Brigham Young..a Murderer? Huh?

[a-train]

I'm going to restate a little so you can see what is in my head.

It is put forth that the Mountain Meadows killers were practicing Blood Atonement. (post 30)

Then it is stated: 'John D. Lee, being the adopted spiritual son of Brigham Young, very well took those teachings to heart and killed those people in MM to "save" them. Though we have no direct evidence of BY's involvement, his sermons implicate him as an accomplice. (post 38)

Then, a discourse from Elder Jedidiah M. Grant was given as an example as one of these sermons. (post 39)

When this sermon is examined and demonstrated to be far from usefull in implicating the First Presidency in the Mountain Meadows Massacre because it only supports capital punishment for covenant breakers, a group the Arkansans were not part of (Post 56), another talk is put forth, this one from President Young. (Post 58)

As this talk proves fruitless again to validate any connection between the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the First Presidency, the assertion falls on a statement by President Young placing ancient Israel in similitude with Pioneer Utah. The basis there is that ancient Israel sought to 'put to death' the gentiles 'for violating Israelite law' and President Young 'would have' not 'dealt differently'. (Post 62)

When it is demonstrated by the scriptures that the ignorant were not put to death in ancient Israel, but only he that 'doeth ought presumptuously' (Post 65), it is then simply asserted that this is incorrect because the 'Israelites killed every man, woman and child in the land when they moved to Canaan'. (Post 71)

When scriptures were again used to demonstrate that the Israelites did NOT kill every man, woman and child in the land when they moved to Canaan (post 85) the assertion falls to: 'But they were told too.' (Post 88)

So scriptural basis was requested for the assertion that the LORD commanded 'the ancient Israelites to utterly destroy all the unbelievers in and around Canaan.'

The answer is given: 'Not around Canaan that I know of, but as I've said, plenty of scriptures discuss destroying unbelievers, which easily applies to any non-Israelite.' (Post 91)

Then a passage is put forth as a 'command to destroy numerous kingdoms'. In it, Moses recounted how the attacking armies of a brutal dictator were not be able to destroy Israel. He made no mention of any commandment to 'destroy numerous kingdoms', but on the contrary, he told of two kings who attacked Israel, but failed miserably.

After another scripture demonstrates that God will protect Israel through means other than victory in battle, the question is asked: 'And nobody here actually thinks it's wrong for "god" to command genocide?' (Post 97)

This, most common anti tactic will never die. The antis assert a falsehood meant to shock and surprise, as it is demonstrated to be wrong, they assert a different falsehood, then as that is blown, they move to the next, and so on, and so on. They never admit they were wrong about a previous statement. They are like salesmen. 'That didn't work? How about this? Or this? Or this? We have this! Look here at this! What about this?'

God did not command genocide and Brigham Young wasn't teaching that sort of thing. The evidence brought forth to assert that he was teaching genocide has only proven he wasn't. He did NOT gain power over a state and begin wholesale slaughter of a group of people for no other reason than his own claim that he was God's mouthpiece or Vicar on the earth. These are all baseless claims, substantiated with nothing, designed to shock and surprise. We have the same old anti tactic from day one.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Check and mate.

[Guest Yediyd]

Check and mate.

Smile and chuckle! I love you guys!

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

I have a question.

The topic of this thread is the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

My question is: Are you interested in comprehending what really happened, or are you more interested in absolving people just because you don't want to think them capable of such a heinous act?

Blood atonement, particularly as zealously sermonized by Brigham Young and Jedidah Grant, especially against apostates, is absolutely one, out of many reasons, that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened.

Without blood atonement, the massacre would not have occurred!

But blood atonment was not the only reason, and it is only in conjunction with other issues, that 60 decent, good men, who otherwise would never have considered such a thing, suddenly felt they were doing the right thing by spilling the blood of 120 people.

If you want to understand this better, you need to quit trying to focus solely on blood atonement, delving into scripture, using presentism to try to interpret what you want to have happened rather than what really did happened, and justify your need to make this a "Mormon" issue vs. an "anti-Morrmon" issue. It's not. It's a historical one.

