Reader comments
LDS Church historian concludes Brigham Young did not order 1857 massacre
185 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Ridgerunner | 10:16 p.m. May 27, 2008
This has degenerated from a useful discussion to nothing more than yellow
journalism filled with gossip and anger eruptions by people desparate to justify
their hatred of a religion they couldn't live anyway.
Lexi | 10:29 p.m. May 27, 2008
It has always confusing to me that for a church that can tell the future they
cannot keep themselves from trouble. Truly I don't know how they can call
yourselves a victim if they know that the future already beheld the misfortune
for them, I would reckon that is a 'victim complex' beyond repair.
BWA HA HA HA HA!!! | 10:49 p.m. May 27, 2008
Your statement:"As I have watched over the years, the LDS Church seems to
be as open as any group I have seen; more than most religious
organizations."
BWA HA HA HA HA!!!
That sounds like Bush's war has been as open as any war seen. More than most war.
This is purely a statement that is so biased and one sided that only a Mormon could make.
That's why they're called a cult, because of how secretive they've consistently and historically been.
Remember, President Hinckley is the first of the leader of the church to have faced the media, and even then, when he told Mike Wallace to answer any question, the garment question was refused an answer by Hinckley.
The only thing they've opened up is what they wanted the world to see, it's advertising, campaigning and selfish agenda to get exposure of the church, with the hope that it would become mainstream.
The church is still hungry for mainstream status, which it can never have.
That's why they don't want to help the FLDS just as a people, because it will hinder the LDS church more than ever to be understood, instead of being a weird people.
BWA HA HA HA HA!!!
That sounds like Bush's war has been as open as any war seen. More than most war.
This is purely a statement that is so biased and one sided that only a Mormon could make.
That's why they're called a cult, because of how secretive they've consistently and historically been.
Remember, President Hinckley is the first of the leader of the church to have faced the media, and even then, when he told Mike Wallace to answer any question, the garment question was refused an answer by Hinckley.
The only thing they've opened up is what they wanted the world to see, it's advertising, campaigning and selfish agenda to get exposure of the church, with the hope that it would become mainstream.
The church is still hungry for mainstream status, which it can never have.
That's why they don't want to help the FLDS just as a people, because it will hinder the LDS church more than ever to be understood, instead of being a weird people.
Comments continue below
Double Standards | 10:49 p.m. May 27, 2008
I read the "Journal of Discourses"10:104 B.Y., that another poster
posted on Brigham Young, and MMM. Henry B. Eyring says differently in the
Smithsonian magazine. I am seeing some double standards here. Who's correct
H. B. Eyring or Brigham Young on the Indians playing apart in the massacre?
To James Winter | 11:11 p.m. May 27, 2008
Your words: "I am not about to trivialize 120 lives, that isn't the
point, but we see thousands die in a bogus war and we're worried about 120
people who died over a century ago?"
You don't get it do you?? The 4,000 plus soldiers who died on Bush's war, they volunteered to fight knowing their lives are in danger and they could very be killed. They chose to fight out of their own free volition.
The 120 people who died, did not choose to put their lives into the hands of killers. The children are murdered not because they signed up to be eliminated from the face of the earth.
They are children for goodness sakes.
The cold bloodedness of this murderers acts are not even close to the soldiers deaths of Bush's war.
Please use your brain, and think as to why your heart is so cold and dark that you can't appreciate that it's not just a "move on" type of attitudes we're looking at here, it's the consequence of a leader of a church who still stands to this day.
Hence, repercussions are much bigger than you realize and much more lingering than you think.
You don't get it do you?? The 4,000 plus soldiers who died on Bush's war, they volunteered to fight knowing their lives are in danger and they could very be killed. They chose to fight out of their own free volition.
The 120 people who died, did not choose to put their lives into the hands of killers. The children are murdered not because they signed up to be eliminated from the face of the earth.
They are children for goodness sakes.
The cold bloodedness of this murderers acts are not even close to the soldiers deaths of Bush's war.
Please use your brain, and think as to why your heart is so cold and dark that you can't appreciate that it's not just a "move on" type of attitudes we're looking at here, it's the consequence of a leader of a church who still stands to this day.
Hence, repercussions are much bigger than you realize and much more lingering than you think.
To Pop quiz! | 11:27 p.m. May 27, 2008
Teacher, will you answer this question?
