1/21 New Yorker
camnchar
Chuck
Steven Dufour
I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it. Thanks. -Steve
camnchar
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
Chuck
"Steven Dufour" <fourd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9xr48.16358$ag5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Steven Dufour
Thanks Chuck. But is it really an expose?
Tyler Waite
Mormons are so numerous and so wealthy "that governing our democracy becomes
impossible without Mormon cooperation.""
****
Saw that with the initiatives on homosexual marriages.
****
"The fact is we live in a quasi theocracy," James E. Shelledy, the editor of
the Salt Lake Tribune, told me. "Eighty per cent of officeholders are of a
single party, ninety per cent of a single religion, ninety-nine per cent of
a single race, and eighty-five per cent of one gender."
The Mormon majority tends to perceive institutions that are not owned by the
Church as anti-Mormon,
"It's frustrating for the non-Mormon majority in the city, because the
cultural boundaries are already set, and there is little opportunity for
their input."
The extremes of wealth and poverty that characterize most American cities
are not evident in Salt Lake City, in part because of the Mormons' emphasis
on frugality and charity.
The Church had long denied any responsibility for the massacre, blaming a
few renegade Mormons and a band of Paiute Indians, whom the Church accused
of killing the women and children. In 1999, at the request of the
descendants of the victims, the Church rebuilt a small monument at the site.
The gesture became a public-relations disaster when construction workers
discovered a number of bones that seemed to indicate that the women and
children had been shot at close range, apparently by Mormons, rather than
killed by the arrows, clubs, and knives of the Indians.
Hinckley's manner is more corporate than pastoral.
The system may help resolve disputes over succession, but it has also
resulted in a gerontocracy whose leaders have sometimes been physically or
mentally incapacitated. Hinckley, however, is constantly flying around the
globe, visiting missions, dedicating temples, writing books, giving
speeches, and holding press conferences. He is widely regarded as the most
accessible and capable leader the Church has had in decades.
more later...
****
Clovis Lark
I just finished reading this. There is no expose that I can discern. THe
MMM is disposed of as a small quirk in old west history, almost like Al
Packer's barby in Hinsdale County CO, THe Kingston's and Allred's are
protrayed as corporate types with Lear jets and no explanation as to where
the money came from to buy these. THe Hinckley interview is superficial
and doesn't give anyone, saint or gentile, insight into the mechanics of
church policy or doctrine.
Here is the URL:
Clovis Lark
NO!
R. L. Measures
<camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> Sorry. Here you go:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
>
> Chuck
>
€ Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's dark
side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter Larry
Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite interesting.
- It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the meaning of
the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in Mormonism than there are
in Hinduism.
cheers
> "Steven Dufour" <fourd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9xr48.16358$ag5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "camnchar" <camn...@nospam.home.com> writes:
> > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have to wait
> until
> > I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it. Thanks. -Steve
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
Tyler Waite
boosted its candidacy by dispensing more than a million dollars in cash and
gifts to members of the I.O.C. The United States Attorney's office indicted
two of the Salt Lake committee's leaders, David Johnson and Thomas Welch,
both prominent members of the Church, on bribery and other charges. It was
expected that their trial might implicate other leading members of the
Mormon establishment, including Michael O. Leavitt, the governor of Utah.
Last August, however, the federal judge in the case, David Sam, who is also
a Mormon, threw out the key charges, calling them an "uninvited federal
intrusion" into the state's affairs.
****
I can't believe they let a mormon be the federal judge over this matter?
How could they think he would be able to judge the matter objectively?
****
When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied,
"We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven
and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
what he said about those things."
****
I can't believe he admitted that BY actually taught that!!!
****
As I was leaving, Hinckley cautioned me against speaking with the Church's
many critics, who, he said, are not a part of the "life of the religion."
It now seems likely that Lee was made a scapegoat to appease public opinion
and the forces in Congress opposed to Utah's bid for statehood. A Tribune
columnist named Will Bagley, who is writing a book about the massacre, has
found contemporary diaries which he believes demonstrate that Young ordered
the killings and supervised a coverup.
Writers such as Twain and Arthur Conan Doyle described the Mormons in terms
similar to those the press uses to describe the Taliban today.
Curiously, the Book of Mormon is replete with denunciations of plural
marriage, as the arrangement is often called.
Some of the brides may have been as young as fourteen, and at least eleven
of them were already married to close associates. Some he married after
dispatching their husbands to the mission fields. A definitive tally of
Smith's wives may never be established, but it is clear that in the last
years of his life he was in a kind of marital frenzy, taking an average of
one new wife per month,
In 1866, Brigham Young declared, "The only men who become gods, even the
sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."
As Gordon Hinckley told me, "Polygamy came by revelation, and it left by
revelation."
Mormons have managed to make themselves into an ethnic group without any of
the usual markers of ethnicity-no distinctive language or accent, no special
foods or music.
****
What about green jello salad and funeral potatoes? Or Janis Kap Perry?
MoTab? Distinctive language? Flip, Fetch?
****
By far the most successful Mormon business venture is the Church itself.
Among its largest holdings are the Beneficial Life Insurance Company, which
has more than two billion dollars in assets, and the Bonneville
International Corporation, a media company with eighteen radio stations
concentrated in Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. The
Church reportedly owns more than a million acres of land in the continental
United States (the equivalent of the state of Delaware), on which it
operates more than a hundred and fifty ranches, farms, and orchards. It runs
the largest cattle ranch in the United States, Deseret Cattle & Citrus, near
Orlando, Florida.