So again, my question is, do you really want to know what happened, or do you just want to keep talking in circles, quoting scriptures that have nothing to with Klingensimith, Haight, Lee, Dame, the Reformation, the Army, fear, community madness, ravings about spilling blood, more fear, fanaticism, Paiutes, theocracy, Iron County militia, mass re-baptisms, etc.

What'll it be?

Emma

[Guest Yediyd]

Personally...I want to know the history...There is NO excuse for what these men did, no matter WHAT they may have used as their justification.

[MaidservantX]

Zealously sermonized = how many talks given on blood atonement versus any other possible subject at the total times and places sermons were given? (I know, I know . . . do my own research :) )

Without blood atonement, the massacre would not have occurred. There are many things that have been taught in the Church over the years that the members have wrested. I can think of at least one other and that would be the husband/ father being the leader in his home -- taught with light from God, but understood with severe limitations by practitioners (i.e. Mormons). I trust your research as I have done zero research on Mountain Meadows and I will trust thus far that you have come to that conclusion and no other. On the other hand, I do think that perspective and argument can still be admitted to the interpretation of history (history is always interpreted, in my opinion) in general, and Mountain Meadows history specifically. To me it is like saying, "Without the teaching that fathers are to preside in the home, my father wouldn't have treated my mother so crappily." Granted, that conclusion is true in a certain perspective; on the other hand, is a godly principle responsible for a cretin's (crappy father or John D. Lee) understanding of the principle? Maybe, maybe not. Just thinking out loud.

Also, perhaps we need another thread for these Old Testament references, but I had something to add to that. The persons who lived in Canaan and surrounding lands where God (so we say) was intending to move the Israelites and the Abrahamites into were not unbelievers, at least not in heritage. The greatest judgments have never been for innocents and persons living with their version of the light of Christ; rather for persons violating and forsaking their covenants. (The Israelites have great judgments pronounced upon them for forsaking their God and so do members of the Church who do so.) The Midianites, at the very least, had the priesthood and the gospel among them -- that's pretty much where Moses got his gospel (from Jethro). So assuming that God did command their destruction (which I"m not saying he did or would), it is my observation that it was not against a peaceful group of people; but rather families from Noah and so forth who were violating covenants on a heinous and constant basis. God's main fight with people in any age and his desire to wipe them off the face of the earth -- if he has that desire at all -- is based on child sacrifice and molestation -- NOT just someone who likes to go boating on a Sunday afternoon or even people who divorce or even people who steal -- he lets all those people live. It's when people start doing acts that would make drowning with a millstone around the neck preferable, that gets God in a destroying mood. Just my opinion.

[Jason]

I'm going to restate a little so you can see what is in my head.

It is put forth that the Mountain Meadows killers were practicing Blood Atonement. (post 30)

Then it is stated: 'John D. Lee, being the adopted spiritual son of Brigham Young, very well took those teachings to heart and killed those people in MM to "save" them. Though we have no direct evidence of BY's involvement, his sermons implicate him as an accomplice. (post 38)

Then, a discourse from Elder Jedidiah M. Grant was given as an example as one of these sermons. (post 39)

When this sermon is examined and demonstrated to be far from usefull in implicating the First Presidency in the Mountain Meadows Massacre because it only supports capital punishment for covenant breakers, a group the Arkansans were not part of (Post 56), another talk is put forth, this one from President Young. (Post 58)

As this talk proves fruitless again to validate any connection between the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the First Presidency, the assertion falls on a statement by President Young placing ancient Israel in similitude with Pioneer Utah. The basis there is that ancient Israel sought to 'put to death' the gentiles 'for violating Israelite law' and President Young 'would have' not 'dealt differently'. (Post 62)

You're logic is jumping from a to k to p. What possessed this group of Mormons to think that killing non-Mormons was a "righteous" thing? We know that Jedidiah Grant had traveled throughtout the Utah Territory to preach "repentance" and exhorted quite a few LDS to be rebaptised as a sign of their renewed zeal for Mormonism. Now if we have a Conference talk by Grant that discusses blood atonement, what makes you think he wasn't preaching at least that much if not more while staying with local leaders like Lee?

Where did these Mormons get the idea that killing anyone could be righteous? Were they getting tips from the Quran perhaps?

We've hardly brought out all there is to this discussion, much less every sermon, and we have CK claiming checkmate?

Checkmate perhaps for those who simply want to turn away from the game and play out a win in their minds. There is no easy answer for this disturbing historical event. But pretending that the leadership of the LDS Church couldn't possibly have anything to do with Mountain Meadows is a slap in the face of those who died there.

After another scripture demonstrates that God will protect Israel through means other than victory in battle, the question is asked: 'And nobody here actually thinks it's wrong for "god" to command genocide?' (Post 97)

And you still have yet to respond. Methinks this cuts you and everyone else to the bone because it's the straight TRUTH.

Show me one instance from the Gospels where Jesus commanded anyone to death?

This, most common anti tactic will never die.

Whining about alleged persecution may win you friends, but it does not make you right.

[MaidservantX]

Many of the things that have been said actually respond and agree that God would not command genocide. That is at least one point trying to be made that God or godliness had no hand in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Agreement not opposition to your question (or more agreement than opposition).

[Jason]

Many of the things that have been said actually respond and agree that God would not command genocide. That is at least one point trying to be made that God or godliness had no hand in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Agreement not opposition to your question (or more agreement than opposition).

Finally a voice that speaks up for God.

Thank you.

[CrimsonKairos]

Finally. Whew! What with all these heathens and pseudo-mormons on the boards, at least one person speaks the truth (i.e. Jason's view). B)

Unless there are journals from the perpetrators of the MMM that state they thought blood atonement was why they did what they did, I think that's just an assumption and hardly conclusive.

By the way, since when is one instance of killing 120 people considered genocide?

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Zealously sermonized = how many talks given on blood atonement versus any other possible subject at the total times and places sermons were given? (I know, I know . . . do my own research :) )

At this specific time in history, 1856-1857, which is when the "reformation" occurred, it was a fanatical time of fiery oration, repentance, mass re-baptisms, renewal of covenants, apostacy, vengeance and blood atonement. The "reformation" lasted about two years.

Without blood atonement, the massacre would not have occurred. There are many things that have been taught in the Church over the years that the members have wrested. I can think of at least one other and that would be the husband/ father being the leader in his home -- taught with light from God, but understood with severe limitations by practitioners (i.e. Mormons). I trust your research as I have done zero research on Mountain Meadows and I will trust thus far that you have come to that conclusion and no other. On the other hand, I do think that perspective and argument can still be admitted to the interpretation of history (history is always interpreted, in my opinion) in general, and Mountain Meadows history specifically. To me it is like saying, "Without the teaching that fathers are to preside in the home, my father wouldn't have treated my mother so crappily." Granted, that conclusion is true in a certain perspective; on the other hand, is a godly principle responsible for a cretin's (crappy father or John D. Lee) understanding of the principle? Maybe, maybe not. Just thinking out loud.

Excellent perspective. Thirty years ago my father was very abusive, and everyone in the ward looked the other way, including the bishop. Just like society did. My mother's response, "God says a family is a mother and a father."

Today, an educated and sensitive bishop would never allow children to stay in that environment.

So, point taken.

RE: Blood Atonement and MMM, I've put my foot in it, haven't I? I'm working on a response and should have it ready tomorrow.

Emma

[a-train]

You see. They can never give up. They can never admit they've been defeated at every turn. It's interesting. The fellas on my mission that probably would have bashed scriptures at us for hours were just the same way. It's like gambling or something. They just keep losing and losing in an effort to eventually, hopefully, by some appeal to endless trial, eventually catch a win. But even when they stump a missionary, it cannot pay off the tremendous house debt they've racked up.

After another scripture demonstrates that God will protect Israel through means other than victory in battle, the question is asked: 'And nobody here actually thinks it's wrong for "god" to command genocide?' (Post 97)

And you still have yet to respond. Methinks this cuts you and everyone else to the bone because it's the straight TRUTH.

God did not command genocide and Brigham Young wasn't teaching that sort of thing. The evidence brought forth to assert that he was teaching genocide has only proven he wasn't. He did NOT gain power over a state and begin wholesale slaughter of a group of people for no other reason than his own claim that he was God's mouthpiece or Vicar on the earth. These are all baseless claims, substantiated with nothing, designed to shock and surprise. We have the same old anti tactic from day one.

Perhaps I'll give Jason the benefit of the doubt and imagine he missed that response. And, when xhen said: 'Many of the things that have been said actually respond and agree that God would not command genocide', perhaps he didn't catch what she meant and go back and see the response.

Then we have this:

'You're logic is jumping from a to k to p. What possessed this group of Mormons to think that killing non-Mormons was a "righteous" thing? We know that Jedidiah Grant had traveled throughtout the Utah Territory to preach "repentance" and exhorted quite a few LDS to be rebaptised as a sign of their renewed zeal for Mormonism. Now if we have a Conference talk by Grant that discusses blood atonement, what makes you think he wasn't preaching at least that much if not more while staying with local leaders like Lee?' - Jason

The LMNO missing here is any evidence that the Mountain Meadows Massacre killings were desired by the First Presidency and were believed by them to be justified. There is a huge gap (LMNO) between Elder Grant's sermons and a manifestation that President Young ordered the killings.

President Bush is a death penalty advocate therefore a shooting in Texas is his fault. ????? Does it matter if the killer believed he was carrying out a proper Texas captial punishment? The victim wasn't arrested, tried, or convicted. No death penalty sentence was issued in the case.

This is the problem for those who just wish, wish, wish they could prove Brigham Young an accomplice. They just don't have any real evidence. The only vindication they will get for their assertion will come from Hollywood this September.

-a-train

[Jason]

Finally. Whew! What with all these heathens and pseudo-mormons on the boards, at least one person speaks the truth (i.e. Jason's view). B)

Peace, my brother, is without question Divine.

Unless there are journals from the perpetrators of the MMM that state they thought blood atonement was why they did what they did, I think that's just an assumption and hardly conclusive.

Unfortunately, if there are (which I believe John D. Lee's journal is in print, and he does fault BY) Im sure they're safely locked away by the Church.

By the way, since when is one instance of killing 120 people considered genocide?

Since it's considered that anyone who isn't LDS is a "gentile".

You see. They can never give up. They can never admit they've been defeated at every turn. It's interesting. The fellas on my mission that probably would have bashed scriptures at us for hours were just the same way. It's like gambling or something. They just keep losing and losing in an effort to eventually, hopefully, by some appeal to endless trial, eventually catch a win. But even when they stump a missionary, it cannot pay off the tremendous house debt they've racked up.

This actually made me laugh out loud. Reminds me of Adolf Hitler ordering non-existant troop regiments to the Russian front, and rambling about how victory was at hand.

And the next time you accuse me of being an "anti-mormon" im gonna start accusing you of being an idiot.

The LMNO missing here is any evidence that the Mountain Meadows Massacre killings were desired by the First Presidency and were believed by them to be justified. There is a huge gap (LMNO) between Elder Grant's sermons and a manifestation that President Young ordered the killings.

Look at it this way. You have a period of a couple of years where the First Presidency is peddling this belief that it's better to have your blood shed than to be a wretched sinner. Granted it's wording seems to imply that it's only for members, but we have first hand accounts of people who were non-mormon who felt that their lives and property were in danger, and they fled Utah because of it.

Then we have a Zealous Bishop, a sealed spiritual Son of Brigham Young even, who murders a roaming band of Pioneers.

Then all this talk about "blood atonement" abruptly stops forever.

Coincidence?

[a-train]

Look at it this way. You have a period of a couple of years where the First Presidency is peddling this belief that it's better to have your blood shed than to be a wretched sinner. Granted it's wording seems to imply that it's only for members, but we have first hand accounts of people who were non-mormon who felt that their lives and property were in danger, and they fled Utah because of it.

