The apologetic site for mormonism contains discussions on Mountain Meadows. It is entitled, ALL THINGS MMM or September Dawn. It has several threads. It can be found here:Every religion has bad episodes in their past where certain members did awful things in the name of their religion–and neither the Catholic Church nor the Mormon Church are exempt from this. The important question becomes whether these atrocities were directed from the highest levels of the church, and whether or not the church then proceeded to cover it up. In the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the question is whether or not Brigham Young was directly responsible for ordering the attack. There is considerable circumstantial evidence to indicate that he did in fact order the attack. Young ruled Utah with absolute power. In Utah, there was no difference between church and state. Brigham Young was the absolute leader of both, as was the case with all the early Mormon prophets.
Clearly the LDS church did cover up the massacre by blaming the Paiutes for what happened. This was a deliberate cover-up. Brigham Young did not fess up to the massacre, and even if he was not directly responsible, it would be idiotic to think he didn’t know that the local Mormons were the ones who perpetrated the attack. So in my mind, whether or not Young ordered the attack, his actions (or lack thereof) after the attack greatly calls into question his legitimacy as God’s true prophet on the earth.
Got any examples?why me;2812445]And I am sure that if you were to go in catholic history you may find that the catholic church was not that quick to own up to their mistakes or atrocities
As time goes on, memories and history seems to fade into the wind and become less threatening. Now catholics can see their atrocities as products of distant history but for mormons the history contained in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was too soon to adjust to.
Yeah, but earlier the LDS church successfully convinced a studio to not produce a movie about ‘Mountain Meadows’ . It still shamefully gives a distorted version of what happened in Missouri.And it is there that you have the difference
If one is telling the truth, there is nothing to “adjust”.And I am sure that if you were to go in catholic history you may find that the catholic church was not that quick to own up to their mistakes or atrocities. As time goes on, memories and history seems to fade into the wind and become less threatening. Now catholics can see their atrocities as products of distant history but for mormons the history contained in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was too soon to adjust to.
And it is there that you have the difference.
Yeah said:I’m confused. Are you saying that MMM happened in Missouri, cause it happened in Utah. There were other things that happened in Missouri, and if that’s what you were talking about forgive me, but I had to correct.
Now. Earlier points. The whole thing about Brigham Young ordering the attack. I do believe that the evidence shows that he did not. He sent a letter saying to let them go peacefully. He did not want an attack to stain the church’s history. Sadly. It happened anyways. The natural man is an enemy to God. It’s hard to let go of the world and be perfect. Actually it’s not possible, except through the atonement of Christ.
Next point. Young ruled Utah, I believe is what was pretty much said. True. But look at many pasts in America. The colonies. Were they not led by their religious rulers? Many people criticize the LDS because people think that the leaders have too much power and that they brainwash the members. This is wrong. Yes he was the religious leader. Yes he was the state leader, but who else was going to be the leader at that time? Who else was in Utah to lead it? Young allowed appointed statesmen to come when the President sent them. Although they were awful to the LDS and abused their power, Young saw that the countries government gave them the right to be there and to be political leaders. So yes and no. Young did have leadership positions, but he did not abuse them. He did not have complete and utter control that he would have to be responsible for the MMM. That’s like saying the President is responsible for every murder that happens in the US. That’s just not reasonable.
How many leaders enjoy saying that someone in their group was wrong? Young is the same. Especially because people were trying to find any reason to attack the mormons. People sought out a reason to attack them, even if those reasons were unjustified or unreasonable. If you were a leader of a prosecuted people, would you give your enemies to attack? I think not. So no he did not admit to it. He did try to hide it. But it wasn’t saying that he agreed to it. It wasn’t saying that it was right. It was protecting his people from a dangerous situation. It’s called tactics.
I think you will find that the mormons who truly know their faith and follow their religion know about some of the shady things in the past. They will not deny them. They will say that it was members, not the church that did it. They will say that no matter what the members do, the church would never condone something like that. They will tell you that it is wrong and they will say that it happened because of some mormons, but they will never tell you that it is right and that is what they believe.
