Catholics- Would you kill Joseph Smith?

[dianaiad]

I was accusing you, Diana, of equating JS with Christ.

They din’t do that to white folk, dear. White folk just be always right.

Mebbe you be thinkin’ o this picture:
http://http://library.byways.org/display/86985/MankatoMN38_s.jpg
"Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit [39 names listed by case number of record]

**Abraham Lincoln, **
President of the United States"

"On December 6 (1862) President Lincoln notified Sibley that he should “cause to be executed” thirty-nine of the 303 convicted Santees, Execution date was the 26th of December. At the last minute, one Indian was given a reprieve. About ten o’clock the thirty-eight condemned men were marched from the prison to the scaffold. They sang the Sioux death song until soldiers pulled white caps over their heads and placed nooses around their necks. At a signal from an army officer, the control rope was cut and thirty-eight Santee Sioux dangled lifeless in the air.

Jerusha, have you checked your box? I think you are missing a couple of puzzle pieces there…

The above statement from has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Mormons.

As to your accusation that I think Joseph Smith is equal to Christ, well…I don’t.

Joseph Smith was a prophet. That’s something pretty special; he’s right up there, I believe, with other prophets like Moses, Abraham, Nathan, Isaac, Peter, Paul…you know, those guys.

But Joseph Smith is not Christ, nor equal to Christ, nor comparable to Him any more than the other men I named in the above paragraph are comparable to Him.

…and that settles that.

 

[dianaiad]

Why stupid? If the Church calls us to Her defense, those that do not heed are the sinners. Everyone says the Pope apologized for the Crusades and the Inquisition. That is not true, he apologized for the abuses. If it were not for the Crusades and the Inquisition, all of Latin America would be protestant at best and Europe at least half muslim. And in fact, if you do not have a genuine hate for the enemies of the Church than deep inside you pact with them or some other error.

inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et* semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius*

God Himself declared that we, the Sons of the Woman shall crush the Sons of the Serpent.

So any of this kumbaya stuff doesn’t it cut it. When charity doesn’t work, we must remember that obtaining justice is the most charitable thing possible.

You are a very scary person.
I wish you were unique.

But you aren’t.

 

[majick275]

“intimidation?”

Who intimidated whom…and who is the ‘us’ to which your ‘ours’ refers to?

(Diana, remembering who got chased out, shot, had an army sent after them, had the credentials refused for the first LDS Senator to be elected, stuff like that…and wondering what in the world you are talking about.)

the folks that got “chased” out tended to be the ones who had defrauded investors, tried to seduce folks wives and daughters into polygamous relationships and/or threatened to take over local territories.

the army sent to enforce the laws that were being ignored by a self proclaimed theocrat.

The senator was directly involved with systemic avoidance of federal laws.

is this a persecution contest? cuz the US has persecuted a lot of folks (catholics included) far more than mormons.

 

[Lujack]

Why stupid? If the Church calls us to Her defense, those that do not heed are the sinners. Everyone says the Pope apologized for the Crusades and the Inquisition. That is not true, he apologized for the abuses. If it were not for the Crusades and the Inquisition, all of Latin America would be protestant at best and Europe at least half muslim. And in fact, if you do not have a genuine hate for the enemies of the Church than deep inside you pact with them or some other error.

inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et* semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius*

God Himself declared that we, the Sons of the Woman shall crush the Sons of the Serpent.

So any of this kumbaya stuff doesn’t it cut it. When charity doesn’t work, we must remember that obtaining justice is the most charitable thing possible.

Yeah, I have to disagree with you about the Crusades, and the Inquisition. It was the Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation that fought back against Protestantism, but the Inquisition was not so effective.

With regards to the Crusades, I would say that they actually hastened the spread of Islam into Europe. Any delaying effect the First Crusade had on the spread of Islam was more than counteracted by the disastrous Fourth Crusade, which smashed “the bulwark of Christendom”, as it was called, and hastened the fall of Constantinople. While the Crusades were ultimately beneficial for Western Europe (the knowledge brought back helped trigger the Renaissance), they produced a weaker Byzantine Empire and a more unified Muslim world.

 

[dianaiad]

the folks that got “chased” out tended to be the ones who had defrauded investors, tried to seduce folks wives and daughters into polygamous relationships and/or threatened to take over local territories.

the army sent to enforce the laws that were being ignored by a self proclaimed theocrat.

The senator was directly involved with systemic avoidance of federal laws.

is this a persecution contest? cuz the US has persecuted a lot of folks (catholics included) far more than mormons.

