This is a most impressive film, extracting facts from the history of religious terrorism on U.S. soil...
On September 11, 1857, a devastating and controversial real life massacre of 120 men, women, and children took place in Mountain Meadows, Utah. This film integrates a romantic drama in a Romeo and Juliet-type love story to set a backdrop for a tragedy wrought by religious fanaticism.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - ANGEL-Falsly Accused by Fanchers
Chris,
May I add, I as wel have 39 Mormon pioneers that I descend down through. So please don't tell me that I don't know anything about my family history...be that of the MORMON FAITH! Let's get real!!
77 - Chris
Michael-
Aside from the larger debate, I think you begin to see more cleary the tactical aspects of the actual event.
When I was studying military tactics and methods at the Naval Academy and during my field training and practical real world practical application, I quickly came to grasp the uses, effectiveness, and implications of an ambush. As far as Infantry tactics are concerned, an ambush can be devastating in the extreme. During an ambush the ambusher has an extreme advantage over the ambushed. If properly executed a small force can inflict terrible casualties and even route a much larger force. In history, the ambush as served as an equalizing for between numbers and even technology. A group of say a hundred well trained soldiers armed with the latest in modern military firearms can be overcome by scarcely half their own number of attackers though they are armed with little more than spears and bows and arrows if the ambush is well executed. You should read about the destruction of the Legions of Publius Varus during the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest. Three entire legions were ambushed and destroyed by undisciplined primitive savages.
The tactics of American Indians were of particular note during my studies. It was not uncommon during the Old West for a reletively small number of Indians to burst in upon a much larger number of troops or armed men at close quarters and completely massacre them. Also there were many instances where a small band of indians blockaged a significantly larger force of soldiers by confusing them on their actual numbers. To a trapped and terrified soldier huddled tightly with his fellows the howling and screaming of but a hundred indian warriors spread at interval could easily sound more like a thousand. Imagination is a key weapon of the ambush.
As I have actually been both the ambusher and the ambushed I can give you a unique perspective on this subject. When ambushed you are overcome by confusion and your first impulse is usually one of panic. Men who have experienced it often call it the "Fog of War". Your world becomes an insane and overwhelming place where nothing else exist but your screaming instincts and the training which attempts to overcome them. You wish only to find cover and concealment and nothing else matters but the bullets wizzing past your head. In moments like these you become completely indifferent to normal moral or social norms. The sight of a friends remains scattered over a 30 foot area have no effect on you. You are indifferent to all else but your Natural Imperitive which is to survive. You want to hide and skulk.
This is the trap. If a force does this are doomed. In training we were taught that the only way to defeat an ambush once having fallen into one is to immediately break out and find a defensible position. Order and and the chain of command must not break down. You have to keep your Marines responsive. If you stay in the trap you are screwed. As an officer and commander it's very hard to overcome your personal instincts in this kind of situation, but you of all people must do this. If you hide and skulk, so will your Marines, and they will die for lack of leadership. You cannot pause or hesitate for even an instant. You determine from what quarter the incoming fire is coming from you gather the wounded and you break out or respond to the attackers immediately.
The men of the wagon train did not have that option or experience. I assume that perhaps a third of the wagon trains company were adult men. Whether or not they were all armed is not clear to me. Thats only 40 men. To complicate matters they were encumbered by their wagons, baggage, and families. First hand accounts from both sides indicate that the initial onset of the attack inflicted punishing casualties with whom they would have been even further encumbered. Not knowing how many enemies they were facing the remaining perhaps 30 men would not have dreamed of breaking out.
50 rifle armed and well provisioned attackers would have been overkill. After the initial onset it is reasonable to assume that the attackers would have enjoyed excellent cover and concealment from an elevated position. With only a bolt action rifle firing from an elevated, covered, and concealed location I by my self could force 40 men in the open to stop in their tracks and keep their heads down. Within 5 minutes I could easily kill or incapacitate half their number if they couldn't find adequate cover. No more than 25 skilled marksmen could have defeated wagon train. 50 men would have had things well in hand.
After a couple of days and in the open under a hot sun their water quickly ran out. By the day of the massacre they were completely out of ammunition and were suffering severly from dehydration. By this time their will to continue the fight would have been gone. They would surely have had many wounded men, women, and children and an apalling number of dead. Perhaps a full quarter of the wagon trains compliment may have been killed or wounded.
In that day and age the common and accepted conventions of warfare were very deeply rooted among people of European heritage. The people of the wagon train would probably not even have considered that their attackers would slaughter them. At the worst they would have feared that they had lost all their property but had retained their lives. The notion that victorious "white men" would slaughter defenseless fellow "white men" who had made an honorable surrender after putting up a noble defense probably never even entered their minds until they were literally looking down the muzzles of their executioners rifles.
This was not a massacre. A cavalry troop bursting into a Comanche villiage and slaughtering the inhabitants while the women and children ran and the men fought to save their families is a massacre. This was something much worse. It was as cold blooded as cold blooded gets. The killers had lots of time to consider and realize what they were doing. It was no hot blooded action taken during a moment of rage or excitement. It was a cold and calculated act that was carried out with cruel deception and horrible brutality. I can't even imagine what kind of a stomach a man would have to have to kill a woman and her children as they begged and pleaded for their lives at my feat. Any person who could do such a thing can not even call themselves human. Nobody can rationalize or explain such an act as it defies all reason.
What many people want is not the destruction of the LDS Church but a reckoning. People need to know that Mormons and particularly the Mormon leadership knows, accepts, and understands what happened and that they accept the shame of it. While the LDS leadership has apologized they have this attitude that they are sorry but those people who did this have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of us. Whatever reasons they used to justify their own actions it is clear that the entire Mormon community in Utah was appart of the same mechanism which killed these people. They didn't just wake up one morning as killers. The convictions, actions, and words of the Mormon leadership, most especially those of Brigham Young, whether directly or indirectly were deeply involved in the actions of that day.
78 - Chris
Angel or whatever you call yourself, please desist. It is quite obvious that you are whipped up into some kind of religious frenzy and that no meaningful communication with you is possible. I regret that you are unable to speak of matter outside of your religious convictions. Once again I will reiterate my theory that many Mormons have difficulty distinguishing between social and religious issues. If you have anything meaningful to say then please do so. If you want to spew religious banter at me then please direct your comments elsewhere as I am not interested.
