John D. Lee's reinstatement

[UfoTofu]

Hello all-

I fully understand the reasons behind John D. Lee's excommunication. I have a tough time comprehending the logic behind his posthumous reinstatement. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

[Vort]

Well, let's see. We do baptismal and other ordinance work for just about everyone. Why should we exclude John D. Lee?

[HiJolly]

Maybe you lack compassion?

HJ

[Just_A_Guy]

Lee's excommunication was probably in part due to some very harsh feeling against him. As time goes on, some of the bitterness fades and we become more willing to reinstate the formalities and leave his final judgment with the Lord.

[UfoTofu]

Thanks, Guy, for responding sans snippiness or preconceived notions about me.

These harsh feelings were no doubt linked to the atrocity he implemented on 9-11.

The fact that his excommunication can be overturned leaves me baffled. Reinstating a man like this leads me to believe that leaders in the Church aren't altogether against the order he gave on September the 11th.

What are your feelings? Should he have been reinstated? What sort of standing does this man REALLY have in the Church?

[Vort]

Reinstating a man like this leads me to believe that leaders in the Church aren't altogether against the order he gave on September the 11th.

An astoundingly unjustified conclusion.

What are your feelings? Should he have been reinstated? What sort of standing does this man REALLY have in the Church?

My feelings are that I sustain my leaders, and if they have seen fit to offer proxy rebaptism to Brother Lee, I'm all for it. I am happy to leave ultimate judgment to the Lord, and am amazed to see that you think it better to take such judgment on yourself -- especially since you can have no possible insights either into the event or into the mindset of the man except what you read in modern histories.

[Matthew0059]

Even Hitler has had his work done for him. Doesn't mean Church leadership isn't "altogether against" the Holocaust or the treachery of Nazi Germany.

A quick internet search on John D. Lee doesn't bring up any information on John D. Lee's reinstatement other than the fact that he was. I don't know anything about the circumstances surrounding it- whether descendants were moved by the Spirit to seek to have him reinstated, or the leadership felt it was "time' to give the man his blessings back, or whatever the catalyst was. I think Just_A_Guy gives a very likely answer.

May I ask whence comes your curiosity?

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm a bit rusty on my history, but I think the ultimate orders came from two local leaders by the names of Haight and Dame. Lee was certainly one of the higher-ups; but I don't think we can blame it all on him.

Excommunication has three main purposes: first, to give the excommunicant a "reality check" as a spur towards repentance; second, to decrease his authority among those who might be led astray by his false teachings; and third, to prevent the excommunicant from participating in certain rituals that we believe ought not to be open to nonbelievers.

In Lee's case, most of these purposes were negated by Lee's death. If there was still a possibility that rational Mormons might interpret Lee's reinstatement as some kind of approval of Lee's actions and seek to imitate them, I doubt you'd have seen him reinstated. But no one inside the Church seriously believes the Church sanctions murder (though our critics still seem to get their yuks trying to turn it into a "gotcha!" moment).

Moreover, Mormons believe that you have to have undergone certain rituals in order to go into heaven and that the value of those rituals is negated if you've been excommunicated. Under a very formalistic view, you could assert that the Church's keeping an excommunication "on the books" absolutely prohibits a person's entry into heaven. That being the case, one might even argue that all excommunications ought to be reinstated sooner or later and the final judgment simply left to God.

Incidentally, a Mormon from southern Utah once wrote a letter to Brigham Young confessing his role in Mountain Meadows. Young's reply may interest you--it shows his absolute disgust at what happened on that day:

If you want a remedy, a rope around the neck taken with a jerk would be very salutary. . . .

There are courts of law and officers in the Terriotry. Appeal to them. They would be happy to attend to your case. If you are innocent you give yourself a great deal of foolish trouble...Why do not all the Latter-day Saints feel as you do? Simply because it does not concern them. As to your faith being shaken, if the Gospel was true befoe the Mountain Meadow Massacre, neither that nor any other event that may transpire can make it false.

When Gov. Cumming was here, I pledged mysel to lend him every assistance in my power, in men and means to throughly investigate that matter, but he declined to take any action. This offer I have made time and again, but it has never been accepted. Yet I have neither doubt nor fear on my mind but the perpetrators of that tragedy will meet their reward. God will judge this matter and on that assurance I rest perfectly satisfied.

If you are innocent, you may safely do the same; if you are guilty, better try the remedy.

From Brigham Young: American Moses, p. 281.

Young's relationship with Lee (who had been an adopted son of Young's, and who had made great sacrifices for Young, the Church, and his fellow pioneers) chilled noticeably as Young grew to understand the full extent of Mormon involvement in the massacre; and one of Lee's final statements before his execution was regarding his sense of abandonment that neither Young nor any other member of the First Presidency had come to be with him in his final hours.