Governor Bogg’s Extermination order didn’t make such nice distinctions. He specified all Mormons, men, women, children…everybody.

The army was sent by a man who knew that the reports of ‘lawlessness’ by the Mormons was bogus, but needed a diversion from his own political mess with the South and the impending Civil War.

The Senator was no such thing, as was proven when he was finally allowed to take his seat–unless you REALLY want to call Senator Smoot a lawbreaker?

And no, this is not a ‘persecution contest,’ I wasn’t claiming that we had it worse than others (though the Extermination Order and Johnson’s Army were in fact unequaled in scale)

It was Jerusha who claimed that…shoot, I’m not certain exactly what he claimed. I was asking him about that, actually. Who WAS intimidating whom? I don’t think anybody with any sense would consider that the Mormons were doing the intimidating in all that.

And you are supporting him.

(shrug) you do what you want to do, of course, but don’t get too weird. There are plenty of critics of the LDS church in here, but they aren’t stupid. You could lose your credibility very, very fast.

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah, I have to disagree with you about the Crusades, and the Inquisition. It was the Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation that fought back against Protestantism, but the Inquisition was not so effective.

With regards to the Crusades, I would say that they actually hastened the spread of Islam into Europe. Any delaying effect the First Crusade had on the spread of Islam was more than counteracted by the disastrous Fourth Crusade, which smashed “the bulwark of Christendom”, as it was called, and hastened the fall of Constantinople. While the Crusades were ultimately beneficial for Western Europe (the knowledge brought back helped trigger the Renaissance), they produced a weaker Byzantine Empire and a more unified Muslim world.

Oh, what’s with the crusades…

There were several of them, and not ONE of them was really about religion. True, the rulers of the time used the church as an excuse, and the leaders of the church allowed that, and even put their influence behind it, but the true motivation behind them was political; power, land…and how on earth to get rid of barons and knights who were getting too big for their britches.

Why…you send them off on a holy quest to wrest the Holy Land back from the infidel, that’s what you do, thus getting land, trade–and rid of someone who might take your throne away from you because he’s getting too powerful.

Come to think of it, except for some of the present conflicts, most ‘religious’ wars were more political than religious.

 

[majick275]

Governor Bogg’s Extermination order didn’t make such nice distinctions. He specified all Mormons, men, women, children…everybody.

The army was sent by a man who knew that the reports of ‘lawlessness’ by the Mormons was bogus, but needed a diversion from his own political mess with the South and the impending Civil War.

you really should read a history book before making such inaccurate statements

The Senator was no such thing, as was proven when he was finally allowed to take his seat–unless you REALLY want to call Senator Smoot a lawbreaker?

have you read the smoot hearings? polygamy was rampant and was being covered up. smoot was “lying for the lord”.

And no, this is not a ‘persecution contest,’ I wasn’t claiming that we had it worse than others (though the Extermination Order and Johnson’s Army were in fact unequaled in scale)

well the early american catholics might disagree…along with the branch davidians…oh yeah…most native americans probably see boggs order and johnsons army as “business as usual”

It was Jerusha who claimed that…shoot, I’m not certain exactly what he claimed. I was asking him about that, actually. Who WAS intimidating whom? I don’t think anybody with any sense would consider that the Mormons were doing the intimidating in all that.

ever hear of rigdons salt of the earth sermon? danites?

And you are supporting him.

(shrug) you do what you want to do, of course, but don’t get too weird. There are plenty of critics of the LDS church in here, but they aren’t stupid. You could lose your credibility very, very fast.

i speak the truth. my credibility is fine. you LDS missionaries who come here trolling for converts need to get over yourselves. you won’t convince anyone. that’s why the only LDs converts these days are “distressed” people or “flirt to converts” with atrocious retention rates.

 

[VinnyDee78]

“He called me [Joseph Smith] by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for cgood and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” JS-H 1: 33

This thread is a fulfillment of this prophecy about Joseph Smith given by the angel Moroni before he revealed the location of the plates and explained to Joseph his mission.

How does it feel to be part of that fulfillment? Like it or not, he was talking about you.

 

[justinkolo]

“He called me [Joseph Smith] by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for cgood and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” JS-H 1: 33

This thread is a fulfillment of this prophecy about Joseph Smith given by the angel Moroni before he revealed the location of the plates and explained to Joseph his mission.

How does it feel to be part of that fulfillment? Like it or not, he was talking about you.