79 - Chris
To Rosie-
You asked me how is the LDS Church responsible for the actions of 150 years ago. I will answer this using your own logic. Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the reformed church of Jesus Christ brought back to Earth. The "priesthood" of the LDS Church is described in the Churches own words as a continuity from one to the other down through time. The Old Testament says that seven generations share the guilt of an ancestors crimes.
Let me ask you a question. What possible justification do you have for associating me with the so called "mobbers" of 150 years ago?
How am I responsible for the actions of the so called "mobbers"?
80 - ANGEL-Falsly Accused by Fanchers
Chris, You need to get some real mental therapy. You are writing blog messages to yourself now, and making the public think that they are coming from the Mormons. You no longer know what you are even thinking or saying. You need to read each of your incoming e-mail blogs that you receive a bit better and answer them more correctly! Maybe you need to take a break from your computer or something, because you aren't making too much sense with your remarks on the Mormon church. I only see anger and sarcasium--and pure hate comming from your feelings for the Mormon people. What have they ever done to you personally, that you have so much contempt and hatered for them. Perhaps you are a MORMON MOBBER as said! Will you make-up something new or tell me the truth? If you are a descendent of the Franchers people why don't you try to find peace with the Mormons instead of creating more chaos and wars with them? Do you happen to be a heavy drinker or something?..LOL! Sorry, but you sound way too angry and out of control...try to get a grip! I don't agree with what you are writing to other bloggers on the Mormons. It sounds like you are putting quite a bit of your false and made up CHRIS HISTORY into Mormon history. WOW,...you are a very scary person! I do research work too and have found nothing you write about in Mormon history. Only a few made up things with the anti Mormon movement group. Good luck on maybe getting some control over your hatred of Mormons. It's truly a very sad thing to hate so much.
81 - rosi
You are as accountable for your acts in this life as are the Mormons for there's. Why are you such a judge of men and so extremely self rightious,( NO IT ALL ) and blame everyone else? There is something definitly quite wrong here. Please don't bother writing back. I'm done with nonsense!
82 - rosi
Know IT ALL!
83 - Michael D
Chris,
Thank you for your insights into the ambush. The point I wanted you to make, you did. However, the strategy back then was not to break out; rather, circle the wagons repel the attack and have someone sneak out for help. This is what they did at the Alamo. Apparently, they did that at Mountain Meadows but the first white person they encountered killed one of the escapees. I guess that they knew they had nowhere to go. They were out of water and the decaying bodies probably did not help.
It may have more parallels to recent military killings. The killings in May Lai, Viet Nam and more recently Iraq are similar to each other. The solders in Viet Nam and Iraq felt that the inhabitants were complicit with the Viet Cong and Insurgents. They exacted revenge and used some ploy to gather everyone together. Someone ordered them to do it and they were motivated. Some rebelled. One Helicopter pilot hovered and protected some civilians with his Huey. Now here are the parallels to Mountain Meadows.
1. The soldiers and those 50 men were probably good people
2. We know both groups were ordered to do what they did. The eternal question in the MMM is from how high up that order came. The answer depends on how you feel about the Mormon Church.
3. The soldiers were angry and interested in self preservation; that was their motivation. What was the Mormon's motivation? It is hard to get 50 men to go and kill men and even harder to get them to kill women and children. In a court room they always talk about "motive, means and opportunity". Faithful Mormons want you to answer the "motive" question. (Here is a hint: If you read the news you know that a Swedish cartoonist is under a death threat for painting an unflattering cartoon of Mohammad.)
4. Nixon pardoned Lt. William Calley and the government did not pursue anyone after Lee. Do you think knowing the motive had anything to do with that?
The MMM has never been hidden. It has been acknowledged. The graphic details are well documented. The Mormon leadership has repeatedly apologized. You noted that in your last paragraph. They have acknowledged that Brigham Young fomented the environment with his speeches. That was in the "Ensign" article. There should have been more executions I would agree.
Faithful and knowledgeable Mormons want you to understand that it was a crazy time and things got out of control. Today, I stumbled across an interesting website: It represents the Mormon point of view. It is short, you should read it.
This is how they introduced the topic:
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September, 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, traveling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.
Mormons want you to grasp the whole picture. I must have hear and read that 1,000 times. What does "polemical" mean?
84 - Chris
There is no way that I can possibly reply to such an outrageous outburst of bumbling rhetoric. You clearly do not agree with anything that I have said, and perhaps you even disagree with my right to say it as well. If you do not agree with what I have to say then please find something else to read. It is clear that you object to an open forum where people of different opinion can express their views without suffering personal attacks.
Corrosponding with you is like talking to an inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps you should review this blogs COMMENT POLICY before you further "contribute" to this forum. I have no need to justify myself to one such as yourself. I know what and who I am and what I have experienced in my life. I daresay that my life and its accomplishments have been worthy. I feel that one of my lifes greatest accomplishments has been to earn the respect and admiration of a demanding and over achieving father.
I am deeply sorry if you have felt personally offended by any of my comments and that you have felt the need to make such base and crude attacks upon my personal character. After all, you do not know me and I am inclined to forgive statements made out of ignorance. You are obviously very angry. Perhaps it would not be unqualified for you to seek a better control over your person and ask yourself why you feel compelled to behave in such a deplorable fashion
I hope you are able to find a solution to your problems. You have my best wishes.
85 - Chris
Since I failed to mention exactly to whom I was refering I should clarify that my last comment was directed solely at "ANGEL-Falsly Accused by Fanchers", and no one else. I feel it is unfortunate that he/she should resort to such an embarracing tirade. If she elects to continue commenting on this blog she should attempt a rational discussion rather than ranting out her anger with name calling. I also would like to apologize if I have offended anyone else with my comments as I have obviously offended her. My comments were intended only to engage those who contribute to this site and induce meaningful discussion. I have not set out to attack or to undermind the faith and convictions of anyone who views this site. Again, I apologize if I have offended any concerned.