Also, of course the leaders would want to stop a movie being made. It would most likely make it wrong. Hi-lighting the worst parts and making it a very biased view of what happened. Most tales of mormons have been exagerated to the point where it could almost be a lie with bits of truth thrown in. Mormons are still persecuted for things that happened a hundred years ago. Things that are no longer practiced of followed are used to condemn them. Why wouldn’t the leaders want a movie created that could possibly be biased and wrong stopped? Why wouldn’t they want to protect people from hatred and hurt?
Nov 12, '06, 2:17 pm Posts: 1,236They may not be killed and raped like in past times, but living in the Bible belt, I have found that people will seek out opportunities to attack me because of my faith. I have been told that I do not understand my religion and that I do not practice it because I cut my hair and watch TV. I have been told that I’m going to Hell for worshiping the devil. I know others who have not gotten jobs or positions in school because they are LDS. It is no longer a physical persecution, it is all emotion and mental. This summer I went to Palmyra NY. This is a very significant place in my church’s history. While there I had multiple people of anti-mormon groups come up to me and tell me that I was going to Hell and that I needed to repent. When I asked them what I had to do to be saved, most of the time the answer was to accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Whenever I told people I did, they would tell me that I was lying and that I didn’t truly believe. If this isn’t a form of persecution, I don’t know what is.
I don’t know what exactly you are hoping to achieve by repeating my posts; but in case you, or anyone else should have any doubts, let me assure you that I stand by every word that I have said, and have no regrets abut saying them, and I don’t intend to apologize for saying them. They are appropriate responses to the messages to which they were given, which you have conveniently omitted.Nov 12, '06, 2:17 pm Posts: 1,236
And let me state for you that if you reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and the divine messege he received from God, and do not repent of it in this life, you will be damned.
zerinus
Oct 11, '07, 3:17 pm Posts: 1,627
Historical Christianity is apostate. It apostatized centuries ago, as prophesied in the Bible. It has no legitimate priesthood. It has corrupted and perverted the true doctrines and practices of Christianity, as taught in the Bible and in the early Christian church. It is a corrupt and dead religion, without any form of ecclesiastical legitimacy in the sight of God. Hence the LDS Church is the only true Christian Church in the world at the present time.
zerinus
I think it is worth adding a little to this statement. Our salvation is not dependent on accepting a man as a prophet or even Jesus as the Christ in this life (according to LDS doctrine). Otherwise, there would be no purpose for the temple rites, which are meant for those who have gone on without a full knowledge and acceptance of what the LDS church states is truth.Nov 12, '06, 2:17 pm Posts: 1,236
And let me state for you that if you reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and the divine messege he received from God, and do not repent of it in this life, you will be damned.
zerinus
These are statements from and LDS viewpoint. They cannot be proved as fact through cold hard data. Hence, from a perspective of historical research, which I think at least this area of the board relies heavily on, these statements are little more than opinion.Oct 11, '07, 3:17 pm Posts: 1,627
Historical Christianity is apostate. It apostatized centuries ago, as prophesied in the Bible. It has no legitimate priesthood. It has corrupted and perverted the true doctrines and practices of Christianity, as taught in the Bible and in the early Christian church. It is a corrupt and dead religion, without any form of ecclesiastical legitimacy in the sight of God. Hence the LDS Church is the only true Christian Church in the world at the present time.
zerinus
It is clear, in my view, that Joseph Smith behaved in classic philosopher king fashion, and that the Mormon “faithful history” policy discloses a group of modern philosopher kings who feel justified in telling pious lies. “Faithful history” is a form of Mormon censorship. It suppresses all information that does not encourage Mormons to be more obedient to current Mormon leaders. Hence, facts that strongly suggest Smith and other Mormon leaders are not trustworthy are airbrushed out of Mormon consciousness.mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htmI think it is worth adding a little to this statement. Our salvation is not dependent on accepting a man as a prophet or even Jesus as the Christ in this life (according to LDS doctrine). Otherwise, there would be no purpose for the temple rites, which are meant for those who have gone on without a full knowledge and acceptance of what the LDS church states is truth.
