LDS Church's essay on past violence

[Sabacthani]

with the added plot of a cover up from the highest leader. … You do realize the essay left out Young’s attempt to keep a criminal investigation from occurring?

BY was trying to settle a war with the federal government. Tens of thousands of lives were at stake. Salt Lake City was set up to be torched at the last minute. Under those circumstances, a cover up was proper, until the peace could be secured.

It took two years, and only occurred when the Federal Government sent someone to do it.

Those two years saved lives. Brigham Young had worked very hard to end the war bloodlessly, and what he did was a remarkable achievement … essentially defeating 1/3 of the entire United States Army, without a single death on the battlefield. News about the horrible treachery and massacre and mountain meadows, 200 men, women and children butchered under flag of truce, if it had come out earlier, would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in the fighting with the army and in the mass evacuation of Salt Lake City during the winter. Some of the posters here are fairly glib and smug about mormon pioneers dying in the cold, but these are people, children of our Heavenly Father just like the poor Francher party.

You can believe, in my inquiry and conversion to Catholicism, I was on the lookout for manipulations, hidden history, agendas, doctrines and practices. If I had found any of them, I would have been gone. You’ll find many former LDS who feel strongly that they were manipulated, lied to and deceived by the LDS church. It is neither unreasonable or unfair, it is a fact of being LDS.

Classic well-poisoning. You’ve decided they are lying before you hear a word. That may be based on experience. It’s nevertheless unreasonable.

 

[TexanKnight]

BY was trying to settle a war with the federal government. Tens of thousands of lives were at stake. Salt Lake City was set up to be torched at the last minute. Under those circumstances, a cover up was proper, until the peace could be secured.

hmm…so, breaking the law was proper. Not surprising when a convicted con man founds your church. But the cover-up lasted a lot longer than the situation you claim justifies breaking the law.

Those two years saved lives. Brigham Young had worked very hard to end the war bloodlessly, and what he did was a remarkable achievement … essentially defeating 1/3 of the entire United States Army, without a single death on the battlefield. News about the horrible treachery and massacre and mountain meadows, 200 men, women and children butchered under flag of truce, if it had come out earlier, would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in the fighting with the army and in the mass evacuation of Salt Lake City during the winter. Some of the posters here are fairly glib and smug about mormon pioneers dying in the cold, but these are people, children of our Heavenly Father just like the poor Francher party.

He did not defeat anyone. Most Americans were against the President sending in troops. Had the Army chosen to wipe out the polygamists,it could have. Still, it did not justify the MMM. BY desecrating the monument at MM shows us his true character.

 

[Sabacthani]

Still, it did not justify the MMM.

Obviously, nothing could possibly justify the MMM.

I said that after the MMM occurred, temporarily suppressing information about the MMM was justified during the period in which Brigham Young was negotiating a peace treaty.

I never suggested that the MMM was justified, and I’m offended that you would suggest otherwise.

 

[TexanKnight]

Obviously, nothing could possibly justify the MMM.

I said that after the MMM occurred, temporarily suppressing information about the MMM was justified during the period in which Brigham Young was negotiating a peace treaty.

I never suggested that the MMM was justified, and I’m offended that you would suggest otherwise.

Be offended if you choose. Nothing justified it. Nothing justified the cover-up. Nothing justified the kidnappings. Nothing justified stacking the jury to assure acquittal, nothing justified desecrating the memorial. Nothing justified serving up only one true scape-goat. And nothing justified blaming the indians. Nothing justified the denials for decades.

If anyone should be offended, it is everyone else except the Mormons

 

[Sabacthani]

Be offended if you choose. …If anyone should be offended, it is everyone else except the Mormons

That response might make sense if I’d said that I was offended by your distorted ideas about the LDS church. What I said offended me was your misrepresentations of what I said.

I hope you don’t suppose that an atrocity committed by mormons 150 years ago does not justify or excuse one ex mormon lying about what another ex mormon said on this board.

Nothing justified stacking the jury to assure acquittal,

A jury of mormons found Lee guilty.

Scapegoat is one unhyphenated word, counselor.

 

[Sabacthani]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

The Roman Catholic Church affirms that genocide took place but states that those who took part in it did so without the permission of the Church. …** Some members of the clergy participated in the massacres. In 2006, Father Athanase Seromba was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for his role in the massacre of 2000 Tutsis. The court heard that Seromba lured the Tutsis to the church, where they believed they would find refuge. When they arrived, he ordered bulldozers to crush the refugees within and Hutu militias to kill any survivors**

Blaming the LDS church as a whole for the MMM would be like blaming the Catholic church for the Hutu massacre which was led by Father Seromba. An LDS bishop (like Lee) is the equivalent of a Catholic Parish priest in terms of general responsibility.