86 - Chris
To Rosie
To you I must that I do not judge anyone. People judge themselves through their own conduct. They are a witness against their own deeds and misdeeds. People invariably will "reap what they sow". The last thing a human being needs is the judgement of another. And since it profits me nothing to condemn my fellow man the only rational thing to do is to reserve my judgements for myself. I am after all the harshest critic of my personal actions and behavior. It would be difficult for another human being to judge me to extent and with the same criteria with which I judge myself.
As to your sarcasm, there is an old saying that I believe has its origin in the Golden Age of Greece among that times great philosophers:
"The greatest barrier to learning something is thinking that you know something."
Another great saying from that age which is attributed to Socrates through his pupil Plato and similiar in its underlying wisdom is:
"The only true wisdom comes in knowing that you know nothing."
In the past whenever I have attempted to learn or understand something I have always tried my best to use these words as a moderating force in my assessments. I hope they can help you as well. Wisdom after all, knows no national, racial, cultural, or religious boundaries.
87 - Michael D
Chris,
I enjoyed the thrust of your comments. That last note your wrote to me was calm, focused and thoughtful.
There is a great book I reading currently: “DON’T SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF…and it’s all small stuff” by Richard Carlson. The content of this book helps us to control comments over a topic like Mountain Meadows. What I like about it is that each chapter takes about 5 minutes. You can do a chapter a day.
Stay Chris. Just tone it down a little. Think of each person as having something to teach you. You taught me a lot.
88 - J S
In behalf of the Angel lady
I think she has every right and reason to feel sorrow that her ancestor is being falsely accused of such horrific acts by your family, when there is no proof that any Fancher was ever killed by her ancestor. I noticed you ignored that part of her message. You seem to be a great judge of everyone in the Mormon church. You also condradict yourself through-out your blog. No need to reply. I agree with Rosi. You are a know it all!
89 - Chris
Once again, this is NOT MY BLOG, and I am NOT A FANCHER. Do you need anything else? It is after all very easy to criticize or blatantly insult someone when you don't have to look that person in the face and can speak your words from afar. Anybody else who feels that they need to post a "jab", don't bother. I'm not going to read it. If you would like to discuss a particular issue free of dimwitted insults then please do. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time. If a sincere apology in matter is not sufficient than I can't help you. This is the last time that I waste effort and respond to obscenity. If you don't like what I write then please don't read it. Who is the bigger fool? The fool talking or the fool listening?
90 - Angel
Chris,
I thought you were a descendant of the Francher family, excuse my mistake. Perhaps you meant that you decend down through another member of the MMM group. However, I did not mean to offend you. You just seemed a bit hateful to me in your reply. So I then replyed back the same way. I do believe that all people need to learn to truly forgive in this life. Where may I find the scripture location that you mentioned to me from the Old Testament.. That seven generations shall share the guilt of their ancestors crimes. Mormons read the Bible as well as that of the book of Mormon. However, I could not locate this particular scripture. Could you let me know where I may find it? Nevertheless... My Mormon ancestor never committed the crime that he has been accused of by the Francher familys web-site. Thanks for your help.
91 - Chris
Throughout my comments on this blog I have attempted rather clumsily I'll admit, to develop an underlying theme. "Randy Gavin" has also done quite well in describing this same theme. I feel that the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as it is called, is a secondary issue to this larger issue that Randy hit upon so well. There seems to be a social atmosphere around the LDS Church that is hostile to frank and open discussion on subjects potentially sensitive to the church. This is not an attack upon Joseph Smith or any of the Mormon beliefs. This is a SOCIAL ISSUE. To break it down another way, this is about people and not about a church, so you need not be offended.
Hand in hand with this issue is the seeming inability of many Mormons to distinguish between social and theological issues. There, I said it again. If you are a Mormon and can't understand the distinction that I am trying to make then you are helping me to prove my point. My point is not that Mormons are stupid or evil or any other such nonsense. Rather, I think that as a result of various conditions Mormon culture has become a very tight-lipped body whose members feel extremely uncomfortable talking about sensitive issues.
This is the equivalent of me not wanting to discuss the issue of slavery. My maternal grandfathers family was one of the wealthiest landowning families in Louisiana before the Civil War and literally owned "hundreds" of slaves all over the state. The African American community which developed on the largest of the family tracks and where the family home estate was located before Federal troops burned it to the ground is even named after my family. The name of that town is Holloway. Look it up.
I whole heartedly agree that slavery was an evil institution which violated the God embued rights shared by all humankind. I am not proud of that past, but I have let go of the shame of it. I have come to terms with it. I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. I am an individual. As a result, I do not feel uncomfortable discussing the subject though in certain company I must be cautious in how I present myself.
Many people associated with the Mormon church need to examine their attitudes towards communication. The outright hostility and blatant personal attacks that I have suffered only on this site is clear evidence for this. This isn't about religion regardeless of what you might think. If my pitiful words posted on the internet of all things is enough to arouse "ruffle" your religious feathers then perhaps your faith is not as strong as you supposed. (Forgive me but I am going to use a religious example as I feel that it is the most fitting) Jesus endured an extreme amount of verbal abuse during his life and ministry, and yet one of his many great messages was to "turn the other cheek", "do good to them that use you and persecute you". At times Jesus answered critism but his most usual response was humility and silence.
If I can hurt you (and I'm not even good at this)imagine what others with a far sharper tong could do. Don't be so vulnerable to mere words. Words are after all merely pitiful sounds that proceed out of our mouths to which we have ascribed crude meaning. On this online media, they are not even that.
Don't make the mistake of thinking you know me and my motivations. I don't care about your church or your beliefs one way or the other though I do respect your right to worship as you choose. This is merely an interesting topic which has captured my attention for the moment. I have no doubt that there will soon be something else which tickles my fancy. In a few weeks I will probably have completely forgotten about this site and any the petty insults I have endured.
Nobody, I have corrosponded with has managed to offend me. Again, bricks and sticks. You know the saying. I do seem to have gotten under the skin of quite a few of you, however. Part of growing up and becoming personally mature as an individual is learning to control ones own passions.
Control and restraint are the essence of civilized behavior and meaningful communication. If misplaced emotional outburst prevent you from expressing yourself in a meaningful sense then you have a problem. Don't be afraid of what others have to say even if what they say undermines your beliefs. You only strengthen your enemies and sharpen their claws when you strike out at them nonsensically. Get a grip on youselves and stop acting children. Not everyone has behaved so badly. Those who have acquitted themselves admirably know who they are and there is no need to name names. Those who have made fools of themselves likewise know who they are whether they will be honest with themselves or not.
To the uncouth I say this: learn to restrain yourselves. Whatever your religious beliefs are I very much doubt that they include vain and proud words full of rebuke and slander for your fellow man. As I indicated in an earlier comment this day, you only dirty yourselfs. I say to you, you will be the primary witness in the case against you. Ultimately, no one can hide from themselves.
Until Next Time-
Chris
(someone commented that "Chris" is not my real name. Well duh. Only an imbecile discloses their identity to strangers over the internet and especially on a blog of all places. Think Angel. Always think.)
92 - Chris
Angel, you will have to excuse me but I mispoke and quoted the Bible incorrectly. The actual verse is:
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me," (Deuteronomy 5:9)
By implication this means those that do not follow Gods will.
The Bible defines someone who loves God as:
"He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour."
Through a simple work of logic the Bible is describing someone who hates God as:
"He that biteth with his tongue, and does evil to his neighbour, and taketh up a reproach against his neighbour."
93 - Michael D
Chris,
You must get that book "DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF and its all small stuff." I am reading it right now. I think it will change how you write in these blogs. This is really small stuff. I think we can sift through the rhetoric and learn something from everyone. The angry tone prevents people from learning your points. I think you make some good points. Get the book today.
I just finished reading the website. It presents the Mormon point of view. They use the word "anti-Mormon" so I think Chris will be upset. They use the word "Saints" so the author Will Bagley will be upset as well. He mentioned in his book how he hates that.
Nevertheless, I learned some things.
1. My ancestor Charles C. Rich told them to go the Reno rout. That contradicts Will Bagley contention that he sent them to Mountain Meadows. (This is a crucial element of the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy starts when some Mormons see them leave Arkansas. They then report to Brigham Young who makes preparations for their murder in Mountain Meadows.) What does that Fancher website say about my ancestor Charles C. Rich? What is the website?
2. I thought the delay in the prosecution was from the Mormons. According to this account, not so. If you can believe it, here it is:
"Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War."
I also learned that what happened was a mixture of religion and military. Apparently, legal scholars of the day debated this. This is a major reason why there were no other prosecutions.
It is a one sided point of view so you read it with a grain of salt. You read Will Bagley's "The Blood of the Prophets" with a bag of salt. I think Juanita Brook's book is still the best balanced book out there. I am eager to read the new one coming out. Does anyone know when it will come out?
94 - Angel
I also descend directly down through a plantation owner, signer of the declaration of Independence, many, many Mormon pioneers, and others to say the very least. I suppose I'm in a heap of trouble if they were not rightious people.. Thank you ever so much for the scripture. Have a happy and good day.
95 - AB
I see there is no Mormon bashing going on tonight...Jeepers creepers! Makes me feel lonely..LOL
96 - Michael D
Polemical:
somebody who engages in a dispute or argues strongly or passionately against something or somebody.
I think there are polemical people participating on this blog.
97 - Michael D
The site called the non-Mormon writing on MMM "Polemical". This sample from that site thus should be called anti-polemical.
"An excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs, in his essay "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History," published in Sunstone, December 2002.
'On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.
Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).
Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight's plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.
All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows,'" I cut it off here.
What are everyone's polemical thoughts?
They are either lying or telling the truth. It sounds very forthcoming. The plan sounds very hodgepodge. They did not know what to do and were trying to access the chain of command.
It doesn't sound like the conspiracy went beyond Cedar City.
Chris, you are very polemical. Let's hear your opinion. Are they lying? What other choices are there?
98 - ab
I just like setting back and reading the mormon bashers on this blog. Although,I don't like to talk to anyone. However, Michael you are correct using the word polemical. I really enjoy your super intelligence and writings. Keep up the good work. I like reading what you have had to say and reading stuff from someone with some smarts, like you have. I'm thinking of joining the LDS church. I know some Mormon woman and they don't look anything like the ones in the movie September Dawn-- good grief! The movies ok, but they didn't get the Mormon people correct in anyway shape or form. It really makes me more interested than ever in joining the LDS church. Thanks for some good reading.
99 - ab
I meant Mormon women. Really good looking!
100 - Michael D
AB
A director need to identify the good and the bad guys. He/she then needs to put white hats on the good and black hats on the bad. They use body language, facial expression, and maner of speach to make these distinctions.
In a recent movie they maid Hitler human and everyone was upset. They wanted all that I mentioned above.
How did Cain depict the Mormons. As I said before: Looking like Charles Manson doing the Valsalva.
101 - your not going to like me
I just took a peek at this bog and i think you guys might be interested to know that General Albert Sidney Johnston is my Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather. He was the commander who led the Federal army into Utah. Hurrah!!! Back in the 60's, my great great uncle published a biography about him which was based on his personal journals which one of my mothers cousins has today. In my G-G-G-G-G granddads diary he talked a lot about his experiences in Utah.
They also contain a first hand account of his dealings with Brigham Young. Brigham Young, he said "is one of the most disturbing individuals with whom I have ever had occassion to converse with. He is all at once a self-important and condescending man who seems to deem himself to be of a higher birth than any man in all the lands. Though he feigns good etiquette, a blind child could see his clear disdane for both myself and the men of this army."
Another interesting entry talks about the armies interactions with the Mormon people of the area. He said "Lord sustain us in this infernal land. The hardships that the boys have endured since we set out (he's talking about the extreme deprivations suffered during the winter after their supplies were destroyed and plundered by Mormon thieves) have been most terrible. The local people are hostile in every way short of putting steal to us. Young's retainers have seen to it that we are sold provisions, but little else is forthcoming from them..... (he goes on and on about the land in Utah) Young's people are wretched. They are full of foolish suspicion and are secretive in the extreme. Tabby (don't know who this is) thinks that Young rules over these people with a tight harness (I guess he means a horses harness or somthing). I am definitely inclined to agree. I have never seen such a malnourished lot. I have noted that the older chaps around Young seem well enough fed but the children I have seen are somewhat smallish for their years. The people leave no illusions about their feelings towards us and our appointed task. It is so consternating to be surrounded by such abominable regard. I look forward with much hope to a kinder sun and to greener grass in a land that is not called Utah."
In an earlier place in the journal he comments "after losing those precious trains, I pray that the Lord affords me the opportunity to take a crack take at those damnable cattle thieves Mormons."
Well there it is. There is much much more but I think those quotes just about sum it up. Granpa Jo (thats the family nickname for him) had a very poor opinion of Brigham Young and the Mormons after his experiences with them. i think his personal account of Brigham Young is very important just cause he actually knew him. Whatever else you say or think you know about that man none of you pecker-woods every actually met him. sure seems like there is another story about how the army conducted itself in utah besides the one that your church tells.
You guys attack anybody that doesn't think what you think. Your damn church rewrites history to suite its own selfish interest. Your so arrogant and self-assured in what you think you know about the world that you go through life completely oblivious to the fact that your church LIES TO YOU.
Some jackass mormon zealot left a comment on my uncles bio site for General Johnston spewing some idiotic mormon crap about how General Johnston was an apostate and that he got killed in the civil war on the anniversary of the churches founding because God was punishing him. He said his bishop or whatever said he recieved a just punishment for raising a hand against the prophets people. How dumb can you possibly be?
My ancestor died in battle because he was a brave and courageous man who had the courage to lead his men from the front. He was fearless and that is how he got killed. Its called war; it happens. there have been many stupid mormon comments just like that one. i mean what can your misguided values be that you would go out of your way to slander a noble brave and courageous dead man who died fighting for what he believed.
As far as i'm concerned Brigham Young was a child molesting polygamist who should have been tied to tree and shot.
You act like everybody is out to get you but the truth is that your out to get everybody. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has got to be just about the only religion whose founding thesis is that everybody elses religion is false. You can call me whatever the hell you want but you people are the jerks. I dont hate mormons mormons hate everybody.
oh yeah, and don't bother responding. i've got better things to do than waste anymore time blogging with you brain dead heathens.
102 - Randy Gavin
It is no small thing to say that Brigham Young had no knowledge or consent to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That is pretty much like saying that the Mormons in Newark, New Jersey are building a Temple and President Hinckley knows nothing about it, and then going on about that it is a surprize for his birthday. You might as well say that the Orlando Forida Stake of the Church is going to cut out and sell 50,000 acres of the cattle ranches the church owns in Florida and take all the saints to Disney World on the proceeds, and President Hinckley knows nothing about it.
And Polemical? The LDS Church has been dividing and conquering the Christian Churches since its founding. That is who they want to convert. While others who were trying to follow Christ were concerned with either revival, or sending missionaries to non-Christians nations, the Mormon missionaries were gathering people and plural wives from Christian Churches. Like wolves who separate out the least savvy of sheep or the most vulnerable of the flock the Mormon Church has been sheep stealing for its whole history. Any effort to educate its people or take back what has been stolen is called 'tired old anti-Mormon crap'.
Well the "tired old anti-Mormon crap" is still historical. Joseph Smith really did marry other living mens wives, lying about it the whole time, because he did not recognize any other authority but his own.
Joseph Smith really did refute the Biblical teaching of God with his own idea of a man who dwelt on another planet and became a god.
He really did steal much of the Masonic ritual and anger the wrong people in the process. Brigham Young really did teach the Mormons for about 25 years that Adam was actually 'God the Father'.
Mormon people's discussions to get at the truth of Mormon history are still stifled at best and enforced by excommunication at worst. There can be no Mormon History Scholars in the Mormon Church as long as this Faith AX hangs over their heads. For an outsider to join the discussion is considered 'anti-Mormon'
One of the biggest tradgedies from a social perspective is the perversion of history that the Mormons Chuch promotes. Forget for a moment about the perversion of their own history. According to Mormons there is no history of the Christian Church from the time when the last apostle died to 1830 when Joseph Smith stepped up to the plate with his claims of authority. The most significant claim of authentication that Mormons use is the fact that they are getting away with all this, that they are growing, getting bigger all the time. Well the Islamic clergy claim much the same credential these days. And they certainly had their time in the sun in past centuries, but that does not put the stamp of truth on anything.
Open and honest discussion and inquiry is required to get at the truth. Most Mormons would not invest in a stock that would not meet the informed consent criteria. And yet they accept that kind of performance from the Mormon Church that is going to take care of their eternal soul.
That also is exactly how the Mormon Church does their missionary work. Partial information is given in the name of milk before the meat. They have taken a Biblical concept and twisted it in a 'secret combination' sort of way. Their "Mysteries" are the kind of embarrasing stuff that they are always trying to write out of existence.
Jesus got really upset with the religious leaders and academics of the day who were propping up their system of control over the people. He said they were preventing people from entering the Kingdom of God, that they themselves refused to enter.
The Biblical Mystery is 'Christ in you the hope of Glory'.
After coming to that hope of Glory, the rest of the Christian life is living the big ten in the way Jesus taught...loving God and loving your fellow man. Many times that means telling someone the truth even if it is offensive to them.
103 - ab
you're not going to like me---sounds like another person full of himself story. The Tonia one is even better and very madeup--too hard to beieve...lol!!!!! How many of those francher party were married in that Tonia wagon-train . PICK PICK PICK. I'm bored! However, I do completely agree with Michael D. He's the only one who seems to have some common sense and knows what he's talking about. You guys are making the Mormom church look more interesting me everyday. I think I will finish my missionary dicussions and join the church. The Portrayal of the Mormons in September Dawn was a laughing joke!!!! Get real people!! YOUR NOT GOING TO LIKE ME--I guess Brigham Young had a reason to act the way he did with what the Mormons had suffered--DA! The franchers are still taunting the Mormons of today. My opinion is--HEY GUYS GIVE IT UP!! Try to make peace not war. Try to be genuine and not actors!