That being said, if someone like myself comes to the conclusion that Joseph Smith, Jr. is perhaps not a prophet after all, based on the incomplete data that exists on earth, I cannot be condemned if in fact, he is truly called of God. My reasoning for this is that without a full understanding of all the details, I may not come to a complete knowledge of truth. The same goes for believing in Catholicism. A man can hardly get every single little detail in his life. All we can do is pray about it and follow our conscience or the holy spirit or the holy ghost - whatever it is that may be our guiding force. Only in the end are we truly judged, when we have full knowledge before our eyes and can make a complete decision. That is the LDS doctrine, and I know I’m not including scripture, but if someone else wants to back it up with scripture, feel free.
These are statements from and LDS viewpoint. They cannot be proved as fact through cold hard data. Hence, from a perspective of historical research, which I think at least this area of the board relies heavily on, these statements are little more than opinion.
That being said, I don’t mean to steal zerinus’ thunder. If you really want to know for yourself, pray about it, or do research. I would suggest both. My personal opinion is that even if we pray and receive a direct answer, it’s often possible to mistake our own strong feelings as revelation from God. Thus, there are two voices that can be going in our minds, and we are likely to chose the one that cries out strongest. Thus, it can be difficult in this life to come to an absolute certainty about anything, whether it be the atrocities of our past, current policies or church affairs, and so on.
I hope that my statements have made sense. I’ve tried to write from a perspective that both LDS and Catholic members can understand, appreciate, and agree with. I’m not trying to combine aspects of both faiths here. I’m merely trying to write in a way that will allow either party to understand the other and become more tolerant of our differing viewpoints.
I wouldn’t put too much into what these type of people are doing or saying. They don’t just target mormons, they target anyone who doesn’t believe exactly the same as they do.They may not be killed and raped like in past times, but living in the Bible belt, I have found that people will seek out opportunities to attack me because of my faith. I have been told that I do not understand my religion and that I do not practice it because I cut my hair and watch TV. I have been told that I’m going to Hell for worshiping the devil. I know others who have not gotten jobs or positions in school because they are LDS. It is no longer a physical persecution, it is all emotion and mental. This summer I went to Palmyra NY. This is a very significant place in my church’s history. While there I had multiple people of anti-mormon groups come up to me and tell me that I was going to Hell and that I needed to repent. When I asked them what I had to do to be saved, most of the time the answer was to accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Whenever I told people I did, they would tell me that I was lying and that I didn’t truly believe. If this isn’t a form of persecution, I don’t know what is.
His story is pretty close to mine, though I’ve never been even close to being bishop, seeing as I’m only 20 years old right now. Sometimes I wish my experience would have happened a bit later in life, when I might have a bit more authority and expertise relating to church authoritative powers. I suppose it’s still possible that I might attain those positions as I’m still an active member (though some members might call me disillusioned or something to that effect). I doubt it though, as I am not temple-going and I don’t agree with certain points of LDS doctrine and “official history.”It is clear, in my view, that Joseph Smith behaved in classic philosopher king fashion, and that the Mormon “faithful history” policy discloses a group of modern philosopher kings who feel justified in telling pious lies. “Faithful history” is a form of Mormon censorship. It suppresses all information that does not encourage Mormons to be more obedient to current Mormon leaders. Hence, facts that strongly suggest Smith and other Mormon leaders are not trustworthy are airbrushed out of Mormon consciousness.mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm
Former Mormon bishop explains the collapse of his faith
McCue said, “I read Mormon history as the professional historians write it, and realized that my religious leaders had misled me as to how Mormonism started, and [recognized]&a pattern of Mormon leadership deception [that] goes back to Mormonism’s beginnings with Joseph Smith.”
“The suppressed aspects of Mormon history that most troubled me indicated many instances in which Mormon leaders have deceived both their followers and the public about important matters. Joseph Smith was the worst in this regard. His tendency to exaggerate or lie when in a tight spot bears a striking resemblance to the practices of shady stock promoters I have on occasion met relative to my legal practice,” the attorney stated.