When I asked him to describe his own revelations, Hinckley demurred.
"They're very sacred to me. They're the kind of things you don't want to put
before the world," he said.
****
I thought that was exactly what prophets did with their revelations????
They put them before the world!! What good is a prophet of God and
continuing revelation if he doesn't share those revelations with the people
he is leading??
****
as many as two hundred million dead people have been baptized as Mormons,
including Buddha and all the popes, Shakespeare, Einstein, and Elvis
Presley-what Peck dismissively calls "celebrity work for the dead."
Non-Mormons, along with Church members who were worried about the appearance
of cronyism, criticized Romney's appointment as an invitation for the world
to view the Winter Games as the Mormon Olympics. James Shelledy, the Salt
Lake Tribune editor, said to me, "The Governor conducted an exhaustive
forty-eight-hour search for the best B.Y.U. graduate available."
Tim Heaton, a professor of demographics, explained the "four 'C's" that
distinguish Mormons from other Americans: chastity, conjugality, chauvinism,
and children
Utah reportedly leads the nation in the use of antidepressants; Prozac
prescriptions, for instance, are about sixty per cent above the national
average.
"I mean, if you were a believer, you'd come at this from the perspective
that the Lord is behind all this, and the deception, if there be any, is by
design."
Hugh Nibley, who is the most venerable figure in Mormon scholarship,
although he is little known outside it.
Nowhere in North America is there evidence of an ancient civilization that
had, as Smith describes it, wheeled transportation or the capacity to make
steel weapons, or a written language that corresponded to Egyptian.
When the Church showed the documents to four distinguished Egyptologists,
however, each of them came to the same conclusion: the papyri were ordinary
Egyptian funerary documents and had nothing at all to do with Abraham.
the fact that Smith had also produced a "grammar" of the Egyptian language
weakened the theory.
Although Romney, like other Mormons, defends the practice of polygamy in the
early days of the Church by pointing to a surplus of women in Utah, census
reports for the time show roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Brigham Young authorized women to leave their husbands if they could find a
man "with higher power and authority" than their present husband.
Apparently, many of them did, as shown by the rate of divorce at the time.
It was clear, following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it could not
exist in America if it continued to practice racial discrimination, and yet
the issue of extending priesthood to blacks was not resolved until 1978
In 1993, a leading apostle, Boyd K. Packer, spoke, with alarm, of the "major
invasions into the membership of the Church" by feminists, homosexuals, and
scholars and intellectuals. A few months later, five Mormon intellectuals
were excommunicated and one was "disfellowshipped,"
"But for me to decide that the problems are insurmountable would mean
walking away from five generations of people before me. What really clicks,
what really keeps us there, is the culture."--Ken Driggs
D. Michael Quinn says, "the Mormon message attracts people who want to
become Americanized."
"I read both the Mormon Bible and the life of Smith and I was horrified,"
Tolstoy wrote in a diary entry. "Yes, religion, religion proper, is the
product of deception, lies for a good purpose. An illustration of this is
obvious, extreme in the deception: The Life of Smith; but also other
religions, religions proper, only in differing degrees."
****
For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both sides of the
story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
distortion.
****
****
rabidcorgi
It does however go much further in discussing real problems with the
Corp.of JC of LDS than most mainstream media attempts such as Newsweek
or Larry K.
garydw
owns....
Did learn that they own more than just KSL TV and radio, they own more than
15 TV and radio stations.
I for one would like to know just how many business the church really does
own.
"rabidcorgi" <rabid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59ef674d.02012...@posting.google.com...
Diana
"garydw" <gar...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> But it still does not tell us just what all the Mormon church actually
> owns....
>
> Did learn that they own more than just KSL TV and radio, they own more
than
> 15 TV and radio stations.
>
> I for one would like to know just how many business the church really does
> own.
Why does that matter to you?
I read the article. The impression I got was of a reporter who began not
liking us, ended up not liking us, but tried to get the facts out anyway. He
DID mention MMM, two full paragraphs, but dismissed what was done TO us with
a single sentence. Even though that sentence was:
"In the nine years that remained in his brief life, Smith and his
disciples were driven from one settlement after another, in what was an
unparalleled assault of religious persecution in America."
I found this indicative of his bias.
I also saw that he wasn't able to use objective adjectives; every time he
had to choose a modifier, he went with the negative one: for instance, he
said that the Book of Mormon was written in a 'florid' style, that Mark
Twain called 'chloroform in print'" While it is true that Twain said that,
it was not necessary for the author to include that coupled with the word
'florid'. The whole thing is calculated to show his personal distaste for a
religion that, if one simply reads the facts presented in the article,
stands up rather well to scrutiny in acts and in values. The author DOES
mention those, though he does so reluctantly, almost as if he reeeeaaaaally
didn't want to but needed to give the devil his due. ;-)
So I wouldn't call it an "expose'", exactly, but its REAL obvious that the
writer didn't like the assignment OR the topic. The most that I can say for
him is that he tried to be thorough. Sorta.
Believe me, I've seen worse.
Clovis Lark
Imagine if Harpers had published the article...
Clovis Lark
Diana, when he mentioned the MMM, and didn't mention the following, I was
appalled:
The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
emigrants noticed a large number of Indians riding about Parawan. They
also noticed that these Indians had a lot of tinware and clothing tied to
their saddles. There was plenty of time to study this unusual behavior,
because Colonel Dame detained both of these trains in Parawan before
allowing them to proceed.