Then we have a Zealous Bishop, a sealed spiritual Son of Brigham Young even, who murders a roaming band of Pioneers.

Then all this talk about "blood atonement" abruptly stops forever.

Coincidence?

The unsubstantiated claims designed to cast doubt just keep coming and coming. Like gambling, it's akin to a disease, like Tourette's syndrome. The victim of this disorder cannot resist.

Now, we are appearently supposed to use our imagination to determine what 'really' happened. Should we turn that question mark at the end of 'Coincidence' into a hangman's noose and string it around President Young's neck?

First we are to invision that Mountain Meadows scared Church Leadership into a cessation of a certain doctrine. Then, we are to imagine why they did so. Perhaps they were scared of being implicated in further murders. Perhaps they were murderers who realized their ways were evil. Perhaps they realized that the doctrine was open to incorrect interpretation and sermons should not be given on it. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

I guess it doesn't really matter what we imagine, just so long it implicates Brigham Young as an uninspired murderer, right?

I remember getting a pamphlet from a guy on my mission for Ed Decker's group, Saints Alive In Jesus. It was really not much more than an order form for anti-mormon books. What struck me is it had a whole section for books about the Book of Mormon and it's origins. One was said to show that it was all Joseph's work of fiction, another claimed the Spaulding origin, there were a couple more. It was funny. I wondered: 'Well, which was it?' I guess they didn't care, they just want us to take any other explanation than the one Joseph Smith gave.

-a-train

[evilservant]

Anything spoken by the Spirit and will of God is scripture, regardless of who speaks it.

There is no guarantee that everything spoken during conference will be so inspired and hence, scripture.

To believe so makes where something is said--and not what is said--the standard for discerning truth.

I haven't suffered from following the counsel of our modern-day prophets, seers and revelators, but I wouldn't necessarily consider everything they teach to be scripture.

How do you decide what is and what isn't scripture? Do you consider yourself to be a higher authority than your Prophet? Can you give me an example of when the Spirit has informed you that what your Prophet is saying is wrong or not inspired? If you are so inspired yourself, to the point that you are more inspired than your Prophet, shouldn't you think of starting your own church? :)

[CrimsonKairos]

The prophet consults me on a daily basis. We're tight like that. B)

As for how I know what's inspired and what's not? If it's inspired, the Spirit tells me. We're tight like that too.

[evilservant]

The prophet consults me on a daily basis. We're tight like that. B)

As for how I know what's inspired and what's not? If it's inspired, the Spirit tells me. We're tight like that too.

Oh, thats a shame. If, as you say, your Prophet is occasionally wrong,and you are tight with him, then that means you must be wrong too? Do you believe the Spirit of God occasionally gets it wrong as well? You mormons are fascinating!

[CrimsonKairos]

Oh, thats a shame. If, as you say, your Prophet is occasionally wrong,and you are tight with him, then that means you must be wrong too?

Only when it's Tuesday and the moon is full.

Otherwise, I'm infallible.

And I don't recall saying I thought the Prophet was wrong. Just that not every word out of his mouth is scripture. I allow the man the privilege of having opinions and theories just like me. I don't allow for him to teach false doctrine about Jesus being our Savior from sin and death.

Good thing no LDS prophet has ever taught that Jesus isn't our Savior from sin and death.

[evilservant]

<div class='quotemain'>

Oh, thats a shame. If, as you say, your Prophet is occasionally wrong,and you are tight with him, then that means you must be wrong too?

Only when it's Tuesday and the moon is full.

Otherwise, I'm infallible.

And I don't recall saying I thought the Prophet was wrong. Just that not every word out of his mouth is scripture. I allow the man the privilege of having opinions and theories just like me. I don't allow for him to teach false doctrine about Jesus being our Savior from sin and death.

Good thing no LDS prophet has ever taught that Jesus isn't our Savior from sin and death.

ok. so if your prophet decides to teach his own opinions and ideas from the pulpit, rather than established truths, doesn't that result in people being lead astray. I've never heard a pastor or evangelist teach that Jesus isn't our Saviour, but they don't claim to be God's only true (sometimes untrue) prophet? :)

[CrimsonKairos]

ok. so if your prophet decides to teach his own opinions and ideas from the pulpit, rather than established truths, doesn't that result in people being lead astray.