“Mormon leaders at the local level are sincere and generally unaware of the issues I had raised,” said McCue. And he says that though he is critical of LDS leaders he knows they can be “genuinely loving.” “They believe God’s will requires that they mislead their followers,” he explained.
rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon164.html
Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine,
mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
A classic example, and oft-quoted statement by both LDS and “anti-Mormons” is D&C 132: 60, which states, “Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.”
Let’s break this down and analyze the different parts of this quotation/scripture. “Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph;” is pretty straightforward. In otherwords, don’t argue with the prophet
613 Mitzvot
Laws of Rebels include nine commandments, three positive commandments and six negative commandments, which are: (1) to act according to the Torah as the Great Rabbinical Court declares it; (2) not to deviate from their words; (3) not to add to the Torah either in the commandments of the Written Law or in the interpretation that we have learned from tradition; (4) not to take away from either of them; (5) not to curse one’s father or mother; (6) not to strike one’s father or mother; (7) to honor one’s father and mother; (8) to fear one’s father and mother; (9) that a son shall not be stubborn and rebellious against the voice of his father and mother.
mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/613.htm
Public revelation is binding on all Christians, but private revelation is binding only on those who receive it. The Catholic Church teaches that public revelation was completed, and therefore was concluded, with the death of the last apostle (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 4), but private revelation has continued.
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.
Since the Church herself has no providential protection in the area of private revelations, the bishop could be in error. We are not obliged to believe him, or even the Pope himself in such a case
catholic.com/library/private_revelation.asp
Joseph indeed is not a perfect human being,
Got That right couldn’t even get Christs Birthplace Right
What you’ve described here is disagreement, not persecution.They may not be killed and raped like in past times, but living in the Bible belt, I have found that people will seek out opportunities to attack me because of my faith. I have been told that I do not understand my religion and that I do not practice it because I cut my hair and watch TV. I have been told that I’m going to Hell for worshiping the devil. I know others who have not gotten jobs or positions in school because they are LDS. It is no longer a physical persecution, it is all emotion and mental. This summer I went to Palmyra NY. This is a very significant place in my church’s history. While there I had multiple people of anti-mormon groups come up to me and tell me that I was going to Hell and that I needed to repent. When I asked them what I had to do to be saved, most of the time the answer was to accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Whenever I told people I did, they would tell me that I was lying and that I didn’t truly believe. If this isn’t a form of persecution, I don’t know what is.
If you had read what I had responded to, you’d understand why I was referring to incidents in Missouri. The LDS church, as well as Restorationists of other strains, still hasn’t accepted its share of responsibilty for the 1838 war. As far as justifying the opposition to a making of a movie about Mountain Meadows, your argument is pure speculation and reeks of a persecution complex(just as your argument excusing BY for covering up Mountain Meadows). There is no proof that the movie would have been wrong or biased. I think that the LDS church opposed the movie because it was afraid of the truth.I’m confused. Are you saying that MMM happened in Missouri, cause it happened in Utah. There were other things that happened in Missouri, and if that’s what you were talking about forgive me, but I had to correct.
Now. Earlier points. The whole thing about Brigham Young ordering the attack. I do believe that the evidence shows that he did not. He sent a letter saying to let them go peacefully. He did not want an attack to stain the church’s history. Sadly. It happened anyways. The natural man is an enemy to God. It’s hard to let go of the world and be perfect. Actually it’s not possible, except through the atonement of Christ.
Next point. Young ruled Utah, I believe is what was pretty much said. True. But look at many pasts in America. The colonies. Were they not led by their religious rulers? Many people criticize the LDS because people think that the leaders have too much power and that they brainwash the members. This is wrong. Yes he was the religious leader. Yes he was the state leader, but who else was going to be the leader at that time? Who else was in Utah to lead it? Young allowed appointed statesmen to come when the President sent them. Although they were awful to the LDS and abused their power, Young saw that the countries government gave them the right to be there and to be political leaders. So yes and no. Young did have leadership positions, but he did not abuse them. He did not have complete and utter control that he would have to be responsible for the MMM. That’s like saying the President is responsible for every murder that happens in the US. That’s just not reasonable.