 

[Sabacthani]

The Father Athanase Seromba incident is quite similar to the Mountain Meadows Massacre incident:

-A backdrop of extreme violence along religious lines.
-A low level member of the clergy instigates and leads the atrocity.
-Numerous men, women, and children lured into a vulnerable situation, under the promise of protection.
-The instigating cleric acted without permission of the broader church hierarchy.

The differences:
*2000 innocents died when buldozed inside that church, compared to 200 innocents murdered at Mountain Meadows.
*This happened during our lifetimes.
*My guess is that none of you have heard of it before.
*you are probably going to want to change the subject.

Am I mistaken? If so, then by all means address this atrocity and show us how a proper church deals with this sort of incident.

 

[TexanKnight]

That response might make sense if I’d said that I was offended by your distorted ideas about the LDS church. What I said offended me was your misrepresentations of what I said.

You can choose to believe it was distorted.

I hope you don’t suppose that an atrocity committed by mormons 150 years ago does not justify or excuse one ex mormon lying about what another ex mormon said on this board.

I do not lie. But I understand your need to attack

A jury of mormons found Lee guilty.

Yes…on the THIRD trial after Young stacked the first two juries with mormons. And Lee was not the ONLY person involved.

Scapegoat is one unhyphenated word, counselor.

Yep. Unless, as in this instance, I was stressing goat.

when one has little else, they attack grammar. So, I thank you.

 

[TexanKnight]

The Father Athanase Seromba incident is quite similar to the Mountain Meadows Massacre incident:

-A backdrop of extreme violence along religious lines.
-A low level member of the clergy instigates and leads the atrocity.
-Numerous men, women, and children lured into a vulnerable situation, under the promise of protection.
-The instigating cleric acted without permission of the broader church hierarchy.

The differences:
*2000 innocents died when buldozed inside that church, compared to 200 innocents murdered at Mountain Meadows.
*This happened during our lifetimes.
*My guess is that none of you have heard of it before.
*you are probably going to want to change the subject.

Am I mistaken? If so, then by all means address this atrocity and show us how a proper church deals with this sort of incident.

lol…I can see how someone like you could compare the actions in a civil war in Africa to what BY ordered against peaceful travelers in this country.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Father Athanase Seromba incident is quite similar to the Mountain Meadows Massacre incident:

-A backdrop of extreme violence along religious lines.
-A low level member of the clergy instigates and leads the atrocity.
-Numerous men, women, and children lured into a vulnerable situation, under the promise of protection.
-The instigating cleric acted without permission of the broader church hierarchy.

The differences:
*2000 innocents died when buldozed inside that church, compared to 200 innocents murdered at Mountain Meadows.
*This happened during our lifetimes.
*My guess is that none of you have heard of it before.
*you are probably going to want to change the subject.

Am I mistaken? If so, then by all means address this atrocity and show us how a proper church deals with this sort of incident.

You are missing the point, which isn’t “who has the worst atrocities”. The point is, the LDS Church hides it’s less than stellar history from its own members. The string of essays that the LDS Church is putting out is a step forward, but apparently being transparent about history is not something LDS leaders are prepared to do yet.

What is your point in posting a current event?

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Blaming the LDS church as a whole for the MMM would be like blaming the Catholic church for the Hutu massacre which was led by Father Seromba. An LDS bishop (like Lee) is the equivalent of a Catholic Parish priest in terms of general responsibility.

That’s a fairly good parallel, although I confess that I’d never even heard of the Rwanda bulldozer incident before.

American historians refer to “Buchanan’s blunder” as “the Utah War” although there’s another Incident in Missouri that was called the Mormon War. Like other pogroms in Kansas and in Missouri, and like the John Brown incident at Harper’s Ferry, It was all part of the warm-up for what we call “The Civil War.” So as TexasKnight accidentally pointed out, the facts that it was (1) an event that happened during a civil war and (2) in a relatively new country that was undergoing post-colonial violence are also direct correspondence items between the Rwanda priestly bulldozer incident and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

. The point is, the LDS Church hides it’s less than stellar history from its own members.