You'll have to ask them. I seem to be doing alright.

I've never heard a pastor or evangelist...claim to be God's only true (sometimes untrue) prophet? :)

Neither does Pres. Hinckley. LDS sustain all twelve apostles and the First Presidency as prophets, seers and revelators. That's fifteen, in case you were keeping count.

[Jason]

Now, we are appearently supposed to use our imagination to determine what 'really' happened. Should we turn that question mark at the end of 'Coincidence' into a hangman's noose and string it around President Young's neck?

I think one of his wives poisoned him.

First we are to invision that Mountain Meadows scared Church Leadership into a cessation of a certain doctrine.

How else do you explain the sudden silence on the topic? Another coincidence?

Rather convenient for you, huh?

[vinny15]

I think in this situation (this thread) there are a few that will let things skip there minds no matter how many times they are brought up.

I'm not naming names, but this will never end because some question will remain unanswered because this person cant figure it out.

The final statement is that the mormons that killed the settlers were not commanded by God and not commanded by Brigham Young. They were crazy freaks that got to hyped up. Mormons are not perfect nor are they always sane.

We do not proclaim anything more than human. The church is the truth the people carry it, but that doesnt mean they carry it well.

[Jason]

The final statement is that the mormons that killed the settlers were not commanded by God and not commanded by Brigham Young. They were crazy freaks that got to hyped up. Mormons are not perfect nor are they always sane.

No, the final statement is that the leaders are indirectly responsible because they were hyping up the membership with the bizarre idea that shedding a man's blood will save him because the Atonement can't.

Not very difficult to carry that over to non-members. And could be interpreted to include non-members.

That's what you're not getting.

[pushka]

Excerpts from an account of the MMM:

'Over the next three days, Mormon reinforcements, totally about 100 men, continued to arrive at the battle scene. Men on horseback carried messages back to Haight, and his immediate superior in the Nauvoo Legion and head of southern Utah forces, William Dame. Dame reportedly reiterated his determination to not less the emigrants pass: "My orders are that all the emigrants [except the youngest children] must be done away with." On September 10, the messenger send to Salt Lake City arrived and handed Haight's letter to Young. Young, according to published Mormon reports, sent the messenger back to Haight with a note telling him to let the Indians "do as they please," but--as for Mormon participation in the siege--if the emigrants will leave Utah, "let them go in peace." The message will be too late.'

' Shortly after his proclamation, Young learned of the tragic events at Mountain Meadows, first from Indian chiefs and then from John Lee, who traveled to Salt Lake City to provide a detailed account of the massacre. According to Lee, Young at first expressed dismay about the Mormon participation in the massacre. He seemed especially concerned that news of the massacre would damage the national reputation of the Latter-day Saints The next day, however, Young said he was at peace with what happened. According to Lee, Young said, "I asked the Lord if it was all right for the deed to be done, to take away the vision of the deed from my mind, and the Lord did so, and I feel first rate. It is all right. The only fear I have is from traitors."'

These 2 excepts show the alleged attitude of BY to the MMM before the event and afterwards.

I don't know if the website is considered anti-mormon, and I apologise if it is.

The whole of the account makes interesting reading.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...leeaccount.html

[vinny15]

Ok so Ill humor you. Say that the leaders were hyping them up. They said to bring the people to them. Not to go on a crusaide.

They had established what they thought was there own government and they were going to establish the death penalty.

Can I find whats wrong with that?

We can all agree that the death penalty was practiced in biblical times throughout the whole book about even after jesus came to an extent.

So the logical thought process would be that there was some type of reason establsihed by God for it.

Jason,

What do you think happens to you after you die?

Remember line upon line precept upon precept.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...&2.0#LPTOC2

Read the second one.

The discourses were not completely accurate. The first presidency endorsed the publishing of it but not the accuracy because of numerous reasons.

Just read lol.