That’s not a prophecy, that’s a tautology. Here’s a new prophecy:

The name of Barack Obama shall be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

Get my point?

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

That’s not a prophecy, that’s a tautology. Here’s a new prophecy:

The name of Barack Obama shall be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

Get my point?

 

[dianaiad]

you really should read a history book before making such inaccurate statements

I have. Several of them. I’ve also read the actual Extermination Order.

I’m willing, however, to predict that you have not, or have obtained your information from strictly anti-Mormon sources. I, on the other hand, got mine from LDS, anti-LDS and strictly objective historical accounts.

For instance, “Buchanan’s Blunder” is written about fairly extensively from the POV of historians who are neither LDS nor anti-LDS, but are strictly interested in Buchanan’s actions as they influenced the coming Civil War. They didn’t give a hoot about what the MORMONS did or did not do. They are strictly concerned about why Buchanan grabbed the opportunity to a: send the army elsewhere and b: stir up public condemnation of the Mormons as a diversion from the problems he was having.

It was quite a disappointment to me, actually. I was raised to believe that Buchanan sent Johnson’s Army after us because he was afraid of us, or was told lies, or…anyway, the persecution card was alive and well. It was quite a downer to discover that Buchanan not only was not fearful of the Mormons, he didn’t care. He actually had to embellish the ‘horrors’ we represented, not because he wanted to ‘get’ us, but because he NEEDED a distraction. We were weird enough, and far enough away, to do. He knew we couldn’t retaliate (wouldn’t even if we could…) didn’t want to have anything to do with him, and would probably put up with pretty much anything. We were, in other words, a safe target. He could send this huge force after us, that force would be safe, but out of his way.

Solved a few problems for him politically, in other words. I was a little disgruntled, actually. I mean, with all that…stuff…going on, we should at least have actually been CONSIDERED dangerous, for crying out loud, instead of convenient!

have you read the smoot hearings? polygamy was rampant and was being covered up. smoot was “lying for the lord”.
well the early american catholics might disagree…along with the branch davidians…oh yeah…most native americans probably see boggs order and johnsons army as “business as usual”
ever hear of rigdons salt of the earth sermon? danites?

I have, sir. All of the above, and you are misrepresenting the lot. As usual.

 

[majick275]

I have. Several of them. I’ve also read the actual Extermination Order.

I’m willing, however, to predict that you have not, or have obtained your information from strictly anti-Mormon sources. I, on the other hand, got mine from LDS, anti-LDS and strictly objective historical accounts.

I have read both sides of it extensively for many years. I used to be just as TBM as you until the truth set me free. I have yet to see any such thing as a “strictly objective” historical account of any event.

For instance, “Buchanan’s Blunder” is written about fairly extensively from the POV of historians who are neither LDS nor anti-LDS, but are strictly interested in Buchanan’s actions as they influenced the coming Civil War. They didn’t give a hoot about what the MORMONS did or did not do. They are strictly concerned about why Buchanan grabbed the opportunity to a: send the army elsewhere and b: stir up public condemnation of the Mormons as a diversion from the problems he was having.

none of which negates the fact that BY had effectively formed his own theocratic nation in US claimed territory and was was leading the people in blatantly and sytemically violating federal laws

It was quite a disappointment to me, actually. I was raised to believe that Buchanan sent Johnson’s Army after us because he was afraid of us, or was told lies, or…anyway, the persecution card was alive and well. It was quite a downer to discover that Buchanan not only was not fearful of the Mormons, he didn’t care. He actually had to embellish the ‘horrors’ we represented, not because he wanted to ‘get’ us, but because he NEEDED a distraction. We were weird enough, and far enough away, to do. He knew we couldn’t retaliate (wouldn’t even if we could…) didn’t want to have anything to do with him, and would probably put up with pretty much anything. We were, in other words, a safe target. He could send this huge force after us, that force would be safe, but out of his way.

sounds almost like Clinton blasting away in Waco…

Solved a few problems for him politically, in other words. I was a little disgruntled, actually. I mean, with all that…stuff…going on, we should at least have actually been CONSIDERED dangerous, for crying out loud, instead of convenient!

It’s very easy for Utah Mormons to grow greatly overestimating the importance of the LDs church in the world. It is a primarily regional american denomination that is relatively young. it’s impact on world events is negligible.

I have, sir. All of the above, and you are misrepresenting the lot. As usual.

nope jusy showing the other side of the pancake since you continue to promote the whitewashed faith promoting version of LDS history. Paul Dunn would be proud!