104 - ab
Why don't you Mormon bashers find something else to do with your lives--maybe you need to find or get one. Please don't respond to me. I won't be on this trash site again. I am for certain now joining the LDS church. My Baptist family of 8 are all joining as well. Have fun with all your hateful and mean messages left on this site! It's pretty evil speaking of others. Matthew 12:36-37 BUT I SAY UNTO YOU,THAT EVERY IDLE WORD THAT MEN SHALL SPEAK THEY SHALL GIVE ACCOUNT THERE OF IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. FOR BY THY WORDS THOU SHALT BE JUSTIFIED, AND BY THY WORDS THOU SHAL BE CONDEMED. My Mormon Missionary friends read this to me from the Bible. Maybe for those of you who claim to be religious it might have some meaning.
105 - Sonnia
Yep! I saw the movie Sept Dawn. I know some Mormons, and the Mormon's in the movie were not Mormon and did not act or look like Mormons...Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although my mother in-law is from Arkansas and she looks like the Mormons in the September Dawn Movie-lol! She Kind of has that hillbilly look about her. I think there were some reversal rolls played in that movie. Hillbillys come from Arkansas...I married into a family of a bunch of them. LOL LOL LOL! I had someone in my family join the Mormon church too. So Ive seen a little of how they live...NOT LIKE THE MOVIE. Sounds like the movie was made by Mormon haters.
106 - Randy Gavin
Some people will proceed to the end of the washed out bridge regardless of the warnings. I was a Mormon and know what I am talking about.I enjoyed immensely my whole life as a Mormon to the third decade. And if enjoyment is the chief end of all things, and truth does not matter, then I suppose I should return. However I find joy and peace and true love and fellowship to be remarkably connected with truth.
If you need to expierience the fun but truth ending expierience then so be it. That is for you and your family of eight to decide. I stand by my warning and at the same time support your right to worship at whatever alter you choose.
107 - ab
Have you heard: Never fight with a P-s-s-s-s skunk. Fact: Skunks only use their Musk for defense, not for attacking. I remember reading the only time a skunk sprays another is when he's caught in a trap. This site is a trap to pick on Mormons? Is it francher or fancher???
108 - Angel
Angel to Chris: Real person being BRUCE D. Dispossessed Daughters in the Land of Big Love? Nice try...lol! I see that this website has cookies attached to it every where. Big Love being a perverted HBO goody! Another slam on the Mormons and very very un-true. I didn't realize that you had ever lived in a Mormon home. See ya later alligator. Have fun making movies up about Mormons.
109 - מַכִּיר בַּעַל ב
Friends,
Don't be overly disturbed that you cannot reach everyone. As you said, some people will hurry to their doom no matter what we tell them. People claim to hear but they do not listen. All those who serve the truth can do is to continue to bear witness to it. Truth is not something that can be muddled and destroyed. No matter what happens the truth remains the truth. People who refuse to hear it should not be pitied. Pity for another is a source of pride in ones self. Instead we must feel compassion and remain constant and continue to tell them the truth whether they listen or not.
I have a unique perspective on these things because of my past. You were you say a Mormon for the first 30 years of your life. I was a professed atheist for the first 25 years of mine. I found the Gospel while reading it for the specific purpose of finding fault in it. The truth overcame all my hostility and arrogance and brought me into a realization that has changed my life. The Bible converted me through "reason" and not through some "burning of the bosom".
Mormons who give your their testimony love to talk about this "burning of the bosom". They cite it as the "proof" that the teachings of the LDS are true. If you ask God with Christ and sincerity in your heart he will answer you by giving you this "burning in the bosom" as confirmation. As to this so called "burning in the bosom", the Bible is quiet clear. The Bible says that the heart cannot be trusted. It literally says:
Jer. 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
So why would you trust your salvation to an easily corruptible heart? The Bible says that we are to use the Scriptures as our measuring stick for truth. It says:
(Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
(2 Timothy 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Mormon's preach that the "true" church was lost in what they call the "Great Apostasy". The Mormon Apostle Orson Prat said,
"Jesus..established his kingdom on earth...the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist." (Journal of Discourses. Vol. 13, page 125).
However, Jesus said:
(Matt. 16:18) "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
So you see, Mormonism contradicts what Jesus said. That is why Mormon's teach that the Bible is not trustworthy. The Bible is not trustworthy if it contradicts the beliefs of the LDS that is. They still like to use the Bible as truth where they think it seems to support them however.
Again, the Bible says:
(1 Peter 1:25) "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
The LDS also have this thing they call the Priesthood of Melchizedek. Mormon's claim to be the restoration of the gospel, and that their priesthood is the only priesthood to have authority to perform priestly duties and properly represent God. It includes a position that they call the "High Priest".
Of this, the Bible says:
(Hebrews 6:20) Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.)
(Hebrews 7:15-16) "And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."
According to the Bible only Jesus can be High Priest of the Melchizedek because only He holds the power of an endless life. Again it says:
(Hebrews 7:24) "But this man [Jesus], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
"Unchangeable" means that nobody else can hold that position.
I have found that the Bible is the ultimate and complete authority on Christian life and is not subject to reinterpretation or amendment. The saddest thing about the LDS is that I think many of them don't really know what they believe. So many times Mormons have called me a liar and a Mormon hater for what I have just told the rest of you here now. They will often tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about and that they were never taught the things I am suggesting. Almost always, they will call me a bigot and tell me to stop persecuting Mormons.
How is a person a bigot for saying what they believe and trying to their utmost ability to speak the truth? Are Mormon's also bigots because they teach that all other faiths are false? Are Mormon missionaries all bigots because they tell potential converts that other churches are part of an apostasy? That would mean that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were also bigots. That logic is futile and ultimately self defeating and Mormon's are sadly all to ready to hang themselves with it. Freedom and free will are open to all who would seek a higher truth and not just to an elect few.
For any who would seek Jesus, they must open their heart to his Gospel which is the Holy Bible. A person who reads the Bible must read it as a young child would. That is, they must read it with an open heart, an open mind, and without the preconceptions and pre-judgments that so many people allow others to implant in them. I was completely lost. I was not merely a non-religious type, but someone who actually denied the existence of any god at all. Reading God's Word the Holy Bible and hearing its perfect message, I was brought to faith by reason and not by some burning of the bosom.