You're afraid of the truth because:
1) You and your entire family, immediate and all, would be crushed to know that BY is a murderer?
2) You and your entire family, immediate and all, have believed on a faith that aren't true for all these years.
3) You and your entire family, immediate and all, are afraid that the Celestial Kingdom is no longer yours if you believed that B.Y. killed.
4) You and your entire family, immediate and all, have so much fear that B.Y. is not the man that you think he is, you hoped he is.
5) You and your entire family, immediate and all, meant all the energies of serving in a church who's leader had killed, changes the meaning of your eternal salvation forever.
6) You and your entire family, immediate and all, can never wished to know the truth, however truthful it maybe, because it simply can't be true unless it helps you get to heaven.
7) You and your entire family, immediate and all, believes that all men who are not Mormons are evil and out to get you, so get them first.
You're afraid of the truth because:
1) You and your entire family, immediate and all, would be crushed to know that BY is a murderer?
2) You and your entire family, immediate and all, have believed on a faith that aren't true for all these years.
3) You and your entire family, immediate and all, are afraid that the Celestial Kingdom is no longer yours if you believed that B.Y. killed.
4) You and your entire family, immediate and all, have so much fear that B.Y. is not the man that you think he is, you hoped he is.
5) You and your entire family, immediate and all, meant all the energies of serving in a church who's leader had killed, changes the meaning of your eternal salvation forever.
6) You and your entire family, immediate and all, can never wished to know the truth, however truthful it maybe, because it simply can't be true unless it helps you get to heaven.
7) You and your entire family, immediate and all, believes that all men who are not Mormons are evil and out to get you, so get them first.
Take the time | 11:35 p.m. May 27, 2008
As another reviewer of The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows said, "The biggest
problem with this book is the three authors."
Unfortunately, too many will ASSUME - as they have here - (and we know what happens when we do that) without any real examination of the evidence that the authors would not and could not look at all the evidence in a balanced manner and produce a reliable historical account of the events.
But those who take the time to read the whole of the book, or those who were able to hear the whole of Turley's remarks, just might realize that the preponderance of evidence methodically laid out demonstrates that in pre-telegraph Utah it would be virtually impossible for Brigham Young to order the massacre and the arguments for Brigham Young ordering the massacre consistently make illogical leaps without any significant measure of evidence.
As Turley said - If you BELIEVE that Brigham Young ordered the massacre, then that's fine. You can believe whatever you want to, but it is belief, and there just isn't evidence that supports your BELIEF.
Go ahead excercise your faith in it.
Unfortunately, too many will ASSUME - as they have here - (and we know what happens when we do that) without any real examination of the evidence that the authors would not and could not look at all the evidence in a balanced manner and produce a reliable historical account of the events.
But those who take the time to read the whole of the book, or those who were able to hear the whole of Turley's remarks, just might realize that the preponderance of evidence methodically laid out demonstrates that in pre-telegraph Utah it would be virtually impossible for Brigham Young to order the massacre and the arguments for Brigham Young ordering the massacre consistently make illogical leaps without any significant measure of evidence.
As Turley said - If you BELIEVE that Brigham Young ordered the massacre, then that's fine. You can believe whatever you want to, but it is belief, and there just isn't evidence that supports your BELIEF.
Go ahead excercise your faith in it.
To Double Standards | 11:40 p.m. May 27, 2008
The sentence from the article was not clear.
The story John D. Lee told Brigham Young after the massacre was that the Indians did it. Eyring did not repeat this. In fact, Eyring's statement apologized for this initial blaming of the whole of the massacre on the Indians. The Paiute Indians took part in the massacre, but only because they were incited by the Mormons.
The story John D. Lee told Brigham Young after the massacre was that the Indians did it. Eyring did not repeat this. In fact, Eyring's statement apologized for this initial blaming of the whole of the massacre on the Indians. The Paiute Indians took part in the massacre, but only because they were incited by the Mormons.
SL Cabbie | 11:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
A note to my "fan" above . . .
The question, "Why was it necessary to ask what to do?" if there was no order given points to a logical conclusion you--in your state of denial--ignore, namely, "Why did the attack take place in the first place?" Lee's diaries point to Dame saying "It is the will of all in authority that the emigrants be destroyed."