I don't know what the leadership's view of Lee is. I see him the same way as the other participants: tragic figures who lost their heads in a time of great stress, committed acts of nearly unspeakable evil, and whose ultimate fate lies in the hands of a God who is both more just and more compassionate than I am capable of understanding.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[UfoTofu]

Thanks for your responses. I can't reply in any detail at the moment, but ah'll be bahck!

[levrafsgirl]

"Even Hitler has had his work done for him. Doesn't mean Church leadership isn't "altogether against" the Holocaust or the treachery of Nazi Germany."

Why did Hitler have his work done for him if he was a mass murderer and supposedly went to Outer Darkness? Doesn't that mean he didn't have a chance to progress? I'm sure Jesus judged him fairly, and I'm sure most people on earth will agree that a fair judgment is "Adolf Hitler was not a good man and doesn't deserve to go to any kind of Heaven."

[MarginOfError]

"Even Hitler has had his work done for him. Doesn't mean Church leadership isn't "altogether against" the Holocaust or the treachery of Nazi Germany."

Why did Hitler have his work done for him if he was a mass murderer and supposedly went to Outer Darkness? Doesn't that mean he didn't have a chance to progress? I'm sure Jesus judged him fairly, and I'm sure most people on earth will agree that a fair judgment is "Adolf Hitler was not a good man and doesn't deserve to go to any kind of Heaven."

We have no idea if Christ has judged him, nor do we have any way of knowing the mind of Christ in this matter. If Adolf Hitler suffered from some extreme and latent mental psychosis, it may be that he will be judged with leniency. Then again, he may be judged harshly.

The end of the matter, however, is that we are required by Christ to do the work for all people, regardless of our feelings for them. The opportunity for acceptance of the Gospel must be extended to all, without prejudice. Judgment is Christ's alone.

[Snow]

"Even Hitler has had his work done for him. Doesn't mean Church leadership isn't "altogether against" the Holocaust or the treachery of Nazi Germany."

Why did Hitler have his work done for him if he was a mass murderer and supposedly went to Outer Darkness? Doesn't that mean he didn't have a chance to progress? I'm sure Jesus judged him fairly, and I'm sure most people on earth will agree that a fair judgment is "Adolf Hitler was not a good man and doesn't deserve to go to any kind of Heaven."

You are so right. You should be the one to make decisions on man's salvation - not God.

[SuperChris]

Further, it seems unlikely that he actually committed the unforgivable sin. I mean it sucks making an argument in defense of the man commonly regarded as the common denominator of all evil, the simple fact is that a) we're not the ones who will judge his eternal fate, and b) the requirements for outer darkness are very specific, and as far as we know he didn't meet them. To the best of my knowledge, the official positions on it are that very, very few people will end up there, and that the only person in the history of the world that the church has specifically stated will end up there is Cain - anybody else is just speculation.

And the thread has now satisfied Godwin's Law.

[mnn727]

Why did Hitler have his work done for him if he was a mass murderer and supposedly went to Outer Darkness? Doesn't that mean he didn't have a chance to progress? I'm sure Jesus judged him fairly, and I'm sure most people on earth will agree that a fair judgment is "Adolf Hitler was not a good man and doesn't deserve to go to any kind of Heaven."

But thats not our call, we don't have the right to judge his place in the eternities. We just don't know why he did what he did, to me at least, no rational man would have done the things he caused to be done, was he mentally ill? I don't know, he did some crazy things, perhaps he wasn't mentally responsible for his actions.

I am certainly willing to let God make the judgement on where he ends up since God knows a whole lot more than I do about Hitlers (and everyone elses) motivation. God knows a persons mind and their heart - I don't so while I can hate what Hitler did, I have to leave the final judgement up to God and not try to tell God what to do based on my limited knowledge.

D&C 64:10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

3 Ne. 13: 14-15

14 For, if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you;

15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

I just don't have time to not forgive others of their sins, because I need God to forgive me of mine. Something for you to think about.

Edited September 11, 2011 by mnn727

[Backroads]

Let's not forget that Hitler probably thought he was doing a good thing.

[UfoTofu]

Matthew: Your question regarding my curiosity requires a little bit of background information.

I was listening to a radio call in show a where Christain listener was explaining at length why under any circumstances he would not want a Mormon president. He did a lousy job making his case, but I was curious as to why some people get their panties in such a twist when it comes to Mormonism, so I did a little research. I didn't find anything glaring until I came to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I asked some of my Mormon friends about this and here's a summary of the responses:

"What's Mountain Meadows?" "Who's John D. Lee?" "That didn't happen, Mormons wouldn't do that"

"the only people who bring that up are anti Mormons"

Further, I spoke to several missionaries, and here's the summary of their responses:

"I don't know why Lee was reinstated" "Lee was never reinstated" "I fully support his reinstatement"

I want more opinions on this matter, so here I am.