Reason is what separates us from beast. Reason however, is also a terrible curse. The ability to reason is the ability to know Good from Evil. Thus it is the ability to choose to do Evil. Choosing Evil is rebellion against God. The Bible says that a sin is a sin and there is only one sin and that is rebellion against God. Rebellion against God is any act or thought which defies the will of God. The Bible tells us very clearly that:
(Romans 6:23) “the wages of sin is death,”
Through the Original Sin of Adam we are condemned because we all can reason and since nobody is perfect we all fall short of the glory of God no matter what we do or how righteous we try to be. We are all wholly corrupt and unable to stand in the presence of God.
(Romans 3:10-12) “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(Romans 3:19) “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
In a marvelous divine twist of irony, our ability to reason is also the means by which we find our Savior who alone can redeem us from our sin. All our works are as nothing. ONLY through faith can we find Grace. What is faith? Faith is having true knowledge of Jesus, what He did, why He did it, why only He could do it, and then binding your undying allegiance to this knowledge . That means you had better make sure that what you believe is right. You have to know the true Gospel, and the ONLY TRUE Gospel is God’s Word found in the HOLY BIBLE.
Any man or woman, priest or prophet who denies, alters, or attempts to add to the Scriptures is not of God. The LDS faith is not of God. Mormons are good people, but deceived.
(Rev. 22:18-19) “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Read the Bible. Depend on it. It will show you the way.
Sincererly,
מַכִּיר בַּעַל בִּטָחוֹן
110 - Not a LDS person
It's nice to see that there are so many experts on the Mormon church. I believe unless you live a religion you probably really know nothing of what you are talking about. Be critical if you chose to be, and it if makes you feel like you have accomplishing something great and wonderful by spouting off than by all means do so. No one really cares anyway.
111 - מַכִּיר בַּעַל ב
It is true that an outsider will never have an intimate knowledge of the particular culture or lifestyle or whatever of the Mormon religion. What we can know are the stated beliefs of the LDS. Those beliefs are available from official church sources. Those beliefs can be evaluated without having to delve to deeply into texts that are subject to debate. Official LDS church doctrines can be compared to those of the Bible and thus evaluated. In this way I can defeat any Mormon belief or doctrine which conflicts with the Bible using the Bible in its own defense.
112 - Not a LDS person
Good for you. We praise you :((
113 - מַכִּיר בַּעַל ב
I'm not tooting my own horn, nor am I looking for your approval. I'm just telling the truth. Accept it or not, it is still the truth.
114 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Makir ba'al BitaHon,
Whatever you are, you are not Jewish. You're not part of the Tribe. I don't care how you preach Christianity or what you believe; that's your business. But don't scarf up "Hebrew" names, tossing around the Hebrew alef-bet as if you are closer to G-d for it.
It lacks class.
גמר חתימה טובה
רובי בירושלים
115 - מַכִּיר בַּעַל ב
Ruvy in Jerusalem-
The name I chose to represent myself on this blog I felt best described my intentions. I have never claimed to be Jewish or even of Hebrew descent. As I think was obvious from my writing, I am a Christian. My reason for using that "name" if you can call it that, was to inspire curiosity in any who might wonder at it. If you took the time to investigate its meaning as I meant for you to, you could easily have found it.
מַכִּיר בַּעַל בִּטָחוֹן means "A Faithful Friend"
P.S. I did study Hebrew in college.
116 - Aries
Les gens, nous devons trouver d'autres choses pour selectionner dessus. Je suis fatigue de la selection sur les mormons. J'ai le sang fracais dans mon veins. So laisse parler de ce qui est errone avec...le lol francais!
117 - Michael D
Randy Gavin,
I was so happy to see that you read my blog.
Your argument that Brigham Young knew about Mountain Meadows Massacre because he knew everything the happened in the Territory is weak. I request that you think about it more and expand your argument. Give more supporting evidence. Be accurate and polemical. I like that word.
I need to read your impression of the summary of MMM I pasted on one of my entries. I guess Chris has checked out.
118 - Chris
Who invited the frog?
119 - Chris
Hey Randy-
Don't bother with him anymore. He talks in circles and he never has anything new to say. He's feeding you the same crap he's been giving everyone on this blog. You could tell him that the sun is hot and he will tell you that your argument is weak and that you need to do some better research and expand your arguement. I think that must be the "official" response for most of the people on this blog.
There are so many historical examples and evidences of the immense power and control that Brigham Young exerted over the Utah Territory that I don't even know where to start. Hey lets face it. Mountain Meadows wasn't the only massacre that the Mormons of Utah perpetrated and that the Church hasn't attempted to address in a more forthcoming way. Lets not forget about all the Indians that the Mormons killed. I'm not talking about in battle. What I mean is MURDERED. Helpless people. Slashed throats, shot in the back of the head, etc... Men, women, and children and for no other reason than that it helped them sleep a little better.
And oh yeah, the rest of us killed a WHOLE BUNCH of Indians too. The difference is that everyone else in this country knows and admits what happened. Yes the federal government and American citizens did horrible things. But then again there are also many instances where "white men" were punished in the courts for violence against the indians. In the massacre where 26 piutes were murdered, Brigham Young knew what happened and didn't do ANYTHING about it.
You know, for being such a swell guy, Brigham Young didn't really do much to punish the perps of Mountain Meadows did he? Come to think of it, Brigham Young didn't really do anything more than "excommunicate" a couple people and the only reason he did even that was because he had to maintain the appearance in front of the Feds that he was seeking to bring justice to the guilty instead of being one of the perps himself.
If Mountain Meadows had happened in Michigan, Illinois, Iowa or anywhere else and had been perpetrated by lets say Baptist or Methodist, every last one of the killers would have been swinging from a tree wearing a San Quintin neck tie.
120 - Michael D
Hi Chris,
I hadn’t read you for awhile. It’s nice to read you again.
Where and how do you start? Well, you start by starting. This is important to me. I’ve enjoyed this blog. I’ve learned a few things. Teach me more. You have studied the topic from one side and are partial to it. I guess you can say I’m partial to the other side. I’ve got ancestors involved.
I was watching a documentary several years ago on MMM and some professor type said with a crap-eating grin that Brigham Young had to have ordered it because he controlled every thing. That argument is specious and unacceptable from a professor type. He devalued himself and diminished his credentials.
Now, I have been to Mountain Meadow, Cedar City and Salt Lake City. I know the distances. There were no trains or telegraphs. They had to employ the equivalent of the Pony Express.
I posted a brief summary of the events leading up to the MMM.
The proverbial ball is in your court. Hit it back or loose your point.
121 - Randy Gavin
Pony express types are slow compared to a telegraph line but very swift when compared to a wagon train of that size with a large herd of cattle.
It would really be something if this discussion was going on within the LDS Church with the archives of the church wide open and encouraged input by anyone who might have journals..etc.
But then under those condition there is a 99.9% chance this all would have been settled a long time ago, with an honest and open court transcript to examine.
122 - Chris
Hey Randy-
I know a guy from Salt Lake who has been trying to get access to the Church archives for the past 5 years. I'm not going to say what his name is since he is one of my dad's friends but he is a history professor at UT that my dad used to go fishing with when they both taught at LSU. Last year somebody at archives got tired of getting his faculty petitions for access and tried to get him some of the info he requested. He says that guy doesn't work at archives anymore! The strangest thing is that the info in question is related to nothing sensitive. It's the kind of info that only a history professor could find interesting. Something related to church demographics during the 19th century (I don't really know what).
He's not Mormon, but I still don't understand why he or anybody else can't take peek at the archives. A WHOLE LOT of people, a hell of a lot more people than those who go after the LDS Church, like to go after the Roman Catholic Church with a God aweful bloody passion, but yet the Vatican is very forthcomeing with its records and archives. I dare say, the Catholic Church has a great many more skeletons in its closets in St. Peter's Square than the LDS. When my wife (an Austrian) and I drove down through Italy last summer on vacation, we went on a tour of the Roman Catholic Archives while at the Vatican (the Vatican is was INCREDIBLY beautiful). The archives were soooooo impressive. I'm not Catholic, but I've always loved history, and you could literally feel the knowledge of the past in this place. There were scholars and researchers from all over the world in there. An Englishman who said he was some kind of writer, told me all you have to do is summit a petition asking for access (you have to do this since there is so much demand for time in the archives) and within a couple of months they send you a date for the viewing and even provide you with an archivist to assist and familiarize you with the archives. The most amazing thing about this is that this OPEN and FREE to EVERYONE. You don't have to be some kind of Catholic scholar. You could be just a curious Buddhist from Nepal and they will accomodate you. I was immensely impressed to say the least.
I think it would help the LDS's so much if they would end this "culture of silence" and just bring everything out into the open for everyone to see. I'm am in no way trying to preach, but my pastor used to tell us that we shouldn't keep secrets if we could ever possibly avoid it. Asside from being a pastor he was a very wise man as well. He reasoned that if people kept themselves "laid bare" and utterly honest at all times before there fellow man then hurtful people wouldn't have as many rocks to through at us. He said secrets usually end up hurting everyone involved and end up profitting no one.
One way or another, the LDS church would silence so many of its critics if it would just open itself up. I guess it's much the same principle with politicians. If they let their dirty laundery out for all to see then 1) they can't be called liars, and 2) that information can never be used against them in the future since its shock value has been removed by disclosure. If the LDS has nothing to hide then it could only profit from this. The truth does set you free. If the Church is just, then it could easily weather any of the flak that would come out this initially and would come out on the other side stronger than before.
This is a very serious question that should be foremost in the minds of the Mormon people and their leaders. If enough Mormons demand this then it will happen. How do Mormons wish for the world to regard them? If honesty is truly a virtue, then open the archives and let the world see what the church as so carefully accumulated over these many decades. There is no valid reason not to.
We should all consider this as a very important matter. This is not an attack on the Latter Day Saints. This is an appeal for knowledge and understanding. One of the things I do know about Church theology is the value that the church claims to place on wisdom. Then let the Church prove its wisdom by embracing the world and becoming an example of cooperation and honesty.
123 - Randy Gavin
Chris, The first time I suggested what you are saying, I was a Stake Mission Pres in SLC. It got me nowhere. I was told half the Mormons would embrace the old doctrines such as Adam being God the Father etc, and that the other half would leave the church. That is how much faith the leaders have in their church and its people.
A few years later in an Anthropology of the Bible class at the UofU, I asked the Proff what the chances were for the LDS Church to face its history honestly?
He told me he is betting on 300 years.
So let us not get our hopes up.
124 - Chris
Randy, thats too bad. I'm sure that the Mormon people are far more worthy of trust than their leaders give them credit for. It's unfortunate that there will most likely be no progress toward reconciliation any time soon. I think those records would be the key. Hopefully, your proff will be wrong and we all live to see the day when the Mormon people are able to come to terms with the past. I would really love to see the church abandon the defensive attitude that it has perpetuated so that we can all overcome our heritage of mutual hostility together and find that we appreciate one another instead of this endless sparing and discord that dominates Mormon relations with the outside world today.
125 - Michael D
Randy and Chris,
You make very good points. I would expand the conversation with these points.
1. Qualified, trusted historians should have access with supervision to the archives. You saw what Clinton’s man (what is his name?) did with the 911 files. There should be some supervision
2. It can’t be like a search warrant where they go through everything. The Church is private after all.
3. I sense some change is coming. There is this new book coming out that is supposed to bear it all. We’ll see what happens when it is peer reviewed by qualified historians. I will see “September Dawn” after I read that book. Juanita Brooks’ book, I think, is the only unbiased book out there. The two big ones have problems.
4. I think a search of the archives will only affect what happened after the massacre. That is where the Church is most in danger of exposure.
5. The Church might have been more forthcoming if it weren’t for the first prosecutor. By all accounts he was on a mission to get Brigham Young. That is why the first Lee jury hung. For several years there after played cat and mouse with the Federal government over several issues. My recollection is that things got so bad that Church couldn’t own any property. It is a little bit more that the Branch Dividian’s
6. I think attitudes are changing. Aren’t they building a temple in Nauvoo? The biggest issue I heard is over the temple lighting.
7. Maybe after Romney doesn’t get the nomination they will spread everything out.
8. If they don’t do that, the next time a Mormon runs for President, another movie will come out. I think they know and understand this.