Word of the will of those authorities was carried south by George A. Smith who easily leapfrogged the Arkansans . . .
Unfortunately, the Fancher train objected violently to being murdered, and it was necessary to involve others resulting in the messenger being sent to Salt Lake. Note the attack took place Monday morning, and Haslam left Monday afternoon. Mormons of conscience wanted to know if the atrocity they were being asked to commit had Young's sanction . . . Now why didn't they wait for an answer?
And while you're attempting to school me in logic, here's a vocabulary term for you: "Plausible deniability." After that, "ad hominems" pretty much describes your posts . . .
And I note you neglected to address the destruction of the rock cairn.
The question, "Why was it necessary to ask what to do?" if there was no order given points to a logical conclusion you--in your state of denial--ignore, namely, "Why did the attack take place in the first place?" Lee's diaries point to Dame saying "It is the will of all in authority that the emigrants be destroyed."
Word of the will of those authorities was carried south by George A. Smith who easily leapfrogged the Arkansans . . .
Unfortunately, the Fancher train objected violently to being murdered, and it was necessary to involve others resulting in the messenger being sent to Salt Lake. Note the attack took place Monday morning, and Haslam left Monday afternoon. Mormons of conscience wanted to know if the atrocity they were being asked to commit had Young's sanction . . . Now why didn't they wait for an answer?
And while you're attempting to school me in logic, here's a vocabulary term for you: "Plausible deniability." After that, "ad hominems" pretty much describes your posts . . .
And I note you neglected to address the destruction of the rock cairn.
Joe - | 1:17 a.m. May 28, 2008
I believe the LDS Church and it leaders sometimes get too much credit. For
example, many Utah legislators are members of the Church, so when a matter comes
up, they ask themselves "What would be good for the Church?" or
"what is consistent with my beliefs?" As a result, the Church is
perceived to control much of what happens in Utah; those who don't like it
act as if there is a red phone in the Governor's office where edicts come
down from on high, when, in fact, most of the time Church leaders have their
hands full tending to Church business.
I suspect a similar situation occurred with Brigham Young with regards to this tragedy. He wasn't responsible but got blamed anyway.
Lexi, no one within the Church has ever stated that they can forecast the future. If God wishes to inform men as to how they may prepare for the future, it is up to him to decide what is revealed. Similarly, it is up to men to determine how they will respond.
Ultimately it is up to each of us to determine what we wish to believe in, and how it will affect our lives.
I suspect a similar situation occurred with Brigham Young with regards to this tragedy. He wasn't responsible but got blamed anyway.
Lexi, no one within the Church has ever stated that they can forecast the future. If God wishes to inform men as to how they may prepare for the future, it is up to him to decide what is revealed. Similarly, it is up to men to determine how they will respond.
Ultimately it is up to each of us to determine what we wish to believe in, and how it will affect our lives.
Re: Pop Quiz | 3:32 a.m. May 28, 2008
I answered all your questions with one answer. IF B.Y. was a murderer, that
doesn't make the B. of M. false or any other doctrine of my faith untrue.
My faith is not based on B.Y or Joseph Smith it is based on Jesus Christ and His
restored gospel and I retain the right to define my faith. I do not choose to
accept your definition of it. You are making assumptions of my faith that you
have no clue about.
It seems to me that the MMM has become the last, best hope for you. Some of you have convicted B.Y without any evidence in the court of anti-mormon hatred. All you can come up with is your gossip and your need for him to be guilty. One more question for you. If he is not guilty, where does that leave you?
It seems to me that the MMM has become the last, best hope for you. Some of you have convicted B.Y without any evidence in the court of anti-mormon hatred. All you can come up with is your gossip and your need for him to be guilty. One more question for you. If he is not guilty, where does that leave you?
OJ and Brigham Young | 5:05 a.m. May 28, 2008
"There is insufficient evidence to say former LDS Church President Brigham
Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and ample evidence that says he did
not, according to the church's assistant historian."
There was insufficient evidence in OJs trial as well how many of you think he's not quilty?
There was insufficient evidence in OJs trial as well how many of you think he's not quilty?
Emmm | 6:48 a.m. May 28, 2008
I thought that the bullet points in the article to be the most interesting.
What can we learn from history? What social situations and thought processes
set us up to make and/or commit such egregious errors? Look at the real results
of intolerance and close-mindedness? of living in a bubble?
