticised and condemned for misconduct that violates the teachings and practices of the Church.  That makes no kind of sense.

Per this article, "'Our faith breeds dangerous men' is the throughline of FX's new detective mystery series Under the Banner of Heaven."  If this thesis were true, I think we would expect to see all sorts of horribleness in communities where the Church holds significant sway.  We would see instances of wanton violence as commonplace, as the rule.  Instead:

Quote

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints my faith teaches me to forgive 70 times 7. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,” Jesus Christ says, “turn to him the other also.”

My faith admonishes me to love my enemies, to bless those that curse and to do good to those who hate. The current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the 97-year-old former heart-surgeon Russell M. Nelson, recently pled with fellow Latter-day Saints “to do all you can to end personal conflicts that are currently raging in your hearts and in your lives.”

And yet, FX’s new serial drama “Under the Banner of Heaven,” a redux of Jon Krakauer’s book by the same name, is built on the premise that my faith is dangerous — violent even.

It’s an odd thesis.

But the logic goes something like this: by placing “revelation” above “reason” religionists are particularly susceptible to violence.

The irony, of course, is that Krakauer extols “reason,” while committing a fundamental logical fallacy — the fallacy of composition — assuming that what’s true of the parts (some religionists are violent) is also true of the whole (all religions/religionists are violent).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Any system of philosophy, thought or belief is "potentially harmful," so this phrase means virtually nothing.

Seriously. If religion were to disappear from the earth tomorrow it's not like there wouldn't still be murderers, serial killers, mass shootings / bombings, etc.

The idea that, but for religion, all of humanity would just be sitting around singing Kumbya is completely laughable (on more than one level).

 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well since I've explicitly stated that I don't believe the church produces an inordinate amount of bad acts/violence, it seems you are attributing to me an argument I didn't make. 

My point (which I probably haven't been explaining very well) is directly related to your statement that church members needs to acknowledge that we have teachings which can produce bad acts.  

I disagree with your charge that members discussing this topic need to spend time and energy making such an acknowledgement as a part of their replies for two reasons:  

1. Our teachings don't produce more bad acts than what we find in the community at large
2. In fact, our teachings seem to produce fewer bad acts than we find in the community at large

As I said earlier, from my pragmatist point of view, wanting church members to acknowledge that some of our teachings produce bad acts at the same rate or less than exist in the community at large, doesn't make a lot of sense.  From my perspective (and for the reasons that I've outlined above), it would be a useless acknowledgement that really means nothing when discussing mormonism as a whole.

Now, if someone wants to discuss the Laffertys specifically, or some other group that has used our teachings to do bad things, then those teachings are relevant.  But they are not relevant in a "mormonism produces bad men" kind of way.  

And the "mormonism produces bad men" issue is what most members are discussing.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

Mountain Meadows Massacre (MO)

illegal destruction of printing press (Ill)

Governor Boggs assentation attempt (not proven)

Missouri Mormon War (Utah)

Walker War (Utah)

Black Hawk War (Utah)

Battle Creek Massacre (Utah County)

Battle of Fort Utah (Provo)

CircleVille Massacre (Utah)

William McBride Massacre (Utah)

Porter Rockwell Massacre (Skull valley, Utah)

Many killings by Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, etc.)

Morrisite War (Utah)

The Aiken party Executions (Utah)

Ervil Lebaron Murders (Utah, FLDS, but from the same tree)

Lafferty Murders (Utah) 

Bundy Standoff and shooting (OR, 2018)

Violent teachings: Blood Oaths, Law of vengeance, 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence#cite_note-Gregor2006-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_of_the_Prophets

I don't think you are understanding what I'm asking. 

For example, the Lafferty murders wouldn't qualify because those murders got the members excommunicated, thus you can't argue that mormon theology condones or supports those actions.  Violence committed by mormons but not because of or condoned by mormon theology also wouldn't qualify. 

Sorry that I wasn't more clear earlier.  

[smac97]

On 4/27/2022 at 9:31 AM, bluebell said:

And the "mormonism produces bad men" issue is what most members are discussing.

Yep.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ Review: Hulu’s Sprawling True-Crime Mystery Uncovers Plain Truths

In Dustin Lance Black's adaptation of the 2003 book, a detective (Andrew Garfield) works a case that impugns the core tenets of his Mormon faith.

"Impugns the core tenets of {Black's} Mormon faith."

Lovely stuff.

Quote

During one of the many Mormon history lessons padding the lining of Hulu’s true-crime drama, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” a once-devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explains what motivated Joseph Smith to found his religion in the first place: It was for love. He recalls Joseph’s first wife, Emma, saying “When our God is love, he fills my heart with you.” Sans context, it’s an easy sentiment to appreciate, and one many faiths ascribe to in their own ways. But for Allen Lafferty — sitting in an interrogation room, only a few hours after his wife and 15-month-old daughter were murdered — that position doesn’t apply to the LDS Church. Not anymore, and maybe not ever.  “If you really still believe our God is love,” he tells the detective, a fellow Mormon, “then you really don’t know who you are, brother. This faith, our faith, breeds dangerous men.”

Little else needs to be said to appreciate the trenchant message in “Under the Banner of Heaven,” as adapted by Dustin Lance Black...

(Emphasis added.)  A "trenchant message," indeed. 

Later on, though, the article states: "Though likely to be labeled as such by some, 'Under the Banner of Heaven' isn’t anti-Mormon or anti-religion; it’s pro-investigation."  So the series "impugns {that is 'disputes the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question'} the core tenets of {the} Mormon faith," but it "isn't anti-Mormon." 

Uh-huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

On another current/active thread there is a debate about whether or not its appropriate for an apostle to condone a missionary hitting a companion and dropping him to the floor for flirting. Yes, there are potentially problematic teachings that can cause harm and create an acceptance of violence under the "right circumstances".

There are very very very few people who believe that violence is never acceptable, and probably fewer still who would continue with that belief if violence actually was the only way to save the life of their child or spouse, etc.  

Almost everyone believes that violence is ok under the "right circumstances".  We just disagree about what those circumstances are.  It's problematic to pretend that isn't the case.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As a missionary in Taiwan I witnessed something of a scandal involving a missionary companionship (elders) who, while serving in a remote little town by themselves apparently went off and did a bit of "riotous living."  They were sent home.  The branch in that city was, as I recall, decimated.  The missionary work in that city came to a complete halt for quite a while (there may have been a sort of "Corianton Effect").  The members elsewhere on the island spoke about it for months afterwards.  There were snickers, jokes, and so on.  It was embarassing.  It hindered the work for a while.

I remember at the time feeling frustrated that the misconduct of these two missionaries overshadowed all the good and hard work most of the other 150+ or so missionaries were doing.  We were viewed with some ridicule and scorn because of the misconduct, even though we had not shared in it.  The reputation of missionaries generally, and even the Church, took a substantial hit, even though the misconduct in question was a gross violation of the mission rules and the doctrines of the Church.

If the Church and our mission had taught its missionaries and members to engage in licentious conduct, then I could see some real justification for criticism and condemnation.  But that's not the case.  Instead, the Church was criticised and condemned for misconduct that violates the teachings and practices of the Church.  That makes no kind of sense.

Per this article, "'Our faith breeds dangerous men' is the throughline of FX's new detective mystery series Under the Banner of Heaven."  If this thesis were true, I think we would expect to see all sorts of horribleness in communities where the Church holds significant sway.  We would see instances of wanton violence as commonplace, as the rule.  Instead:

Thanks,

-Smac

It does make sense even if it went against church teachings. It's called hypocrisy. It may not be fair to hold the entire church responsible but that's what happens when an emissary behaves badly.