 

[Pro_Domina]

I am not saying that I would go out and slaughter like a maniac.
I am saying that the Church has the right to defend herself from her enemies and if the Church creates a competent ministry, say like the Swiss Guards or militant order, and I was asked to join it, I would have no scuples if the Church says that lets say muslim invadors are nearing Rome, and I should go out and fight them, my friend with JOY!!! St. Ferdinand himself would add wood to the fires of heretics. This soft, wrong conception of charity and justice is something typical that was wrongfully introduced after the II Vatican Council. This idea that it is uncharitable to correct others and to hate evil with all your heart is the reason many other errors were able to penetrate the Church, because we had our guard down. I mean to the most immemoriable customs like chapters of faults were removed from religious orders because they are considered sins against charity. So what? 1500 years of uncharitable ceremonies inside religious orders founded by saints? St. Bernard was dead wrong in preaching the Crusades? St. Ferdinand and St. Louis wrong to fight in them?

You tell me. The saints or the modern concepts of mercy, justice or charity.

 

[VinnyDee78]

That’s not a prophecy, that’s a tautology. Here’s a new prophecy:

The name of Barack Obama shall be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

Get my point?

Sure I do - One was spoken by God to a small farm boy of only fourteen, long before he influenced a major movement in world religion… world as in global reformation/restoration.

Your prophecy states the obvious, spoken after the campaign which has already taken place and revealed his character and high position in office. Hind sight is wonderful, isn’t it.

What would God have said about you in your youth?

Now you know…

 

[dianaiad]

I have read both sides of it extensively for many years. I used to be just as TBM as you until the truth set me free. I have yet to see any such thing as a “strictly objective” historical account of any event.
none of which negates the fact that BY had effectively formed his own theocratic nation in US claimed territory and was was leading the people in blatantly and sytemically violating federal laws
sounds almost like Clinton blasting away in Waco…
It’s very easy for Utah Mormons to grow greatly overestimating the importance of the LDs church in the world. It is a primarily regional american denomination that is relatively young. it’s impact on world events is negligible.

nope jusy showing the other side of the pancake since you continue to promote the whitewashed faith promoting version of LDS history. Paul Dunn would be proud!

And you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Did Johnson send the army after us because BY “had effectively formed his own theocratic nation in US claimed territory and was was leading the people in blatantly and sytemically violating federal laws?”

Or are we overestimating our influence and problem, and were nothing but an excuse…like “Clinton blasting away at Waco?”

You can’t have this both ways. As lowering as it is to my deeply proud ancestral Mormon spirit, it’s…the latter.

Not that the reason behind the thing helped the Mormons any. Buchanan still sent the army.

And we still cleaned their clocks without firing a shot at them. What this knowledge DOES do, however, is make me rather disgusted with politics–if it isn’t obvious to you, it should be, that had Buchanan refrained from dividing the army the way he did, Lincoln might not have had quite as many problems…and the MMM would never have happened.

Not that it removes any blame from Lee, Haight and the others who participated in it; that’s the thing about guilt in something like that; guilt isn’t divided among the number of people involved; it is multiplied by the number of people involved.

 

[VinnyDee78]

And you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Did Johnson send the army after us because BY “had effectively formed his own theocratic nation in US claimed territory and was was leading the people in blatantly and sytemically violating federal laws?”

Or are we overestimating our influence and problem, and were nothing but an excuse…like “Clinton blasting away at Waco?”

You can’t have this both ways. As lowering as it is to my deeply proud ancestral Mormon spirit, it’s…the latter.

Not that the reason behind the thing helped the Mormons any. Buchanan still sent the army.

And we still cleaned their clocks without firing a shot at them. What this knowledge DOES do, however, is make me rather disgusted with politics–if it isn’t obvious to you, it should be, that had Buchanan refrained from dividing the army the way he did, Lincoln might not have had quite as many problems…and the MMM would never have happened.

Not that it removes any blame from Lee, Haight and the others who participated in it; that’s the thing about guilt in something like that; guilt isn’t divided among the number of people involved; it is multiplied by the number of people involved.

AMEN - Way to go Dianaiad

 

[majick275]

And you are contradicting yourself. Which is it? Did Johnson send the army after us because BY “had effectively formed his own theocratic nation in US claimed territory and was was leading the people in blatantly and sytemically violating federal laws?”

Or are we overestimating our influence and problem, and were nothing but an excuse…like “Clinton blasting away at Waco?”