If you’re saying a church has an obligation to discuss atrocities committed by junior church leaders, then Sabactani’s analogy is on point. Are you not holding the LDS church to a higher standard than you hold your own church? Or am I mistaken to assume that you didn’t hear about the Rwanda bulldozer incident in RCIA?

but apparently being transparent about history is not something LDS leaders are prepared to do yet.

Then please show us a better example. How is Catholicism being transparent about the Rwanda event? Please link me.

What I see so far from you and TexanKnight is sweeping it under the table. TK actually “LoLs” about 2000 “Africans” being lured with promises of safety to a church and then murdered there. After all they are just Africans so it doesn’t matter. Nothing to see, folks; move on.

You dismiss it as a “current event.” Um, no. We’re talking nearly 20 years ago. Rwanda is now one of Africa’s most successful democracies.

Rebecca, do you buy TK’s conspiracy theory that BY masterminded the attack at Mountain Meadows? Do you realize that SLC to Cedar City was ten days travel by horse? Did BY have the prophetic equivalent of a cell phone?

 

[TexanKnight]

That’s a fairly good parallel, although I confess that I’d never even heard of the Rwanda bulldozer incident before.

American historians refer to “Buchanan’s blunder” as “the Utah War” although there’s another Incident in Missouri that was called the Mormon War. Like other pogroms in Kansas and in Missouri, and like the John Brown incident at Harper’s Ferry, It was all part of the warm-up for what we call “The Civil War.” So as TexasKnight accidentally pointed out, the facts that it was (1) an event that happened during a civil war and (2) in a relatively new country that was undergoing post-colonial violence are also direct correspondence items between the Rwanda priestly bulldozer incident and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

lol…accidentally? Not hardly. But, i appreciate the attack. Makes me know I am hitting my points.

But, again, a civil war in Africa has little to do with an attack on a peaceful party that Mormon then kidnapped the children and blamed the indians, destroyed memorials and lied about the incident. Yep…nothing similar.

If you’re saying a church has an obligation to discuss atrocities committed by junior church leaders, then Sabactani’s analogy is on point. Are you not holding the LDS church to a higher standard than you hold your own church? Or am I mistaken to assume that you didn’t hear about the Rwanda bulldozer incident in RCIA?

I apologize. I thought this was a thread a thread on Mormons, not Catholics. Let me check…I was certain I could read.

Yep…it IS about Mormons!..not about deflecting to Catholics and African civil wars! Whew…I was worried for a minute…

What I see so far from you and TexanKnight is sweeping it under the table. TK actually “LoLs” about 2000 “Africans” being lured with promises of safety to a church and then murdered there. After all they are just Africans so it doesn’t matter. Nothing to see, folks; move on.

lol…you are so cute, little buckaroo!! All the intelligent folks knew I was “lol” about the weird comparison that did not address the thread. Bess your heart!

Rebecca, do you buy TK’s conspiracy theory that BY masterminded the attack at Mountain Meadows? Do you realize that SLC to Cedar City was ten days travel by horse? Did BY have the prophetic equivalent of a cell phone?

Do YOU realize that BY had already made his wishes known? Were you not aware that the founder of the Adam-God theory who told us all that God had actual sex with Mary had already made the pronouncement and that nothing happened in Mormondom without his approval?

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

Were you not aware that the founder of the Adam-God theory who told us all that God had actual sex with Mary had already made the pronouncement and that nothing happened in Mormondom without his approval?

Your question as formulated is a Loaded Question Fallacy. A question which cannot be answered directly without assuming a false premise. If I say yes or no, either implies that I agree with your ridiculous black helicopter theory that BY orchestrated a mass-murder for which he had neither motive nor opportunity. Even if we grant your magical world view that Brigham Young had godlike control over every sparrow’s fall in Utah, the fact is he was going out of his way to fight a bloodless war with the United States. The very last thing he wanted was to get a bunch of innocent settlers murdered and get the Yankee and Southern press calling for Mormon blood.

I am aware of BY’s funky ideas. Thank heavens, literally, that Orson Pratt and other apostles stood firm against them, so they never passed into doctrine. You left out blood atonement, btw. What sort of anti are you to leave out Blood Atonement? That’s the least Christian of Brother Brigham’s pet theories which the Quorum of Twelve rejected.

 

[TexanKnight]

Your question as formulated is a Loaded Question Fallacy. A question which cannot be answered directly without assuming a false premise. If I say yes or no, either implies that I agree with your ridiculous black helicopter theory that BY orchestrated a mass-murder for which he had neither motive nor opportunity. Even if we grant your magical world view that Brigham Young had godlike control over every sparrow’s fall in Utah, the fact is he was going out of his way to fight a bloodless war with the United States. The very last thing he wanted was to get a bunch of innocent settlers murdered and get the Yankee and Southern press calling for Mormon blood.