Guy I appreciated you even handed candor and response, and the fact that you can disagree with me without being disagreeable. I am glad to have read that quick piece regarding the Mormons who did feel that those responsible for the brutal slaying of those unarmed men, women and children should be held accoutable. Believe it or not, this is actually what I want to hear more of from Mormons . I really didn't become a critic UNTIL I read of this incident and the Church's and members subsequent reaction. (or lack thereof)

SuperChris: That bit about Godwins Law made me laugh heartily!

levrafsgirl Based on some of the terms you used, may I ask if you are a current or past member?

Vort I saved the best for last! Haha. I found it quite vexing that you'd refer to Lee as Brother. How would you feel if a Muslim called Osama, "brother Bin Laden"? Or if a catholic refered to Timothy McVeigh as "brother McVeigh"?

How is it that a mass murderer like Lee can be reinstated, but an academic like D. Michael Quinn remains excommunicated? Surely you must be able to see why a non member may be put off by such actions. Furthermore, you can continue your defensive and dismissive tone toward me, but it's not helping your case.

[NeuroTypical]

I want more opinions on this matter, so here I am.

Since you're gathering opinions, perhaps you'd like to hear from the church directly. From the September 2007 Ensign (the 150th anniversary of the massacre:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre By Richard E. Turley Jr. (Managing Director, Family and Church History Department)

[NeuroTypical]

How is it that a mass murderer like Lee can be reinstated, but an academic like D. Michael Quinn remains excommunicated? Surely you must be able to see why a non member may be put off by such actions.

Hm. Well, I do know that folks can find similar examples of hypocracy anywhere they're willing to look for it. It's like you're invested in finding hypocracy. Like you've already made up your mind - and you're just here to argue.

But anyway - your question. One obvious reason is that Lee was dead, and Quinn is not. Quinn is free to come back whenever he wants to - and we can be relatively certain that he's been exposed to information about how he can. Do you know what he says, when people ask him about coming back?

Also, out of a sense of wanting to defend church members from unjust criticism, I just want to make it very clear that the first person I've heard of to associate Quinn and someone involved in the MMM, is not LDS, and not particulairly friendly to our history.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Just_A_Guy]

UfoTofu, we're probably more charitable towards Lee because a) he was "one of us" and so he benefits from a sort of bunker mentality, b) his was one of the founding families of Utah and his descendants (including former US Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, current US Senator Mike Lee, and current Utah Supreme Court Justice Tom Lee) are still among us doing a great deal of good, and c) we do recognize the tremendous pressure he and others were under at the time and that his character was not entirely one-dimensional. That said, I do understand and sympathize with your discomfiture that we can extend the (posthumous) hand of fellowship to the man so readily.

For what it's worth, I suspect that one day we'll be able to look at Quinn the same way. For now, though, all we see is a guy who's spent the last fifteen years slandering 19th-century Mormon leaders because their flowery Victorian affirmations of brotherly affection triggered Quinn's rather self-serving gaydar.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Vort I saved the best for last!

See there, folks? That is what I'm talking about.

I found it quite vexing that you'd refer to Lee as Brother. How would you feel if a Muslim called Osama, "brother Bin Laden"? Or if a catholic refered to Timothy McVeigh as "brother McVeigh"?

I don't see the situations as equivalent.

How is it that a mass murderer like Lee can be reinstated, but an academic like D. Michael Quinn remains excommunicated?

Is this a serious question?

Quinn refuses to return to the Church. Exactly how do you think the Church would reinstate Quinn when he has taken no steps to return to the Church?

You do not know the situation of Lee. You were not at Haun's Mill. You were not present to hear the constant threats against the lives of the Latter-day Saints. You were not driven out of the cities and houses you had built and forced to walk across a continent to an unimproved land a thousand miles away from civilization, watching your loved ones suffer and die along the way, their bodies carrion for wolves. You, sitting safely in your warm house in front of your glowing computer screen, have not the slightest idea what the early Saints of Lee's time went through, how they struggled to build cities from nothing in a barren desert while surrounded by the threat of famine, disease, and hostile attack from Indians and the US Army alike.

No one excuses Lee's actions. But for you to sit in judgment of the man, as if you had any small inkling of his thought processes, is beyond absurd. If he murdered those people in cold blood, he will receive the reward of a murderer, and all the rebaptisms the Church might provide for him will do him not one iota of good.