You can’t have this both ways. As lowering as it is to my deeply proud ancestral Mormon spirit, it’s…the latter.

Not that the reason behind the thing helped the Mormons any. Buchanan still sent the army.

And we still cleaned their clocks without firing a shot at them. What this knowledge DOES do, however, is make me rather disgusted with politics–if it isn’t obvious to you, it should be, that had Buchanan refrained from dividing the army the way he did, Lincoln might not have had quite as many problems…and the MMM would never have happened.

Not that it removes any blame from Lee, Haight and the others who participated in it; that’s the thing about guilt in something like that; guilt isn’t divided among the number of people involved; it is multiplied by the number of people involved.

what twisted logic…

mormons broke the law and tried to establish their own country.
The US Army came and stopped them. claiming other motives were more important doesn’t change that. No “clocks were cleaned” in Utah. the Mormons were forced to behave. if you want to chase the red herring of the civil war that’s fine but it’s a real stretch to think the uevents had a noticeable impact. it’s laughable to claim that MMM wouldn’t have happened. i’m not a big MMM person anyway.

 

[dianaiad]

what twisted logic…

mormons broke the law and tried to establish their own country.
The US Army came and stopped them. claiming other motives were more important doesn’t change that. No “clocks were cleaned” in Utah. the Mormons were forced to behave. if you want to chase the red herring of the civil war that’s fine but it’s a real stretch to think the uevents had a noticeable impact. it’s laughable to claim that MMM wouldn’t have happened. i’m not a big MMM person anyway.

Odd thing to say about a group of people who were forced entirely out of the USA by force, and wanted nothing more than to be accepted back INTO the ‘fold’ of the USA, applying for statehood TWICE…

Our own country? REALLY odd thing to say when Brigham Young was appointed the governor of a legal territory of the United States.

…and if you think that the ‘mormons were forced to behave…’ you really are nuts. Sorry…but the history of what we did with that army is an embarrassment to the army. It is still studied as such.

We never fired a shot at them. We simply…defeated them. We cut their supply lines and sold them back their own food. When they insisted (against all constitutional provisions, by the way…) upon making the folks in SLC house and feed them, Brigham Young said fine…the houses are open to you…and everybody moved south to Provo, lock, stock and supplies. The army had roofs, but nothing else. We sold them stuff.

Their aim was to replace BY, (which they did, with a profane womanizer who installed his mistress in the governors’ mansion) arrest him and haul him back to Washington. Please notice that they didn’t manage to do that.

While the army was in Utah it managed to **** off every Mormon in the state, but nobody shot at them. They massacred an entire village of Shoshone, men, women and children–a massacre that made the MMM look like a picnic, by the way–something like 400 men, women and children were murdered and raped; infants having their brains bashed out against rocks.

Mormons actually sheltered some of the soldiers who participated in that massacre, until they found out exactly what had been done. The Shoshone and the Mormons had been, and remained, friends; the Shoshone often left their children with Mormon families to ‘overwinter,’…the Mormons and the army were not even remotely friends after that.

We still didn’t shoot at them.

But we certainly got rid of them.

No historian would have the nerve to say that the army won anything in that engagement with BY.

And no, the MMM would not have happened. many trains went through that area without incident…it was specifically because the army was coming that no supplies were sold to the Fanchers. It was because the army was coming that it was dangerous ground…and because the army was coming, the rumors about the Fancher train were given a great deal more credence than would ordinarily have been given–the Mormons were used to asinine braggarts. If the army were not actually coming, the threat the Fanchers gave of sending the California forces from the south would have been dismissed as the bluff and silliness it was.

However, the army was coming. It was unbelievable; if the USA could do THAT, and they themselves had witnessed the horrors of mob rule and had lost their homes and loved ones–why shouldn’t they have believed the rumors–and the threats?

I mean, after all, there was no denying that the army was real, and it was coming.

It was too much.

When you add one too many bricks to a load that breaks the wagon, is the breakage the fault only of that last brick? No. the fault lies with all of them equally. It cannot be denied, though, that without that last brick, the wagon would not have broken.

With out Johnson’s army, MMM would not have occurred. If BY’s letter had arrived on time; if the mob hadn’t murdered Joseph; if the Fanchers had not threatened to send more militia; if the rumors of poisoned wells and murderous men on the train had not circulated; if the attackers had not used all these things as an excuse to work themselves up into wanting vengeance…

The MMM would not have happened.

However, since no trains were attacked before the army came, and none were attacked afterword, and the problems with the train and the supplies for it were directly the result of that coming army—well, it’s safe to say that the army was almost certainly the ton of bricks too much for the wagon.

 

[majick275]

Odd thing to say about a group of people who were forced entirely out of the USA by force, and wanted nothing more than to be accepted back INTO the ‘fold’ of the USA, applying for statehood TWICE…

Our own country? REALLY odd thing to say when Brigham Young was appointed the governor of a legal territory of the United States.

…and if you think that the ‘mormons were forced to behave…’ you really are nuts. Sorry…but the history of what we did with that army is an embarrassment to the army. It is still studied as such.

We never fired a shot at them. We simply…defeated them. We cut their supply lines and sold them back their own food. When they insisted (against all constitutional provisions, by the way…) upon making the folks in SLC house and feed them, Brigham Young said fine…the houses are open to you…and everybody moved south to Provo, lock, stock and supplies. The army had roofs, but nothing else. We sold them stuff.

Their aim was to replace BY, (which they did, with a profane womanizer who installed his mistress in the governors’ mansion) arrest him and haul him back to Washington. Please notice that they didn’t manage to do that.

While the army was in Utah it managed to **** off every Mormon in the state, but nobody shot at them. They massacred an entire village of Shoshone, men, women and children–a massacre that made the MMM look like a picnic, by the way–something like 400 men, women and children were murdered and raped; infants having their brains bashed out against rocks.

Mormons actually sheltered some of the soldiers who participated in that massacre, until they found out exactly what had been done. The Shoshone and the Mormons had been, and remained, friends; the Shoshone often left their children with Mormon families to ‘overwinter,’…the Mormons and the army were not even remotely friends after that.

We still didn’t shoot at them.

But we certainly got rid of them.

No historian would have the nerve to say that the army won anything in that engagement with BY.

And no, the MMM would not have happened. many trains went through that area without incident…it was specifically because the army was coming that no supplies were sold to the Fanchers. It was because the army was coming that it was dangerous ground…and because the army was coming, the rumors about the Fancher train were given a great deal more credence than would ordinarily have been given–the Mormons were used to asinine braggarts. If the army were not actually coming, the threat the Fanchers gave of sending the California forces from the south would have been dismissed as the bluff and silliness it was.

However, the army was coming. It was unbelievable; if the USA could do THAT, and they themselves had witnessed the horrors of mob rule and had lost their homes and loved ones–why shouldn’t they have believed the rumors–and the threats?

I mean, after all, there was no denying that the army was real, and it was coming.

It was too much.

When you add one too many bricks to a load that breaks the wagon, is the breakage the fault only of that last brick? No. the fault lies with all of them equally. It cannot be denied, though, that without that last brick, the wagon would not have broken.

With out Johnson’s army, MMM would not have occurred. If BY’s letter had arrived on time; if the mob hadn’t murdered Joseph; if the Fanchers had not threatened to send more militia; if the rumors of poisoned wells and murderous men on the train had not circulated; if the attackers had not used all these things as an excuse to work themselves up into wanting vengeance…

The MMM would not have happened.

However, since no trains were attacked before the army came, and none were attacked afterword, and the problems with the train and the supplies for it were directly the result of that coming army—well, it’s safe to say that the army was almost certainly the ton of bricks too much for the wagon.

what color is the sky in your world?

BY was a bigger womanizer than any “gentile” who tried his best to monopolize the tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco trade in utah. Somehow that US army that you malign so much managed to impose federal law upon Utah. granted it took until wilford woodruff. your examples just go to show how traitorous the Utah mormons were back then.

 

[zaffiroborant]

With out Johnson’s army, MMM would not have occurred. If BY’s letter had arrived on time; if the mob hadn’t murdered Joseph; if the Fanchers had not threatened to send more militia; if the rumors of poisoned wells and murderous men on the train had not circulated; if the attackers had not used all these things as an excuse to work themselves up into wanting vengeance…

The MMM would not have happened.

This is so familiar… oh yes of course!

The general consensus from the folks in here seems to be:

1. OF course we wouldn’t do it NOW…
2. But the folks who did it then weren’t so bad because
3. Joseph Smith deserved it.

I’ve read the same sort of reasoning by LDS about MMM:

1. Of course we wouldn’t do that now.
2. But the folks who did it then weren’t so bad because.
3. They were traumatized by what happened to them in MO.

You’d have to change the last part to the army made them do it though. This is “the general consensus” I see from LDS on MMM, same as you see here on JS. If it’s justification coming from people here it’s justification coming from you.