I am aware of BY’s funky ideas. Thank heavens, literally, that Orson Pratt and other apostles stood firm against them, so they never passed into doctrine. You left out blood atonement, btw. What sort of anti are you to leave out Blood Atonement? That’s the least Christian of Brother Brigham’s pet theories which the Quorum of Twelve rejected.

I see. You think BY was a liar when he said what he taught was doctrine.’

I do not blame you. Sadly…it WAS doctrine because BY, the “prophet” said it was. and who are you or I to disagree with a “prophet” of God who has such anti-Godly teachings?

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

weird comparison that did not address the thread.

Really?

Rebecca argued that the LDS church explanation was unsatisfactory because it gave the context of civil war (the Utah war) and the horrid violence that was the norm west of the Mississippi.

In response to Sabactani’s analogy, you argue that the violence is just to be expected because (1) it’s during a civil war and (2) in Africa.

If the analogy wasn’t on point when Sabactani made it, you knocked it into point. Why would it be “bad” for the LDS PR gurus to point out the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in the Wild West explained but did not excuse the violence, but OK for you to dismiss the Rwanda church massacre because of the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in Africa?

I smell a double standard.

 

[TexanKnight]

Really?

Rebecca argued that the LDS church explanation was unsatisfactory because it gave the context of civil war (the Utah war) and the horrid violence that was the norm west of the Mississippi.

In response to Sabactani’s analogy, you argue that the violence is just to be expected because (1) it’s during a civil war and (2) in Africa.

If the analogy wasn’t on point when Sabactani made it, you knocked it into point. Why would it be “bad” for the LDS PR gurus to point out the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in the Wild West explained but did not excuse the violence, but OK for you to dismiss the Rwanda church massacre because of the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in Africa?

I smell a double standard.

of course you do…it is always easier to smell and deflect when faced with the fact your church is a false one. Its ok. I was like you when i was LDS

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

I see. You think BY was a liar when he said what he taught was doctrine.’

No. I think he was wrong, and very sloppy when it came to doctrine and church procedure. His whole ban on blacks having the priesthood based on what he called “common sense” demonstrated his basic disregard for church procedure. His arrogance over that and other issues cost the church dearly. (he actually wrote a letter to the US congress telling them to kiss his … hindquarters.) On the other hand, his brilliant handling of the Utah war saved thousands of lives on both sides. He was a great man, but a flawed man. Like Joseph Smith, Like Moses, like Peter.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

of course you do…it is always easier to smell and deflect when faced with the fact your church is a false one. Its ok. I was like you when i was LDS

Nice Dodge.

Let’s try it again:

Rebecca argued that the LDS church explanation was unsatisfactory because it gave the context of civil war (the Utah war) and the horrid violence that was the norm west of the Mississippi.

In response to Sabactani’s analogy, you argue that the violence is just to be expected because (1) it’s during a civil war and (2) in Africa.

If the analogy wasn’t on point when Sabactani made it, you knocked it into point. Why would it be “bad” for the LDS PR gurus to point out the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in the Wild West explained but did not excuse the violence, but OK for you to dismiss the Rwanda church massacre because of the context of (1) civil war and (2) location in Africa?

 

[TexanKnight]

Nice Dodge.

Let’s try it again:

Not a dodge. This is a thread about LDS violence. Start your own thread.

In the meantime, while you think BY was lying…

January 2, 1870, Brigham said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95). Brigham would repeat this again in October of the same year (Journal of Discourses 13:264).

It was doctrine.

Now, I look forward to your new thread on whatever topic you wish…please stick to the theme of THIS one.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

TexasKnight:

You think BY was a liar when he said what he taught was doctrine.’

Nebuchanezzzzzz:

No. I think he was wrong,

TexasKnight:

In the meantime, while you think BY was lying…

Now I think you are lying about what I said.

TexasKnight:

This is a thread about LDS violence.

No. It was a thread about the LDS church essay about past violence.

You and Rebecca changed the topic to claim that the LDS church is whitewashing and making excuses. Someone else provided a story that runs very parallel to the MMM incident. You claimed it was irrelevant and I showed why it was relevant to Rebecca’s claims about making excuses and manipulating.

By Rebecca’s own standards, your arguments about the Rwanda incident are making excuses and manipulating.