How many leaders enjoy saying that someone in their group was wrong? Young is the same. Especially because people were trying to find any reason to attack the mormons. People sought out a reason to attack them, even if those reasons were unjustified or unreasonable. If you were a leader of a prosecuted people, would you give your enemies to attack? I think not. So no he did not admit to it. He did try to hide it. But it wasn’t saying that he agreed to it. It wasn’t saying that it was right. It was protecting his people from a dangerous situation. It’s called tactics.
I think you will find that the mormons who truly know their faith and follow their religion know about some of the shady things in the past. They will not deny them. They will say that it was members, not the church that did it. They will say that no matter what the members do, the church would never condone something like that. They will tell you that it is wrong and they will say that it happened because of some mormons, but they will never tell you that it is right and that is what they believe.
Also, of course the leaders would want to stop a movie being made. It would most likely make it wrong. Hi-lighting the worst parts and making it a very biased view of what happened. Most tales of mormons have been exagerated to the point where it could almost be a lie with bits of truth thrown in. Mormons are still persecuted for things that happened a hundred years ago. Things that are no longer practiced of followed are used to condemn them. Why wouldn’t the leaders want a movie created that could possibly be biased and wrong stopped? Why wouldn’t they want to protect people from hatred and hurt?
Oh, please. This is not persecution, no more than the LDS missies coming to my door is religious persecution. It’s just people exercising their right of free speech to express on opinion. Big deal.They may not be killed and raped like in past times, but living in the Bible belt, I have found that people will seek out opportunities to attack me because of my faith. I have been told that I do not understand my religion and that I do not practice it because I cut my hair and watch TV. I have been told that I’m going to Hell for worshiping the devil. I know others who have not gotten jobs or positions in school because they are LDS. It is no longer a physical persecution, it is all emotion and mental. This summer I went to Palmyra NY. This is a very significant place in my church’s history. While there I had multiple people of anti-mormon groups come up to me and tell me that I was going to Hell and that I needed to repent. When I asked them what I had to do to be saved, most of the time the answer was to accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Whenever I told people I did, they would tell me that I was lying and that I didn’t truly believe. If this isn’t a form of persecution, I don’t know what is.
This is hard to believe since the lds conception of hell does not resemble this statement. Hell in the lds sense is reserved for very few people and certainly not for people of other faiths. Hell, or sons of perdition is reserved for those who had experiences up close with god and who have now denied those experiences. Mormon General Authorities come to mind if they would become apostate.I wouldn’t put too much into what these type of people are doing or saying. They don’t just target mormons, they target anyone who doesn’t believe exactly the same as they do.
I live in Utah. I have been told by LDS that I am going to hell for not raising my daughter “in the church”.
Well why me, would it help if I translated hell to outer darkness for you?This is hard to believe since the lds conception of hell does not resemble this statement. Hell in the lds sense is reserved for very few people and certainly not for people of other faiths. Hell, or sons of perdition is reserved for those who had experiences up close with god and who have now denied those experiences. Mormon General Authorities come to mind if they would become apostate.
True, but in in Utah, there is the big problem of a “holier-than-thou-art” attitude coming from people who don’t really live or understand their own faith. I don’t see how it’s hard to believe. I’ve also been taught in the church that hell is not so much a place as it is a state of mind. In otherwords, hell is merely feeling terrible about your transgressions and sins. With this concept, the church doesn’t really place a time frame. Those who go through this sort of hell eventually attain their kingdom. Even Joseph Smith will go through a bit of hell for his sins.This is hard to believe since the lds conception of hell does not resemble this statement. Hell in the lds sense is reserved for very few people and certainly not for people of other faiths. Hell, or sons of perdition is reserved for those who had experiences up close with god and who have now denied those experiences. Mormon General Authorities come to mind if they would become apostate.