The first one, the Tanner-Matthews train, having left Salt Lake City
barely a week after the Fancher train, was detained because the fight was
still going on in the Meadows when it arrived in the Parawan vicinity.
Then when these people were allowed to go on, they were taken through
Mountain Meadows after dark. They were told to stay in or close to their
wagons, and right on the trail. They were not allowed to set up their camp
until they were three miles beyond the Meadows. This was strange to them.
Since the written records of this train make no mention of an odor of dead
animals, we assume that the shallow graves of the emigrants had not yet
been invaded by the wolves that Jacob Hamblin saw eating the bodies that
they had dug up. When he returned to the Meadows a week after
Tanner-Matthews had passed through Hamblin counted 18 wolves doing this,
and he noticed that the wolves were partial to the bodies of the women and
the children.
Fifty or more miles on down the trail, at the ford of the Muddy, the
members of the Tanner train met Chief Jackson, and his band. No threats
were made by these warriors, because both Tanner and Matthews were
Mormons, and their guide, Ira Hatch, was well know to Chief Jackson. From
him they learned of the killing of the two men that had escaped to the
California trail the day that young Aiken had been shot. Hatch apparently
remained mum through all of this, because there is no mention of his
having commented on the chief's report. We now know that Hatch was there
with Chief Jackson when the escapees were found, and that he was the one
who ordered the killing.
A few miles before the Tanner train arrived at San Bernardino it was
overtaken by the mail carrier, Bill Hyde, who told them more details of
the fight at Mountain Meadows. He also told them of the record book that
Chief Jackson had taken off the body of one of the men that was killed at
the Muddy.
Quite naturally the non-Mormon members of this train were able to put the
facts, as they knew them, together. They knew that men from the
Fancher-Baker train had been killed as they tried to run for help. They
had seen all of those Indians in Parawan with what appeared to be loot
tied to their saddles, and they had noticed that these Indians seemed to
be perfectly at ease riding around that white man's town. They now knew
that the entire train had been destroyed. It is not at all surprising that
the non-Mormons suspected that there was a close association between the
Mormons and the Indians in whatever had caused the fight at Mountain
Meadows, and many of them were sure that the Mormons had a hand in the
battle as well.
A part of Brigham Young's "battle ax of the Lord" attacked elements of the
Duke train, (which was the second train, after the Fancher-Baker
emigrants, to travel down the California trail.) Two of their leaders,
Collins and Turner, were seriously wounded in that raid. These emigrants
were able to escape to the nearby town of Beaver, where Mormons
intervened, and persuaded the Indians to leave with a number of the
emigrant's cattle. After that episode all of the wagons of this train
united for safety, and proceeded on to Parawan. Like the Tanner-Matthews
outfit that had passed this way the preceding week, these people were also
detained by Colonel Dame. After a couple of Mormon guides were provided,
(for the sum of $1810.00) and after it was considered safe to travel they
were allowed to proceed.
Apparently the site and stench of dead bodies that had been exhumed by
wild animals was something that the Mormon leaders did not want Gentiles
to experience, so this train was detoured around the Meadows on a little
used trail that had been blazed by Parley P. Pratt during the winter of
1849 - 50. Their route from Parawan to Santa Clara, which took them down
the valley east of the Pine Valley Mountains, is now closely paralleled by
Interstate 15.
At their camp seven miles from the ford of the Muddy, these people had a
bad experience that infuriated them. Creeping stealthily through deep
ravines by moonlight Indians were able to steal about 300 head of cattle.
The angered men of the train thought that there were enough of them to
fight the Indians, and drive their cattle back, but the Mormon guides
advised against this. They told the leaders, Duke and Honea, that if they
tried such a thing the Indians very likely would kill them all. Rather
than fight, the guides thought that it would be better for them, the
guides, to calmly approach the Indians, negotiate, and try to retrieve as
many of the cattle as they could. To the disgust of the members of the
train, that was the last they saw of the guides.
Of course it did not occur to the emigrants that to fight such a large
tribe of warriors would have been disastrous, nor did it occur to them
that it took all of the courage and ingenuity of the guides to keep the
Indians satisfied with the cattle rather than the complete annihilation of
the train, which is what the Indians had in mind.
Naturally when the emigrants arrived in California they reported that the
Mormons had used the Indians to steal their cattle, and had pocketed the
$1810.00; and of course all Gentiles believed them.
And stories like this added more fuel to the fire.
There are on record a number of examples of this sort of thing, and
undoubtedly there were a great many more that were never recorded, for we
know of many more trains that passed through southern Utah that fall that
left no written record.
This is how we know of them.
After the massacre, Brigham young, recognizing it as a public relations
disaster, abruptly changed tactics. It was now OK to sell supplies to all
California emigrants. It was now important to give them as much assistance
as possible. From records of supplies purchased in Salt Lake City it is
known that a number of wagon trains passed through on their way to Las
Vegas and San Bernardino in the fall of 1857, and many more obtained
supplies than left journals or diaries to record their experiences along
the way.
However, four wagon trains had members that left a detailed written record
of their experiences. It is from reviewing these records that we are able
get a good idea of how the public at large learned of the massacre.
These are the records that let us know of the emigrants seeing so many
Indians, loaded with loot, riding fearlessly - even as friends - around
the Mormon town of Parawan, and at the same time seeing the war-like
attitude of the Indians toward non-Mormons. These are the records that
tell of the horror of counting skeletons along the trail as the wagons
passed through Mountain Meadows, and of the death of the last two
emigrants who escaped from the Meadows when young Aiden was shot.
With every succeeding group of people that traveled through southern Utah
during the fall and winter of 1857 there were more stories to tell of the
massacre, and more stories to tell about the Indians and about the
Mormons. The end result was that the citizens of California were more and
more aroused, horrified and angered. They cried out for justice, but deep
down what they wanted was revenge.
If Colonel Dame, and all the others had really thought that they would be
able to keep their deed a secret by "doing away with all who are old
enough to talk," they were really wrong.
Rather than blanketing the fire they had fanned the flames.
Innovators_Dilemma
"camnchar" <camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:Qer48.3917$vc.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> Nice expose on Mormonism.
>
>
The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
camnchar
news:2-2601020...@port75.dial.vcnet.com...
> In article <Wyr48.4038$vc.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "camnchar"
> <camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter Larry
> Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite interesting.
> - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the meaning of
> the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in Mormonism than there are
> in Hinduism.
He knew what it meant, all right. He's a cagey fellow. Interesting how he
didn't appear to be interested in discussing theological matters, and kept
trying to steer the conversation toward the building of temples, the
Church's rapid growth, etc etc.
The whitewashing of Church history is nowhere more evident than in the words
of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Chuck
camnchar
> Steven Dufour <fourd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "camnchar" <camn...@nospam.home.com> writes:
> >> Nice expose on Mormonism.
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >>
> > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have to wait
until
> > I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it. Thanks. -Steve
>
> I just finished reading this. There is no expose that I can discern.
Ah, Clovey, you're too knowledgeable to consider any report on Mormonism an
expose. I'm sure, however, to the unwashed this article is exposeish
enough. It covers almost every scandal the One True Church has faced, with
the exception of the Hoffman affair -- which is a curious exception, given
the Church's current President.
It even mentions one of your favorite subjects, the lack of DNA evidence ...
Chuck
camnchar
news:a2vfu4$1sgs$1...@news.aros.net...
Don't cotton to publicity, I see. Get used to it. The Molympics are
a'commin.
Chuck
Diana
> Diana <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
>
> > "garydw" <gar...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> Diana, when he mentioned the MMM, and didn't mention the following, I was
> appalled:
>
> The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
rest of story for brevity>
Clovis, I'm not going to defend what happened to the Fanchers. I can think
of several explanations, but no excuses, OK?
My point was that, no matter how superficially the writer dealt with the
MMM, he didn't deal with what was done TO us at all. You can be as appalled
as you wish, but until you are just as appalled by the masacre at Hauns'
Mill, the mob killing at Carthage, the hundreds of people persecuted and
killed for nothing more than their belief system, I will view your
indignation at the MMM with considerable cynicism; you are obviously not as
concerned with justice as you seem to me, all you want to do is vilify the
Mormons. It's propaganda, and as such, dishonorable.
To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to worship
freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits make
lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend on
Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
bothered?
I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as the
Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight back.
This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
Doesn't make the attack right. Doesn't excuse it.....but no act occurs in a
vacuum, Clovis. I don't blame the Fanchers. I blame the men who attacked the
train. It was a horrific act, and nothing that was done previously to the
men who attacked the train excuses it. It does, however, go quite a way
toward explaining it.
Clovis Lark
> Chuck
My gripes:
1. No mention why JSjr was in stir in Nauvoo.
2. No mention what was going on in Utah viz militias and danites and
HIckman and Rockwell, so somehow the MMM was an anecdotal anomaly.
3. No mention in the meddling in other states politics.
4. No mention of the prior use of peepstones before the discovery of the
plates.
5. No mention of the sealed archives in Little Cottonwood.
etc.
camnchar
He made mention of the printing press fiasco, and almost as an aside that it
was caused by JSjr's penchant for taking other men's wives.
> 2. No mention what was going on in Utah viz militias and danites and
> HIckman and Rockwell, so somehow the MMM was an anecdotal anomaly.
Nope.
> 3. No mention in the meddling in other states politics.
He did mention the Church's meddling in Hawaii and California on the gay
marriage thang.
> 4. No mention of the prior use of peepstones before the discovery of the
> plates.
Nope.
> 5. No mention of the sealed archives in Little Cottonwood.
Nope.
I agree, it could have been better. Too much truth, however, and you risk
charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than enough
food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in recorded
history.
Chuck
Clovis Lark
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:a2verl$t2i$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Diana <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
>>
>> > "garydw" <gar...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> <snip to>
>> Diana, when he mentioned the MMM, and didn't mention the following, I was
>> appalled:
>>
>> The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
>> emigrants noticed a large number of Indians riding about Parawan. <snip
> rest of story for brevity>
> Clovis, I'm not going to defend what happened to the Fanchers. I can think
> of several explanations, but no excuses, OK?
> My point was that, no matter how superficially the writer dealt with the
> MMM, he didn't deal with what was done TO us at all. You can be as appalled
> as you wish, but until you are just as appalled by the masacre at Hauns'
> Mill, the mob killing at Carthage, the hundreds of people persecuted and
> killed for nothing more than their belief system, I will view your
> indignation at the MMM with considerable cynicism; you are obviously not as
> concerned with justice as you seem to me, all you want to do is vilify the
> Mormons. It's propaganda, and as such, dishonorable.
I could care littel for justice. Everyone is dead, long dead. It is the
mangling of history that bothers me. Is there a similar mangling of the
Haun's Mill and Carthage events?
> To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
> horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
> them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
Huh? That there was an organized system for raiding wagon trains on both
major routes through Utah? This is the cause. That BY had sparked what
became well known as the Mormon Reformation, inciting people into a
zenophobic violent state of mind? These are the causes. Fancher and his
group ran smack into this deadly cocktail.
> Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to worship
> freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
> Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
> shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits make
Is this history whitewashed?
> lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend on
> Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
> bothered?
They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
> I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as the
> Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
> move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight back.
> This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
> Doesn't make the attack right. Doesn't excuse it.....but no act occurs in a
> vacuum, Clovis. I don't blame the Fanchers. I blame the men who attacked the
> train. It was a horrific act, and nothing that was done previously to the
> men who attacked the train excuses it. It does, however, go quite a way
> toward explaining it.
Please explain Haight.
Diana
No mention of the many mormons killed by their neighbors, raped, beaten,
drivin from their homes and no mention of Gov. Boggs and his infamous
extermination order, either....
But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
camnchar
news:3c53...@news.antelecom.net...
No mention of Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs in the head, and Joseph Smith
Jr. declaring Boggs dead (prematurely) in fulfillment of prophecy ...
Chuck
Clovis Lark
Insofar as I can tell, Haun's Mill is accepted as part of the historical
record. I found not one source (I obviously haven't seen every one) that
said these people deserved what they got nor denying it took place. That
is different than MMM. In the case on MMM, admission to the murders then
admits to other aspects which lead to other things, ending in the piracy
policy.
> But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
Diana, I have to hand it to you. I would give most anyone the benefit of
the doubt in even the most acrimonious debate. But this comment comes
close to the basest of them. Been to your bishop lately? Take a hard
copy of your post along. Cheers.
Tyler Waite
> I read the article. The impression I got was of a reporter who began not
> liking us, ended up not liking us, but tried to get the facts out anyway.
He
> DID mention MMM, two full paragraphs, but dismissed what was done TO us
with
Done to us after the bank scandal, done to us after the raids on the
Gentile's, done to us after the extermination order was pronounced by us on
them, done to us after Joseph Smith destroyed a printing press just because
he didn't like what it had to say. Ever heard of freedom of the press?
What did this group from AK do to US? Should Christ have killed his
persecutors instead of allowing them to crucify him? Did the people killed
at MMM ever pose any real threat to the saints or was it pure revenge?
> a single sentence. Even though that sentence was:
>
> "In the nine years that remained in his brief life, Smith and his
> disciples were driven from one settlement after another, in what was an
> unparalleled assault of religious persecution in America."
This is biased? If it is biased it is in the positive. He says what
happened to the saints was due to their religion and not all of the other
actions that they did to stir the anger of their neighbors. If mormons were
persecuted simply because they were of a different religion why weren't
amish people in the region persecuted?
>
> I found this indicative of his bias.
>
> I also saw that he wasn't able to use objective adjectives; every time he
> had to choose a modifier, he went with the negative one: for instance, he
> said that the Book of Mormon was written in a 'florid' style, that Mark
> Twain called 'chloroform in print'" While it is true that Twain said
that,
> it was not necessary for the author to include that coupled with the word
> 'florid'.
Since when is "florid" a negative adjective? As for chloroform I am sure
many members have a similar feeling when trudging through Alma and the
Isaiah sections.
>The whole thing is calculated to show his personal distaste for a
> religion that, if one simply reads the facts presented in the article,
> stands up rather well to scrutiny in acts and in values. The author DOES
> mention those, though he does so reluctantly, almost as if he
reeeeaaaaally
> didn't want to but needed to give the devil his due. ;-)
What you mean he tried to present both sides? And by 'facts' I take it that
you are not refering to the parts about the papyri, or the lack of
historical evidence for the BoM, or Tolstoy's comments, or the part about
the cenus records indicating that there wasn't an overabundance of available
women that produced the need for polygamy, or the high divorce rate in UT
due to BY's advice that women are justified in leaving their husbands for a
man with a higher priesthood calling? What about GBH stating that BY really
did teach that HF is Adam? Was that a real quote or do you think he twisted
his words on that one?
>
> So I wouldn't call it an "expose'", exactly, but its REAL obvious that the
> writer didn't like the assignment OR the topic. The most that I can say
for
> him is that he tried to be thorough. Sorta.
How do you know that he didn't like the assignment? If he didn't like the
assignment he could have been a lot more superficial like other writers and
interviewers have been with the church. You are coloring his attitudes with
your own personal dislike for what he said. What would have indicated that
the author LIKED the topic? If the article had been filled with gushing
praise for how wonderful the church is, only told the churches view on
things, and ended with some powerful endorsement of this amazing American
religion?
Tyler Waite
So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
Tyler Waite
> charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
> course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than
enough
> food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
> interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in
recorded
> history.
Not to mention a prophet who feels his revelations are too personal to share
with the church he is the prophet, seer and revelator for. I agree. I was
impressed more by what the author included than by what he left out. Sure
it would have been nice to have a few more tidbits put in but I agree with
Chuck that if he had been too heavy handed many mormons would likely avoid
the whole article. This way he has enough parts that members with be
pleased with to get them to read the other parts. I bet GBH doesn't put up
a picture of himself standing next to the author of this article like he did
with Larry King. Larry was a pussycat compared to this guy.
>
> Chuck
>
>
R. L. Measures
<twa...@informationinplace.com> wrote:
> First came the revelation that members of the Salt Lake Bid Committee had
> boosted its candidacy by dispensing more than a million dollars in cash and
> gifts
€ Gifts = callgirls
>...
> Mormons have managed to make themselves into an ethnic group without any of
> the usual markers of ethnicity-no distinctive language or accent, no special
> foods or music.
> ****
> What about green jello salad
€ As I recall, Jello and Prozac are mentioned. Shades of the "Stepford
Wives"?
>> ...
> For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
> writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both sides of the
> story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
> distortion.
>
cheers
R. L. Measures
<camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2601020...@port75.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <Wyr48.4038$vc.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "camnchar"
> > <camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's dark
> > side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter Larry
> > Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite interesting.
> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the meaning of
> > the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in Mormonism than there are
> > in Hinduism.
>
> He knew what it meant, all right. He's a cagey fellow. Interesting how he
> didn't appear to be interested in discussing theological matters, and kept
> trying to steer the conversation toward the building of temples, the
> Church's rapid growth, etc etc.
>
€ Defending mormonite theology got him in trouble before during an
interview with a secular reporter.
> The whitewashing of Church history is nowhere more evident than in the words
> of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
>
Indeed, Chuck. The job of the Revelator is not to reveal the real special
secrety stuff.
Mike W
> > > >
> > > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > > >
> > > Steven Dufour wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have
> > > to wait until I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > camnchar wrote:
> >
> > Sorry. Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> >
>
> ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's
> dark side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter
> Larry Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite
> interesting.
> - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the
> meaning of the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in
> Mormonism than there are in Hinduism.
>
> cheers
>
Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
"intellectuals" were being purged. Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
Mike
Mike W
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c53...@news.antelecom.net...
>
Whoa-ho, Diana. Yeah, there's not alot of point to comment and debate about
the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the faith
when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do? That's
human nature.
Mike
Steven Dufour
> > > > > camnchar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > > > >
> > > > Steven Dufour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > to wait until I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it.
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> > >
> > R. L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's
> > dark side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter
> > Larry Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite
> > interesting.
> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the
> > meaning of the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in
> > Mormonism than there are in Hinduism.
> >
> > cheers
> >
>
> Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
> title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
> wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
>
> Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
> "intellectuals" were being purged. Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
> get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
>
> Mike
I thought it was great example of "gonzo journalism". I mostly read the New
Yorker for the cartoons anyway. :-)
Mike W
> > wrote in message
> > news:UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> >
> > But it still does not tell us just what all the Mormon church
> > actually owns....
> >
> > Did learn that they own more than just KSL TV and radio, they own
> > more than 15 TV and radio stations.
> >
> > I for one would like to know just how many business the church
> > really does own.
> >
> wrote in message
> news:3c53...@news.antelecom.net...
>
>
>
> I read the article. The impression I got was of a reporter who began
> not liking us, ended up not liking us, but tried to get the facts
> out anyway. He DID mention MMM, two full paragraphs, but dismissed
> what was done TO us with a single sentence. Even though that
> sentence was:
>
> "In the nine years that remained in his brief life, Smith and his
> disciples were driven from one settlement after another, in what was
> an unparalleled assault of religious persecution in America."
>
> I found this indicative of his bias.
>
> I also saw that he wasn't able to use objective adjectives; every
> time he had to choose a modifier, he went with the negative one: for
> instance, he said that the Book of Mormon was written in a 'florid'
> style, that Mark Twain called 'chloroform in print'" While it is
> true that Twain said that, it was not necessary for the author to
> include that coupled with the word 'florid'.
Thanks Diana. I think I see now why when reading it, (you've got to
hand it to the New Yorker, they give good *long* reads, relatively speaking)
I was reminded of who the New Yorker's target audience was. He was
translating this alien culture into cosmopolitan terms I thought. No easy
task given the harsh nature of urban life. I was surprised and not so
surprised to catch the statistic that SLC had less than 50% membership. I
find myself wondering what it might've been like reading this first in a
crowded coffee-shop at the height of day instead of online. Oh well,
zeitgeist for another day.
Mike
Cheap Suit
that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written. It is
a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the church
reinforces that for them.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Cheap Suit
> > I agree, it could have been better. Too much truth, however, and you risk
> > charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
> > course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than
> enough
> > food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
> > interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in
> recorded
> > history.
>
> Not to mention a prophet who feels his revelations are too personal to share
> with the church he is the prophet, seer and revelator for.
"revelations" are pretty watered down now. No more of those God and Jesus
standing in the tree tops revelations. Now a warm feeling is called a
"personal revelation".
Clovis Lark
You're comparing this to Hunter S. Thompson??????
R. L. Measures
<Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > camnchar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > > > >
> > > > Steven Dufour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have
> > > > to wait until I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it.
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > camnchar wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> > >
> > R. L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's
> > dark side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter
> > Larry Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite
> > interesting.
> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the
> > meaning of the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in
> > Mormonism than there are in Hinduism.
> >
> > cheers
> >
>
> Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
> title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
> wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
>
> Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
> "intellectuals" were being purged.
€ As has often been the case in the Salvation business , there are
libidinal men who can not tolerate allowing women even modest amounts of
power. In the present day Mormonite church, women can not receive any
priesthood powers. However, there is evidence that Joseph Smith, Junior
gave women two priestly powers. In prophet Smithąs private journal, he
recorded that he told women they would possess priesthood privileges,
gifts and blessings permitting them to heal the sick and cast out devils.