I call him Brother Lee because he made the same covenants I have made. That makes him my brother. If through his murders he has forsaken those covenants, then he is no longer my brother. But I don't know that to be the case. I never knew John Lee, seeing as how he died decades before my grandparents were born, but I am not willing to join in your condemnation. If you wish to equate him to Adolph Hitler, be my guest. Your condemnation of Lee along with five dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Surely you must be able to see why a non member may be put off by such actions. Furthermore, you can continue your defensive and dismissive tone toward me, but it's not helping your case.

I'm not much worried about helping my "case" vis-a-vis this discussion with you. You wish to condemn the Church because of John Lee's actions, and then condemn the Church again for restoring the covenant blessings that Lee lost. It is true that the Church's actions have no effect on a guilty, murderous John Lee. But more relevant is that your irritation at the situation does not matter. All of your railing against the Church is meaningless. Your opinion counts for exactly nothing, except in your own mind.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Vort

[Blackmarch]

Hello all-

I fully understand the reasons behind John D. Lee's excommunication. I have a tough time comprehending the logic behind his posthumous reinstatement. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

They felt inspired to do it. Sometimes we don't get the logic or the reasoning of why we should do something, yet it works... in this case if nothing else, its to provide a way for him to repent.

[JudoMinja]

Something that hasn't been addressed that might help you understand this as well:

When we do work for the dead, that does not automatically mean it is "done". The dead person still has the option to accept the work if they so choose. We are striving to do the work for EVERYONE that is dead, so that they will have that option to choose, since, if the work is not done at all, that choice will not be available.

So, the fact that Lee was "reinstated" after he was dead simply means that his spirit can now choose whether or not he wants to accept it. If he had remained on the books as excommunicated, that option would not be available.

Also, even those who have had their work done (dead or alive) have to face the judgement bar. We will all be held accountable for our deeds and misdeeds. Having our temple work done is not a "free pass" into heaven. It is a commitment we are required to make if we wish to receive the "highest glory" of the celestial kingdom, BUT we still have to live up to our end of that covenant. If we do not, it is null and void.

[levrafsgirl]

Quinn refuses to return to the Church. Exactly how do you think the Church would reinstate Quinn when he has taken no steps to return to the Church?

When Quinn dies will the work eventually be done for him so he can have the option too?

You do not know the situation of Lee. You were not at Haun's Mill. You were not present to hear the constant threats against the lives of the Latter-day Saints.

I agree that no one here today can comprehend the awful things they went through, but would you have PLANNED an attack to deceive the Missourians and shoot them and beat them and even murder their children? It is appauling to me.

I'm not much worried about helping my "case" vis-a-vis this discussion with you. You wish to condemn the Church because of John Lee's actions, and then condemn the Church again for restoring the covenant blessings that Lee lost. It is true that the Church's actions have no effect on a guilty, murderous John Lee. But more relevant is that your irritation at the situation does not matter. All of your railing against the Church is meaningless. Your opinion counts for exactly nothing, except in your own mind.

You do not know what UfoTofu's wishes are. The question was simply "Why was John D. Lee reinstated and what do you think about this?" He just wants some answers. And so do I. Of course his irritation and opinion matters! I have to ask, are you a member of the LDS church? Aren't you supposed to stand for love and kindness and charity? I was raised in the church and my whole life it felt like a family to me. But then I read about things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I asked missionaries and bishops for answers and they just shot me down. Like you, Vort. You are just shooting UfoTofu down. Why can't you answer the question asked with kindness like I thought Mormons would do? I thought Mormons were special. I guess they're not.

Edited September 13, 2011 by beefche
unnecessary

[Guest mysticmorini]

leverasfgirl: I can understand your frustrations but you must realize that the reason some members react to questions like this in that manner is because they dont have a neat answer and may be looking for their own answer or they have resolved to not need an answer. Also, these kinds of questions are often used by those who simply wish to tear down the church so when such questions are asked red flags go up and some go on the offensive instead of trying to reasonably answer the question.

[NeuroTypical]

When Quinn dies will the work eventually be done for him so he can have the option too?

Well, he has the option now - he's refusing to take advantage of it. But to answer your question, yes probably someone will re-do the work for him.

And let me add again that I am very uncomfortable lumping Michael Quinn into any discussion of similarities with anyone associated with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Quinn talks and writes. Not the same thing as committing mass-murder.

But then I read about things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I asked missionaries and bishops for answers and they just shot me down.

I just wanted to make sure that you saw this link:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre By Richard E. Turley Jr. (Managing Director, Family and Church History Department)

If you are feeling shot down on the subject by everyone, or the church in general, I would encourage you to read that article. If you are still not satisfied, Turley also published the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon