LDS Church's essay on past violence

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture”

Well he was wrong about that, too. If that statement had been canonized you might have a point, but it wasn’t, so you don’t.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

For the “The Mormon church works to hide it’s history” folks here:

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints

Danites, Blood Atonement, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, among others. I learned some details I didn’t know before.

So TexasKnight, the topic isn’t “mormon violence.” It’s whether the LDS church works to hid it’s history. Rebecca claimed that by providing the context of a civil war and the wild west, that LDS historians were still “manipulating” and “making excuses” in order to hide the history. Someone else posted a wiki history article showing a parallel incident, and you dismissed it because of context of a civil war and in Africa.

Do you have any other arguments against your own position?

 

[TexanKnight]

Well he was wrong about that, too. If that statement had been canonized you might have a point, but it wasn’t, so you don’t.

Ah. So you think by was lying again.

Handy when your alleged prophets teach false doctrine that you can later disown them.

Now about that essay…

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

Ah. So you think by was lying again.

Handy when your alleged prophets teach false doctrine that you can later disown them.

No. He wasn’t lying, just wrong.

I don’t disown him; I disown all non-canonized statements by JS and BY and every other dead prophet. Hearsay isn’t scripture.

The process of canonizing claimed statements by a prophet is roughly analogous to the Catholic process of canonizing a saint … a process which as I recall also involves three major steps.

Even the Bible makes clear that Moses and Peter both some times acted and spoke in manners which God did not approve of. Paul boasts at one point of rebuking Peter “before them all” regarding his bigoted treatment of gentile early day saints.

If your church still enjoyed the privilege of public revelation, you would have developed a similar process for sorting the genuine revelation from opinion and garbage.

If you found a grocery list definitively written by the Apostle Peter, would that be scripture? Would you expand the New Testament to create a fourth Epistle of Peter that read: 1 measure of wheat, a rack of goat ribs, and an amphora of olive oil?

Your church went through a very intense process to sort through the 400+ documents proclaiming to be scripture, and chose the documents that we now know as the New Testament. I’m amazed and grateful for the intense work that went into that. How many man-hours, studying and praying and discussing all of that putative holy writ … I think it’s sad that you as a supposed Catholic don’t remember or recognize the time and work that went into that process.

Now about that essay…

“…”?

Is that all you have to say on the original thread topic? Don’t tease, TexanKnight! If you have something relevant to say, then say it! Don’t blame me for responding to what you and Rebecca have said on this thread!

 

[TexanKnight]

No. He wasn’t lying, just wrong.

I don’t disown him; I disown all non-canonized statements by JS and BY and every other dead prophet. Hearsay isn’t scripture.

The process of canonizing claimed statements by a prophet is roughly analogous to the Catholic process of canonizing a saint … a process which as I recall also involves three major steps.

Even the Bible makes clear that Moses and Peter both some times acted and spoke in manners which God did not approve of. Paul boasts at one point of rebuking Peter “before them all” regarding his bigoted treatment of gentile early day saints.

If your church still enjoyed the privilege of public revelation, you would have developed a similar process for sorting the genuine revelation from opinion and garbage.

If you found a grocery list definitively written by the Apostle Peter, would that be scripture? Would you expand the New Testament to create a fourth Epistle of Peter that read: 1 measure of wheat, a rack of goat ribs, and an amphora of olive oil?

Your church went through a very intense process to sort through the 400+ documents proclaiming to be scripture, and chose the documents that we now know as the New Testament. I’m amazed and grateful for the intense work that went into that. How many man-hours, studying and praying and discussing all of that putative holy writ … I think it’s sad that you as a supposed Catholic don’t remember or recognize the time and work that went into that process.

“…”?

Is that all you have to say on the original thread topic? Don’t tease, TexanKnight! If you have something relevant to say, then say it! Don’t blame me for responding to what you and Rebecca have said on this thread!

Any alleged prophet that wrong so often about teachings and doctrine is no prophet

Thank you for clearing that up

Now, about that essay.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

Any alleged prophet that wrong so often about teachings and doctrine is no prophet

That’s a strangely mormon assumption. Not all prophets focus on teachings and doctrine. There are prophesies that have nothing to do with spiritual doctrines. I think what you meant was “seer” but BY himself admitted he wasn’t much of a seer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I actually have not made my mind up about BY’s involvement. I do believe he created an environment in the Utah territory, with his talk of blood vengeance, and fired up sermons, which led to his followers believing they were justified in violence. I believe the evidence is clear that he tried to protect the people who committed murder, for two years, and beyond into courts of law. And I too view Lee as a scapegoat.

As for Rwanda, it is a diversion. Like when discussing the problems with the Book of Mormon, Mormons ALWAYS divert to an attack of the Bible.

These tactics say to me that you are unable to defend the topics, and so divert to other topics.

And actually too, I read Catholic news. And of course it is horrific. I for one wouldn’t go down a path of blaming the circumstances. Why does this article on the MMM go down that path?

 

[TexanKnight]

That’s a strangely mormon assumption. Not all prophets focus on teachings and doctrine. There are prophesies that have nothing to do with spiritual doctrines. I think what you meant was “seer” but BY himself admitted he wasn’t much of a seer.

Doesn’t matter. God would never have one of His prophets confuse His people by having a prophet who is, by your admission, so wrong so often. It proves the church is not the true church and not led by true prophets of God.

You have proven my point extremely well. Either BY was wrong or he was lying. Either way, He was not a prophet of God.

 

[TexanKnight]

I actually have not made my mind up about BY’s involvement. I do believe he created an environment in the Utah territory, with his talk of blood vengeance, and fired up sermons, which led to his followers believing they were justified in violence. I believe the evidence is clear that he tried to protect the people who committed murder, for two years, and beyond into courts of law. And I too view Lee as a scapegoat.

As for Rwanda, it is a diversion. Like when discussing the problems with the Book of Mormon, Mormons ALWAYS divert to an attack of the Bible.

These tactics say to me that you are unable to defend the topics, and so divert to other topics.

And actually too, I read Catholic news. And of course it is horrific. I for one wouldn’t go down a path of blaming the circumstances. Why does this article on the MMM go down that path?

Exactly.

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

As for Rwanda, it is a diversion. Like when discussing the problems with the Book of Mormon, Mormons ALWAYS divert to an attack of the Bible.

Are you sure you’re not the one dodging?

What I see here is a problem with your analysis. If your analysis was good, then it should hold true to the Catholic Church and to the Bible as well as to the LDS church and to the Book of Mormon. It’s not an attack on the Bible or on the Catholic church to point out that your analysis fails to do justice to them.

You make up an argument: the lds church cannot be true because of x y and z. Mormon argues, but the Catholic church does x y and z too. You cry “you’re distracting from the argument by attacking us!”

You say a valid honest church must take responsibility for an incident like the MMM without offering historical information to put it into perspective. It’s therefore valid to ask how the Catholic church deals with an incident that’s incredibly similar to the MMM.

No, Rebecca. It’s a criticism of your argument.

Everything you and TK say here is to sweep the Rwanda incident under the rug, trivialize it as “African,” diminish Catholic responsibility. How is your conduct any different than BY’s?

And actually too, I read Catholic news. And of course it is horrific. I for one wouldn’t go down a path of blaming the circumstances. Why does this article on the MMM go down that path?
Exactly.

Um, TexanKnight, you DID blame the circumstances. You dismissed it because it was “during a civil war” (the MMM was as well!) and because it happened “in Africa.” Those are circumstances.

Furthermore the article itself says that the circumstances don’t justify what happened.

 

[TexanKnight]

Are you sure you’re not the one dodging?

What I see here is a problem with your analysis. If your analysis was good, then it should hold true to the Catholic Church and to the Bible as well as to the LDS church and to the Book of Mormon. It’s not an attack on the Bible or on the Catholic church to point out that your analysis fails to do justice to them.

You make up an argument: the lds church cannot be true because of x y and z. Mormon argues, but the Catholic church does x y and z too. You cry “you’re distracting from the argument by attacking us!”

You say a valid honest church must take responsibility for an incident like the MMM without offering historical information to put it into perspective. It’s therefore valid to ask how the Catholic church deals with an incident that’s incredibly similar to the MMM.

No, Rebecca. It’s a criticism of your argument.

Everything you and TK say here is to sweep the Rwanda incident under the rug, trivialize it as “African,” diminish Catholic responsibility. How is your conduct any different than BY’s?

Sweep under the rug? Please. There is no need for dishonesty here. I have invited…even encouraged…you to start your own on Rwanda. I have said you should remain true to THIS thread.

Though, frankly, your admission that BY taught false doctrine is enough to prove the LDS Church false.

Regardless, inviting you to start a thread on the issue is hardly sweeping it under the rug.

It is sad that Mormons feel the need to deflect in an effort to cover the fact they have no real answers.

Now…about that essay…

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

TK, your pattern of misrepresenting people’s arguments makes you the last person to argue about “dishonesty.”

nbcnews.com/id/16189347/ns/world_news-africa/t/ex-priest-gets-years-rwanda-genocide-case/#.U4Run3Z7SSo

The tribunal heard Seromba ordered the destruction of a church where more than 2,000 minority ethnic Tutsis were hiding from machete-wielding gangs of ethnic Hutu militia.

“It was further established beyond reasonable doubt that Seromba spoke to the driver of the bulldozer, encouraging and identifying when to start demolition of the parish and which parts of the parish were the weakest,” ICTR said in a statement.

After the roof of the building collapsed, witnesses said militiamen swarmed over the rubble to finish off the survivors.

Nuns also implicated
Although priests were among those murdered, survivors have reported numerous incidents in which Catholic priests and nuns took part in killings, encouraged their congregations to kill or colluded with gangs of killers in rounding up victims.

Some of the ugliest massacres were committed in churches, missions and parishes where Tutsis who took shelter were hunted down by Hutu militias. At least two other Catholic priests are facing charges in Arusha.

Ik.

So why did it take so long to bring him to justice? Rebecca complained about BY covering up 2 years for Lee.

ICTR said that at the time of his indictment Seromba worked, allegedly under a disguise, as a priest in two parishes in Florence, Italy.

Apparently some of his superiors thought he was worth hiding and saving. Maybe he just got caught up in the Civil War, like TexanKnight argued.
theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/21/rwanda.unitednations

According to prosecutors, Father Seromba paid for two bulldozers to raze the church and ordered death squads to clean the “rubbish”, meaning to bury the corpses. African Rights, an advocacy group which interviewed witnesses, said he led by example and shot Tutsis with a rifle.

It is claimed that the priest, swept up in the hate ideology of the extremist Hutu regime then running the central African country, encouraged terrified Tutsi parishioners to seek refuge in his church.

During previous times of tension churches were sanctuaries, but in 1994 some clerics and nuns collaborated with the security forces to turn them into killing zones.

A witness at Nyange, Jean-Bosco Safari, told African Rights: “It was like a scene from hell with the devil dressed as a priest that evening. A young girl begged Seromba to save her. He replied: ‘Get lost, cockroach.’”

The Roman Catholic church’s role in the genocide remains controversial, but a spokesman for the UN tribunal, Roland Amoussouga, told the Guardian it was Father Seromba - and not the church - who was on trial.

“He is the first Catholic priest to be charged here but it is about his own individual acts, not the church. We have to be very careful about that.”

I think that it’s entirely appropriate for the Church to defend its own name and to be careful to disclaim it’s involvement.

I do believe he created an environment in the Utah territory, with his talk of blood vengeance, and fired up sermons, which led to his followers believing they were justified in violence

Fair enough. As for setting the climate, here’s what the wiki article

After World War II, a Hutu emancipation movement began to grow in Rwanda,[32] fuelled by increasing resentment of the inter-war social reforms, and also an increasing sympathy for the Hutu within the Catholic Church.[33] Catholic missionaries increasingly viewed themselves as responsible for empowering the underprivileged Hutu rather than the Tutsi elite, leading rapidly to the formation of a sizeable Hutu clergy and educated elite that provided a new counterbalance to the established Tutsi political order.[33] The monarchy and prominent Tutsi sensed the growing influence of the Hutu and began to agitate for immediate independence on their own terms.[32] In 1957, a group of Hutu scholars wrote the “Bahutu Manifesto”. This was the first document to label the Tutsi and Hutu as separate races, and called for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu based on what it termed “statistical law”

In other words, overzealous liberation theology helped set the climate for genocide in Rwanda.

This analogy keeps getting better and better.

So if you’re saying that the OP article is still insufficient. then please show me how it’s supposed to be done. Link me to a Catholic Mea Culpa on Rwanda. Or a French one … the French government supported the Hutu genocidals as well because they saw it as an issue of French language vs English language.

 

[TexanKnight]

I do not misrepresent anything.

And I see you have no real desire to discuss Rwanda. You simply want to derail the thread on the LDS violence. If you truly wanted to discuss Rwanda, you would start a thread, as I have requested several times.

You do not wish to discuss the horrible MMM and other violence the LDS church tries to minimize and justify in the essay.

Though you have proven BY was a false prophet…and for that I thank you

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

You are wrong on all three counts. I have discussed the MMM and Rwanda, and see them as closely parallel incidents that inform each other. I’m eager to see if the Catholic church has presented a parallel article on Rwanda.

I didn’t say BY was a “false prophet”; I said he was a lousy theologian and that he himself said he was not much of a seer. He was however a brilliant tactitian. In terms of Book of Mormon prophets, BY was more like Gidgidoni than like Jacob. Ever notice that there wasn’t a book of Gidgidoni?

 

[Nebuchanezzzzzz]

Here’s a better article on the MMM:

lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng

Two facts make the case even more difficult to fathom. First, nothing that any of the emigrants purportedly did or said, even if all of it were true, came close to justifying their deaths. Second, the large majority of perpetrators led decent, nonviolent lives before and after the massacre.

It paints the betrayal and massacre in detailed and ugly terms:

On Friday, September 11, Lee entered the emigrant wagon fort under a white flag and somehow convinced the besieged emigrants to accept desperate terms. He said the militia would safely escort them past the Indians and back to Cedar City, but they must leave their possessions behind and give up their weapons, signaling their peaceful intentions to the Indians. The suspicious emigrants debated what to do but in the end accepted the terms, seeing no better alternative. They had been pinned down for days with little water, the wounded in their midst were dying, and they did not have enough ammunition to fend off even one more attack.

As directed, the youngest children and wounded left the wagon corral first, driven in two wagons, followed by women and children on foot. The men and older boys filed out last, each escorted by an armed militiaman. The procession marched for a mile or so until, at a prearranged signal, each militiaman turned and shot the emigrant next to him, while Indians rushed from their hiding place to attack the terrified women and children. Militiamen with the two front-running wagons murdered the wounded. Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—Nephi Johnson later maintained that his fellow militiamen did most of the killing.

 

[TexanKnight]

You are wrong on all three counts. I have discussed the MMM and Rwanda, and see them as closely parallel incidents that inform each other. I’m eager to see if the Catholic church has presented a parallel article on Rwanda.

I didn’t say BY was a “false prophet”; I said he was a lousy theologian and that he himself said he was not much of a seer. He was however a brilliant tactitian. In terms of Book of Mormon prophets, BY was more like Gidgidoni than like Jacob. Ever notice that there wasn’t a book of Gidgidoni?

I am not wrong. This thread is about an essay. YOu keep deflecting to Rwanda and I understand why.

As to your claim you did not say BY was a false prophet, that is true…you did not say those exact words. But, you claim he taught false doctrine. He was either wrong or he lied about God and about God’s teachings. That, by definition, is a false prophet.

Again…thank you.

I hope you can stop derailing. I keep looking for a thread on Rwanda…but you would rahter derail. Pity. understandable, but sad

and here is a pretty good article on MMM

salamandersociety.com/interviews/willbagley/

 

[Sabacthani]

As for Rwanda, it is a diversion. Like when discussing the problems with the Book of Mormon, Mormons ALWAYS divert to an attack of the Bible.

These tactics say to me that you are unable to defend the topics, and so divert to other topics.

When discussing their accusations against the book of mormon, anti-mormons always get upset when one tries to apply the anti-mormon standards and arguments to the Bible.

These tactics say to me that you are unable to back up your line of reasoning, and thus protest that examining your argument is a “diversion.”

But what does this diversion of yours have to do with the topic of the LDS church essay on past violence? The book of mormon has nothing to do with this topic. Like Tex always says, “the essay …” and then ends without saying anything about the essay.

 

[TexanKnight]

When discussing their accusations against the book of mormon, anti-mormons always get upset when one tries to apply the anti-mormon standards and arguments to the Bible.

These tactics say to me that you are unable to back up your line of reasoning, and thus protest that examining your argument is a “diversion.”

But what does this diversion of yours have to do with the topic of the LDS church essay on past violence? The book of mormon has nothing to do with this topic. Like Tex always says, “the essay …” and then ends without saying anything about the essay.

That is because I have already commented on the essay and there has been nothing more about the essay worth responding to…just LDS diversions.

I was wondering when you were gonna tag in. I see you had nothing nothing but further derailing to contribute.

Color me surprised…

 

[Sabacthani]

You are missing the point, which isn’t “who has the worst atrocities”.

If you think that’s what my point was, you are missing the point.

I didn’t choose Rwanda because your priest there killed ten times as many innocent men women and children as during the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

I chose it because the Rwanda bulldozed church incident is incredibly parallel to the exact hideous incidents of the MMM.

-A backdrop of extreme violence along religious lines.
-A low level member of the clergy instigates and leads the atrocity.
-Other clergy members are more distantly involved, and help the instigator escape punishment for a time, but eventually turn him over and denounce him.
-Numerous men, women, and children lured into a vulnerable situation, under the promise of protection, and then butchered.
-The instigating cleric acted without permission of the broader church hierarchy.
-However the church helped to “create the climate” in which the atrocity could occur. (Thanks, Rebeccca and Neb.)
-the church decries the instigator’s “individual act” but disclaims church responsibility. (As I think they should in both cases).

Rebecca, you say that the LDS church essay falls short of how you think a Christian religion should respond under these sort of circumstances. You are outraged that BY would protect Lee for two whole years.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican

There is a Roman Catholic priest at a medieval church an hour’s drive from Paris who has been indicted by a United Nations court for genocide, extermination, murder and rape in Rwanda.

Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was notorious during the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis for wearing a gun on his hip and colluding with the Hutu militia that murdered hundreds of people sheltering in his church. A Rwandan court convicted the priest of genocide and sentenced him in absentia to life in prison. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda spent years trying to bring him to trial.

But the Catholic church in France does not see any of this as a bar to serving as a priest and has gone out of its way to defend Munyeshyaka.

It’s not an isolated case. After the genocide, a network of clergy and church organisations brought priests and nuns with blood on their hands in Rwanda to Europe and sheltered them. They included Father Athanase Seromba who ordered the bulldozing of his church with 2,000 Tutsis inside and had the survivors shot. Catholic monks helped him get to Italy, change his name and become a parish priest in Florence.

After Seromba was exposed, the international tribunal’s chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, accused the Vatican of obstructing his extradition to face trial. The Holy See told her the priest was “doing good works” in Italy. Another Rwanda priest taken on in Italy is facing charges of overseeing the massacre of disabled Tutsi children.

The Vatican’s reluctance to confront the murderers in its midst is rooted in its refusal to face up to the church’s complicity in mass murder. But as Rwanda marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide, the time has come for Pope Francis to follow his own lead on paedophile priests and apologise for the part played by the clergy in turning churches into extermination centres. The Vatican should accompany a plea for forgiveness with a calling to account of priests complicit in the killing.

For two decades, the Vatican has maintained that, while individual clergy were guilty of terrible crimes, the church as an institution bears no responsibility. The Holy See would prefer the world to focus on the more than 200 priests and nuns killed in the genocide. But, while there is no doubt there were courageous members of the clergy, many Tutsi survivors regard the church as allied with the killers and culpability as beginning at the very top of the Catholic hierarchy in Rwanda.

Archbishop Vincent Nsengiyumva was so closely attached to the Hutu power structure that for nearly 15 years he sat in the ruling party’s central committee as it implemented the policies of discrimination and demonisation that laid the ground for genocide. His political affiliations left him well placed to at least try to urge the regime to stop the killing in 1994 and to have been a strong moral voice in public against the slaughter. Instead, he was incapable even of calling the massacres a genocide let alone condemning the politicians and military officers leading them. The archbishop became so compromised that witnesses said he stood by as Tutsi priests, monks and a nun were taken to be murdered.

I’m not taking The Guardian’s position here. I’m just saying that the tone here sounds a lot like your harsh judgment of Young and the modern LDS church for describing circumstances of anarchy and impending civil war in mitigation for an inexcusable atrocity. I’ve searched for the Catholic church account of the Rwanda situation, and can’t find anything. I hope you can help me. I could better understand your criticism if you can show me a positive example of how a Christian church leadership should respond to a horrible betrayal and atrocity like the MMM or like the Rwanda bulldozer event.

This isn’t about competition. Not for me at least. But your church has been around for 1700 years or so, therefore I look to y’all to provide me a positive example of the rules you’ve applied to judge the church of my fathers.

 

[zaffiroborant]

If you think that’s what my point was, you are missing the point.

I didn’t choose Rwanda because your priest there killed ten times as many innocent men women and children as during the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

I chose it because the Rwanda bulldozed church incident is incredibly parallel to the exact hideous incidents of the MMM.

-A backdrop of extreme violence along religious lines.
-A low level member of the clergy instigates and leads the atrocity.
-Other clergy members are more distantly involved, and help the instigator escape punishment for a time, but eventually turn him over and denounce him.
-Numerous men, women, and children lured into a vulnerable situation, under the promise of protection, and then butchered.
-The instigating cleric acted without permission of the broader church hierarchy.
-However the church helped to “create the climate” in which the atrocity could occur. (Thanks, Rebeccca and Neb.)
-the church decries the instigator’s “individual act” but disclaims church responsibility. (As I think they should in both cases).

Rebecca, you say that the LDS church essay falls short of how you think a Christian religion should respond under these sort of circumstances. You are outraged that BY would protect Lee for two whole years.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican

I’m not taking The Guardian’s position here. I’m just saying that the tone here sounds a lot like your harsh judgment of Young and the modern LDS church for describing circumstances of anarchy and impending civil war in mitigation for an inexcusable atrocity. I’ve searched for the Catholic church account of the Rwanda situation, and can’t find anything. I hope you can help me. I could better understand your criticism if you can show me a positive example of how a Christian church leadership should respond to a horrible betrayal and atrocity like the MMM or like the Rwanda bulldozer event.

This isn’t about competition. Not for me at least. But your church has been around for 1700 years or so, therefore I look to y’all to provide me a positive example of the rules you’ve applied to judge the church of my fathers.

Rwanda wasn’t about religion it was about ethnicity.