To Get Real | 7:15 a.m. May 28, 2008
You're delusional. Anyone who had their "calling and election made
sure" sure as I'm sitting here would not be telling anyone about it.
Period.
No source for BY's calling & election? Hmm????
Those books, if read, will demolish your belief in the infallibility of anyone including the leaders of this or any other Church. They're men, and with only one exception, no perfect man has ever lived. Period.
Do the research, read those books, I challenge you. They're all written by good LDS. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true. Or are you afraid of what you might discover?
No source for BY's calling & election? Hmm????
Those books, if read, will demolish your belief in the infallibility of anyone including the leaders of this or any other Church. They're men, and with only one exception, no perfect man has ever lived. Period.
Do the research, read those books, I challenge you. They're all written by good LDS. Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true. Or are you afraid of what you might discover?
Darius | 9:18 a.m. May 28, 2008
Sarah,
I don't know where you have been going to Church, but you are sadly mistaken. The reason Brigham Young's involvement in MMM is such an issue is because Latter-day Saints say that their leaders are infallible all the time, both past and present: every week in prayers and testimonies and lessons.
They claim that the prophet will never lead the Church astray - that is a claim of infallibility. They claim that the prophets, seers and revelators are always inspired by Heavenly Father. That is a claim to infallibility. They claim that the Prophet and Apostles have their "calling and election made sure" - that is a claim to infallibility. They claim that it is sinful to question the Church leaders and it is grounds for excommunication to publicly criticize them or their positions on issues. Why? Why should a member of the Church be punished for disagreeing with the Church leaders? For only one reason: to support an implicit claim to infallibility.
You can pronounce falsehoods all you want, but it doesn't make them true. The truth is the general membership of the LDS Church DOES ABSOLUTELY consider their Church leaders to be infallible.
I don't know where you have been going to Church, but you are sadly mistaken. The reason Brigham Young's involvement in MMM is such an issue is because Latter-day Saints say that their leaders are infallible all the time, both past and present: every week in prayers and testimonies and lessons.
They claim that the prophet will never lead the Church astray - that is a claim of infallibility. They claim that the prophets, seers and revelators are always inspired by Heavenly Father. That is a claim to infallibility. They claim that the Prophet and Apostles have their "calling and election made sure" - that is a claim to infallibility. They claim that it is sinful to question the Church leaders and it is grounds for excommunication to publicly criticize them or their positions on issues. Why? Why should a member of the Church be punished for disagreeing with the Church leaders? For only one reason: to support an implicit claim to infallibility.
You can pronounce falsehoods all you want, but it doesn't make them true. The truth is the general membership of the LDS Church DOES ABSOLUTELY consider their Church leaders to be infallible.
Anonymous | 10:33 a.m. May 28, 2008
To Delirious
You are wrong.
You are wrong.
how could he have done it? | 11:41 a.m. May 28, 2008
How can a prophet, seer and revelator do such a thing?
Easy.
He was a politician long before he was a "spiritual leader."
Easy.
He was a politician long before he was a "spiritual leader."
Denial is not good | 11:50 a.m. May 28, 2008
Militia guys always do what the leader ask of them. Brigham Young egged the
whole darn thing on. It's obvious! Denial is wrong.
Watch 'em get angry with this! | 12:57 p.m. May 28, 2008
Brigham Young was a great leader. --Probably the greatest of that era. He led
a people out of Illinois and established a church community that is the base of
a world wide religion. No matter what the doubters will say, the Church will
continue to grow. The comments of the doubters will become more acrid. It does
not matter. While a tragedy, it does not matter in the long run what happened
in the Mountain Meadows. It does not prove a false prophet. It does not prove
a false religion. It only shows what happens when an oppressed people have had
enough. The larger problem is that a group of people did not turn the other
cheek. They will have to face judgement as all those that attempt to "kick
against the pricks"
the fall | 1:28 p.m. May 28, 2008
Perhaps now people can see the #1 problem with strict authoritarian ideals.
But I truly doubt it.
They have been conditioned to think they'll lose their souls.
But I truly doubt it.
They have been conditioned to think they'll lose their souls.
To Darius from Joe | 1:57 p.m. May 28, 2008
Sarah's experience matches mine more than yours. LDS members pray for the
prophet, and believe that he can reveal God's will.
Having attended church regularly for 55 years, I have never heard a suggestion that the Church leaders, are infallible. Your assertions to the contrary are not backed up by my experience, by church doctrine, or by scriptures. A quick check of the Church's web site includes the statement "In fact, the Church has never taught that its leaders are divine or infallible," in 2003 when the church was responding to Sally Denton's book on the MMM.
Brigham Young, like all prophets, was a man, subject to errors and failings. Members don't like to highlight the leader's failings since opponents to the church that are more than willing to draw attention to their shortcomings.
For example, Brigham Young's 27th wife reportedly told Brigham she wanted a Singer sewing machine. He brought home a White machine instead, which she threw down the stairs of the Lion House. Brigham reportedly replaced it the next day with a Singer.
Prophets get tired, some have short tempers. Doesn't change their calling. Elisha didn't like to be reminded of his bald head, either.
Having attended church regularly for 55 years, I have never heard a suggestion that the Church leaders, are infallible. Your assertions to the contrary are not backed up by my experience, by church doctrine, or by scriptures. A quick check of the Church's web site includes the statement "In fact, the Church has never taught that its leaders are divine or infallible," in 2003 when the church was responding to Sally Denton's book on the MMM.
Brigham Young, like all prophets, was a man, subject to errors and failings. Members don't like to highlight the leader's failings since opponents to the church that are more than willing to draw attention to their shortcomings.
For example, Brigham Young's 27th wife reportedly told Brigham she wanted a Singer sewing machine. He brought home a White machine instead, which she threw down the stairs of the Lion House. Brigham reportedly replaced it the next day with a Singer.
Prophets get tired, some have short tempers. Doesn't change their calling. Elisha didn't like to be reminded of his bald head, either.
My two sense | 3:50 p.m. May 28, 2008
I have been active LDS for 40 years, but I admit I am bothered by the MMM.
Brigham should at least have done more after the fact to facilitate justice. I
was also bothered recently as I read Compton's book, In Sacred Loneliness.
I wasn't able to accept that God would command Joseph to send apostle Orson
Hyde on a mission and then marry his wife while he was gone without his
permission. I was faced with a choice: 1) Do I keep the leaders on a pedestal
and accept that God commands these types of things, or 2) Do I believe that
leaders sometimes make serious mistakes? I had to choose #2. Even though this
sadly knocks Joseph and Brigham off of their pedestals somewhat, it allows me to
retain a belief in a perfect, kind, loving God that I can feel close to. None
of us will know all of the facts regarding the MMM massacre in this life, but
when all is known, I am sure God will be all we had hoped he would be.
Tired of this | 3:53 p.m. May 28, 2008
I am tired of hearing about the women and Children who were killed at MMM. I
don't mean to sound heartless, but there have been trillions of men, women
and children who have been killed throughout time. There are so many who have
suffered much worse tragedies in our world then the MMM. Just think about it.
So what if Brigham Young was behind the MMM. it doesn't matter any longer. There have been many other leaders in our world who have done much worse. You people need to hang it all up, and go try to function in a normal life if you know how, and quit whining.
So what if Brigham Young was behind the MMM. it doesn't matter any longer. There have been many other leaders in our world who have done much worse. You people need to hang it all up, and go try to function in a normal life if you know how, and quit whining.
Anonymous | 5:46 p.m. May 28, 2008
He did wrong.
Face it.
Face it.
SL Cabbie's "Fan" | 5:52 p.m. May 28, 2008
Since I brought up the topic of logic, here is some general information. When
doing any type of direct proof, you cannot, at any point, assume what you are
trying to prove as one of the conditions.
You can't say, (please forgive me if this in any way mischaracterizes your position) "Brigham Young ordered the attacks. Therefore the message he sent back gave him plausible deniability, so he could cover it up. Since he covered up his giving the order to murder all those settlers, he gave the order and is responsible."
Now, if you were doing an indirect proof, you would assume the opposite of what you hoped to conclude, and look for a logical impossibility. This would prove your position.
Unfortunately, nothing you presented (assuming, of course, it is factually correct), provides any sort of conclusive proof one way or another. You indicated the facts had to bear but one conclusion, and I provided you with another, perfectly reasonable conclusion.
And while you may yet be correct in your conclusion that BY ordered the murders, what you offered as evidence is quite weak and not as logically conclusive as you asserted.
Best Regards,
Your Ardent Fan
You can't say, (please forgive me if this in any way mischaracterizes your position) "Brigham Young ordered the attacks. Therefore the message he sent back gave him plausible deniability, so he could cover it up. Since he covered up his giving the order to murder all those settlers, he gave the order and is responsible."
Now, if you were doing an indirect proof, you would assume the opposite of what you hoped to conclude, and look for a logical impossibility. This would prove your position.
Unfortunately, nothing you presented (assuming, of course, it is factually correct), provides any sort of conclusive proof one way or another. You indicated the facts had to bear but one conclusion, and I provided you with another, perfectly reasonable conclusion.
And while you may yet be correct in your conclusion that BY ordered the murders, what you offered as evidence is quite weak and not as logically conclusive as you asserted.
Best Regards,
Your Ardent Fan
Leader of the pack | 6:19 p.m. May 28, 2008
Of Course, He covered it up. Wouldn't you cover it up if you were the
leader of the pack. We all know that the militia's are all told what to do,
by their leader, and they do it!
Anonymous | 6:34 p.m. May 28, 2008
The truth shall set you free.
Face it or imprison yourself for the rest of your life.
You kid only yourselves.
Face it or imprison yourself for the rest of your life.
You kid only yourselves.
Puzzled? | 6:50 p.m. May 28, 2008
It always easier to shift the blame to the little guys, the militia and the
Indians. Lets point the finger at them and not the leader, B.Y.
How many people do you think it took to kill a wagon train? How many days did this fight go on? Certainly (MORE THAN ONE DAY). So how many were killed in the days before the last day. Who was there in the beginning? Who fired the first shot. We really do not know the facts. John D. Lee's writings were all forged. Who forged his testimony? What do we believe?
How many people do you think it took to kill a wagon train? How many days did this fight go on? Certainly (MORE THAN ONE DAY). So how many were killed in the days before the last day. Who was there in the beginning? Who fired the first shot. We really do not know the facts. John D. Lee's writings were all forged. Who forged his testimony? What do we believe?
Irrelevant | 6:54 p.m. May 28, 2008
99.9% percent of the world have never heard of BY and the .1% whom have probably
don't care. It is only the .5% of the .1% that even care about this
--(mormons and those that oppose mormon views). This should tell you all about
the status and state of the LDS church and the small presence it actually has in
the world and religion in general. Those who oppose the LDS church well your the
big bully because your picking on small potatoes. In the end it is unfortunate
that the LDS culture has created this culture in the Intermountain West.
SL Cabbie | 9:08 p.m. May 28, 2008
Last Note to "Fan" above:
I grew up in a home where the patriarch, my grandfather, was schooled in logic and philosophy; he seemed to need to reach some accomodation with his realization the LDS Church wasn't true . . .
Living in the Sputnik era and the '60's meant training in the scientific method which I believe has served me better than the philosophers' stones you cling to . . .
It involves hypothesis testing and examining whether facts fit proposed theory; otherwise we're too vulnerable to strawman tactics used by apologists such as yourself. You mistake my use of these processes for the "rules of logic violation" and in your glee set fire to the strawman you've built... I did make a semantic error; it should've been "logical question" rather than "conclusion," and this board has no "edit" function.
That grandfather, BTW, was co-founder of a history group my friend Will Bagley belongs to. Will and I talk frequently about this stuff, BTW, and my information is sound and derived from original sources . . .
I invite you to address those facts and questions if you dare; focusing on process may give comfort, but doesn't foster learning.
I grew up in a home where the patriarch, my grandfather, was schooled in logic and philosophy; he seemed to need to reach some accomodation with his realization the LDS Church wasn't true . . .
Living in the Sputnik era and the '60's meant training in the scientific method which I believe has served me better than the philosophers' stones you cling to . . .
It involves hypothesis testing and examining whether facts fit proposed theory; otherwise we're too vulnerable to strawman tactics used by apologists such as yourself. You mistake my use of these processes for the "rules of logic violation" and in your glee set fire to the strawman you've built... I did make a semantic error; it should've been "logical question" rather than "conclusion," and this board has no "edit" function.
That grandfather, BTW, was co-founder of a history group my friend Will Bagley belongs to. Will and I talk frequently about this stuff, BTW, and my information is sound and derived from original sources . . .
I invite you to address those facts and questions if you dare; focusing on process may give comfort, but doesn't foster learning.
To SLC Cabbie | 9:27 p.m. May 28, 2008
The problem with your argument is, there is no logical way to prove that the LDS
church is or is not true. It doesn't work that way. You can recite your
credentials and your supposed "facts" all you want, but that
doesn't mean you're right. Your evidence is nothing more than
conjecture. If you research the topic, it's clear that BY did not order the
massacre. He may have participated in the cover up, we don't know that for
sure yet. But no "logical" thinking person would come to the
conclusion that he ordered this to happen, and nobody can prove or disprove
religion by way of scientific research.
I'm Sorry You're So Cold Hearted | 11:00 a.m. May 29, 2008
To: Tired of This -
"I am tired of hearing about the women and Children who were killed at MMM. I don't mean to sound heartless, but there have been trillions of men, women and children who have been killed throughout time.
So what if Brigham Young was behind the MMM. it doesn't matter any longer. There have been many other leaders in our world who have done much worse. You people need to hang it all up, and go try to function in a normal life if you know how, and quit whining."
Sadly, your statement is typical or Mormon way of thinking, and especially, the Mormon way of feeling.
FIrst, Mormons can't tell the difference when trillions of men are killed because of disasters that are natural, or due to people who wants to control over another, taking power for themselves.
The MMM is about a religion, who profess to follow Christ, and even though it's only 120 people, how low of a number is is acceptable to you?
If Brigham did it, it means that the substance of the LDS church will forever be found and labeled as murderers. It's legitimacy is severely diluted.
"I am tired of hearing about the women and Children who were killed at MMM. I don't mean to sound heartless, but there have been trillions of men, women and children who have been killed throughout time.
So what if Brigham Young was behind the MMM. it doesn't matter any longer. There have been many other leaders in our world who have done much worse. You people need to hang it all up, and go try to function in a normal life if you know how, and quit whining."
Sadly, your statement is typical or Mormon way of thinking, and especially, the Mormon way of feeling.
FIrst, Mormons can't tell the difference when trillions of men are killed because of disasters that are natural, or due to people who wants to control over another, taking power for themselves.
The MMM is about a religion, who profess to follow Christ, and even though it's only 120 people, how low of a number is is acceptable to you?
If Brigham did it, it means that the substance of the LDS church will forever be found and labeled as murderers. It's legitimacy is severely diluted.
WHY IS IT ????!!!! | 12:51 p.m. May 29, 2008
Why is is that when it comes to the Mormons being the victim, they haven't
shut up the poor me, we've been persecuted type of whine that has not
stopped and still continues to this very day, even though it happened long ago,
more than the 150 years of time of the MMM?
Yet, when it comes to others who got the short end of the stick, what we hear constantly is, get over it, it's old news, why bring it up again, let it go, move on, forget about it, etc, etc.
Isn't it interesting, how the mindset changes completely and utterly, when it's not their suffering, and when it involves personally, the religion they hold so dear.
Yet, the very religion they hold so dear can't stop talking in their pulpits at the chappel and general conference, whining about their ancestry who so unfairly dealt with, and how unfortunate and devastatingly their "pioneers" have suffered all for religion sake.
Poor me, is the song being sung all the time since the beginning of the LDS church, and it hasn't stopped yet.
Now, Mormon people, why the hyprocricy that others have stop?
Yet, when it comes to others who got the short end of the stick, what we hear constantly is, get over it, it's old news, why bring it up again, let it go, move on, forget about it, etc, etc.
Isn't it interesting, how the mindset changes completely and utterly, when it's not their suffering, and when it involves personally, the religion they hold so dear.
Yet, the very religion they hold so dear can't stop talking in their pulpits at the chappel and general conference, whining about their ancestry who so unfairly dealt with, and how unfortunate and devastatingly their "pioneers" have suffered all for religion sake.
Poor me, is the song being sung all the time since the beginning of the LDS church, and it hasn't stopped yet.
Now, Mormon people, why the hyprocricy that others have stop?
Answer | 2:00 p.m. May 29, 2008
To Why is it?
I will tell you why. Because Mormonism nurtures a set of doctrines and a worldview that is fundamentally narcissistic. Each individual is told they are allowed to have personal revelation from God. But that personal revelation is only correct if it conforms to the teachings of the Church. That way the individual narcissist feels �free to choose� even though their choice has been already co-opted by the Church! They teach that the purpose of life is to achieve �happiness� � a fundamentally hedonistic doctrine. They teach that the world and universe is fair and just � people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Thus, the victims of MMM must have deserved to have been murdered. They are taught unquestioned trust and faith in their infallible leaders (�the prophet will never lead you astray�), which creates a dangerous authoritarianism among Mormon people � the same kind that led to unquestioned obedience in the slaughter of the Fancher party. If you want some good reading on the subject, check out Sam Harris� �The End of Faith�; Christopher Hitchens� �god is not Great�; and �Religion: The Etiology of Mental Illness� by Henry E. Jones, M.D.
I will tell you why. Because Mormonism nurtures a set of doctrines and a worldview that is fundamentally narcissistic. Each individual is told they are allowed to have personal revelation from God. But that personal revelation is only correct if it conforms to the teachings of the Church. That way the individual narcissist feels �free to choose� even though their choice has been already co-opted by the Church! They teach that the purpose of life is to achieve �happiness� � a fundamentally hedonistic doctrine. They teach that the world and universe is fair and just � people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Thus, the victims of MMM must have deserved to have been murdered. They are taught unquestioned trust and faith in their infallible leaders (�the prophet will never lead you astray�), which creates a dangerous authoritarianism among Mormon people � the same kind that led to unquestioned obedience in the slaughter of the Fancher party. If you want some good reading on the subject, check out Sam Harris� �The End of Faith�; Christopher Hitchens� �god is not Great�; and �Religion: The Etiology of Mental Illness� by Henry E. Jones, M.D.
To Answer | 11:30 a.m. May 31, 2008
I very much agree with you.
How sad it is.
The control of the leaders of the church through fear and intimidation is absolutely astounding!
A great example of the church's way of doing things are the couple who played for the orchestra at temple square.
All they did was disagree with the firing of a BYU associate teacher, but they response from the church was that they were a traitor.
They were treated like they were terrorists by the very same people who are their friends and neighbors of their ward. They were isolated and were regarded as enemies to the church.
This is the real church that happens behind closed doors, not the, "we love you, please come and we'll help you, my brother".
2 faced are the real truth of the church, I know, because I belonged to it.
How sad it is.
The control of the leaders of the church through fear and intimidation is absolutely astounding!
A great example of the church's way of doing things are the couple who played for the orchestra at temple square.
All they did was disagree with the firing of a BYU associate teacher, but they response from the church was that they were a traitor.
They were treated like they were terrorists by the very same people who are their friends and neighbors of their ward. They were isolated and were regarded as enemies to the church.
This is the real church that happens behind closed doors, not the, "we love you, please come and we'll help you, my brother".
2 faced are the real truth of the church, I know, because I belonged to it.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Chaffetz: Leave Afghanistan 8:45 p.m.
- Becker, Corroon urge buying local 8:43 p.m.
- Internet shoppers beware 8:42 p.m.
- Software, security issues pop up 8:40 p.m.
- Woods could learn from Letterman 8:39 p.m.
- Pressure on mortgage industry 8:38 p.m.
- Union wants oversight in slots swap 8:37 p.m.
- Dubai not putting onlookers at ease 8:36 p.m.
- Qwest CEO's case not heard 8:35 p.m.
- eBay gets fine for perfume sales 8:34 p.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Boy shot following traffic stop
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- U. eyes bowl for redemption
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology375
- Hall reprimanded by MWC355
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal306
- Utes won't respond to Hall245
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside119
- Religion in politics is tiresome106
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
A large portion of the overall (non-Mormon and Mormon), population is sick...
Can't we remember that this was us, the fans not the teams let's not be...
I'm sorry, but if you had any intelligence at all you would realize that Ute...
Max's comments took away from his win, he came across sounding entitled, I'm...
Having gotten my MS in geography and my thesis was on the spread of Islamic...
UCAT Board Members (at least four) have demonstrated their lack of commitment...
I'm sure everyone at BYU will be terribly disappointed that you're not...
Hall's "classless" comments are an embarrassment to himself, the team, the...
Agreed. But the Ute fans who assaulted Hall's family should join him, but in...
Thank you for the corrections to the article.
Advertisements