After 1921, the old devils in the hierarchy started telling Mormon women
that they could only enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their
husbands. 15 months after LDS historian and author Dr. D. Michael Quinn
published an essay on this subject, he was barred from church archives and
excommunicated. Subsequently, Quinn wrote a book titled "The Mormon
Hierarchy: Origins of Power". In December 1994, author and researcher
Brent Metcalf was excommunicated from god's one true church because he
edited łNew Approaches to the Book of Mormon ˛, a collection of essays
that question the historicity of the Book of Mormon . Between September
1993 and October 1994, seven high profile Mormons were excommunicated by
the LDS "Authorities". For her efforts in writing "No Man Knows My
History" , professor Fawn Brodie received rave reviews from the New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune - and excommunication
from the Mormonite church. When she was excommunicated, it was rumoured
that the reason for excommunicating her was not so much because of what
she said in her Smith bio. - it was for the thoroughness of her research
and documentation. It seems that Fawn Brodieąs greatest sin was that she
had left no path of "plausible deniability" for the all-male Mormon
hierarchy.
>Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
> get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
>
€ Notre Dame U has one, so why not BYU?
€ cheers, Mike
Clovis Lark
> € cheers, Mike
"The university violated former English Professor Gail Turley Houston's
academic freedom when it refused to give her continuing status, BYU's
version of tenure, the AAUP said. The administration had accused Houston
of attacking BYU in speeches at a nonchurch sponsered forum on Mormon
studies, and in Student Review, a non-campus newspaper."
Diana
Uh, Porter Rockwell was not tried for shooting Boggs in the head, and he
said that he didn't do it...so claiming that he did is a little silly, don't
you think? Besides, Porter was several hundred miles away from the site of
the shooting at the time it was done. Boggs had more enemies than the
Mormons.
I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions the
Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
Diana
<snip>
> > No mention of the many mormons killed by their neighbors, raped, beaten,
> > drivin from their homes and no mention of Gov. Boggs and his infamous
> > extermination order, either....
>
> Insofar as I can tell, Haun's Mill is accepted as part of the historical
> record. I found not one source (I obviously haven't seen every one) that
> said these people deserved what they got nor denying it took place. That
> is different than MMM. In the case on MMM, admission to the murders then
> admits to other aspects which lead to other things, ending in the piracy
> policy.
>
> > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
>
> Diana, I have to hand it to you. I would give most anyone the benefit of
> the doubt in even the most acrimonious debate. But this comment comes
> close to the basest of them. Been to your bishop lately? Take a hard
> copy of your post along. Cheers.
With all due respect, Clovis, you have shown NO indication that you
disaproved of anything that was done TO us. You simply keep repeating all
the stuff you say we did. That to me indicates your disaproval of Mormons to
the extent that you approve of what was done to us.
Please feel free to prove me incorrect.
>
Diana
"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u575v4e...@news.supernews.com...
<snip>
> > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
> >
>
> Whoa-ho, Diana. Yeah, there's not alot of point to comment and debate
about
> the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the
faith
> when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do? That's
> human nature.
Yes. It's human nature to "prove" how bogus a faith something is and use
things done BY members of that faith to others. However, to cavalierly
dismiss the things done TO members of that faith is unfair and shows a lack
of objectivity that borders on approval.
I went too far in accusing Clovis of approving things like Hauns Mill. On
the other hand, I honestly haven't seen any indication from him that he
disaproves of stuff like that, in fact, he has gone to rather great lengths
to excuse it by alluding to mythical actions by Danites. "Approve" "Excuse"
"Dismiss"...three terms that mean essentially the same thing, especially
when such pains are taken to point to the MMM in excruciating detail.
I haven't approved, excused OR dismissed the MMM. All I ask in return is a
fair examination of ALL that happened, including the actions taken against
us, with something other than a dismissive "Hauns' Mill is a part of
history" as if saying so made it irrelevent to the Mormon people.
Hauns' Mill was NOT irrelevent. Neither is the fact that some of the men
involved in the MMM had lost entire families to the persecution of their
religion, lost their families, their lands and homes, sometimes twice or
three times over. If you push people that hard, something is going to blow;
as I said, the MMM did NOT occur in a vacuum, nor did it occur because
Mormonism is evil.
Fool Speck
> > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> >
> >
>
John, so what do you say to the thousands who are in the culture and
view it as accurate?
Steve Lowther
Diana
You bet there is. I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed that
Joseph Smith died in a blazing gunfight..that he provoked, or that the
attack on Hauns' Mill was self defense.
> > To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
> > horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
> > them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
>
> Huh? That there was an organized system for raiding wagon trains on both
> major routes through Utah? This is the cause. That BY had sparked what
> became well known as the Mormon Reformation, inciting people into a
> zenophobic violent state of mind? These are the causes. Fancher and his
> group ran smack into this deadly cocktail.
........I'm not going to address everything you've just said, just going to
ask a question. WHY were the Mormons in a "Xenophobic state of mind"? Could
it be because we were driven clean out of the United States? Could it be
because the governer of a state made it legal to kill us on sight? Could it
be because there was an army consisting of nearly HALF the military might of
the United States bearing down on us at that very moment?
Huh? Huh? That would, I think, make anybody nervous.
> > Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to
worship
> > freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
> > Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
> > shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits
make
>
> Is this history whitewashed?
This is history, provable and plain, if you had the courage to look past
your hatred for us.
> > lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend
on
> > Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
> > bothered?
>
> They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
No. They would not have. Nobody else was. However, would BY's Mormon
Reformation have come about without the history that I mentioned...or would
we still be living peacably in New York with Joseph Smith still alive and
leading?
> > I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as
the
> > Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
> > move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight
back.
> > This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
>
> Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
Those down in Iron County had lost entire families to the persecution,
Clovis. They didn't always live in Iron County. They had been in New York
and Illinois and Missouri too.
Diana
"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2601022...@port66.dial.vcnet.com...
<snip>
>
> > For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
> > writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both sides of
the
> > story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
> > distortion.
>
man who was careful to include most of the facts, leaving out only those
that would reflect well upon us, and using emotionally negative modifiers
whenever he could.
Diana
"Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
news:3C53A68C...@dangerous1.com...
> Tyler Waite wrote:
>
> > > The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
> >
> > So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
> > Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
> > about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
>
> that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written. It is
> a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the church
> reinforces that for them.
We FEEL persecuted because we ARE persecuted. After all, how many funerals
have YOU gone to where the widow is handed a pamphlet saying 'the deceased
is in hell and you will soon follow if you don't leave the devil Mormon
church"?
As the widow in question, I will say that I thought it hilarious then and
still think it hillarious now, but funny or not, I've come to expect this
sort of thing. Having my twelve year old daughter pushed out of a
'Christian' bookstore by a clerk who was yelling that "Mormons aren't
Christian and have no business in here!!" didn't improve my opinion much,
and neither did being stoned...with real rocks..myself.
So you will excuse me if I think that Mormons are persecuted, just a wee
bit, won't you?
Lee Paulson
> "Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
> news:3C53A68C...@dangerous1.com...
> > Tyler Waite wrote:
> >
> > > > The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
> > >
> > > So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
> > > Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
> > > about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
> >
> > that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written. It is
> > a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the church
> > reinforces that for them.
>
> We FEEL persecuted because we ARE persecuted. After all, how many funerals
> have YOU gone to where the widow is handed a pamphlet saying 'the deceased
> is in hell and you will soon follow if you don't leave the devil Mormon
> church"?
Diana, you've been griping about that for years. I've got news for
you--when my grandmother died, the missionaries showed up within days
(which I am sure was coincidence--I don't think they scan obits) and
wanted to know I could be with her forever. I took great offense at
it--the woman was a Methodist attending a Baptist church. So what?
She's dead.
Then the fundamentalists (who I swear DO scan the obits) used the
occasion to convince me to get saved.
That's not persecution. I had the same thing happen that you did, but
I don't feel persecuted. I just thought those people were lacking
compassion and jerks. (The LDS missionaries came back later to try
again even. I chalked it up to being kids.)
>
> As the widow in question, I will say that I thought it hilarious then and
> still think it hillarious now, but funny or not, I've come to expect this
> sort of thing. Having my twelve year old daughter pushed out of a
> 'Christian' bookstore by a clerk who was yelling that "Mormons aren't
> Christian and have no business in here!!" didn't improve my opinion much,
> and neither did being stoned...with real rocks..myself.
>
> So you will excuse me if I think that Mormons are persecuted, just a wee
> bit, won't you?
Good grief, Diana, where do you live? You've got Laura Schelessinger
on your side on national radio, after all. Furthermore, I couldn't
tell you what religion most of my neighbors are, much less care.
Lee
Lee Paulson
Oh. That makes it all right then.
Cheap Suit
pretty absurd reasoning there kiddo. I can't believe you could make such a
disgusting comment and then expect the other party to prove your baseless
assertion wrong.
How about YOU providing some documentation of Clovis EVER making any statement
that would infer that he supported the murder of mormons.
with all due respect, of course.
Cheap Suit
> "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c543de0$1...@news.antelecom.net>...
> > "Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C53A68C...@dangerous1.com...
> > > Tyler Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
> > > >
> > > > So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
> > > > Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
> > > > about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
> > >
> > > that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written. It is
> > > a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the church
> > > reinforces that for them.
> >
> > We FEEL persecuted because we ARE persecuted.
case closed.
> After all, how many funerals
> > have YOU gone to where the widow is handed a pamphlet saying 'the deceased
> > is in hell and you will soon follow if you don't leave the devil Mormon
> > church"?
>
> Diana, you've been griping about that for years. I've got news for
> you--when my grandmother died, the missionaries showed up within days
> (which I am sure was coincidence--I don't think they scan obits) and
> wanted to know I could be with her forever. I took great offense at
> it--the woman was a Methodist attending a Baptist church. So what?
> She's dead.
>
> Then the fundamentalists (who I swear DO scan the obits) used the
> occasion to convince me to get saved.
>
I have heard from former missionaries (mormon) that they did indeed scan the obits. I doubt
very much that the church does this as a policy, but I wouldn't put it past specific mission
presidents to use this.
Cheap Suit
Unbelievable.
Clovis Lark
Diana, dear, I keep to issues of fact. I tend to debate where facts seem
to be mangled. I have never seen any post here claiming that Haun's Mill
was the result of people who were not involved. Even satan's agent
Brodie says there is no justification for it. So why would it be of
concern to me. I'm not here tom raise the dead on basis of unjust or just
homicide. I deal with historical whitewash. I think you raised this as a
strawman. I note that you pulled the same tactic 4 years ago.
> Please feel free to prove
me incorrect. >>
Now, Will you take your post and show it to your bishop? Will you admit
you threw it in as a smokescreen? Can you seriously claim that there is
any similarity as to the mangling of history as it pertains to the MMM and
the brutal slaughter of the 19 who remained at Haun's Mill? You brought
it up and you are on the line. I'm waiting. Can you go to your bishop
and show your post with its context, including my response? Your
integrity is at stake.
Clovis Lark
With all due respect, 2 other TBM's have fallen on the same sword in
discussion with me. One was Russell MacGregor. I responded as I have to
Diane. He has never posted again. Go figger...
Clovis Lark
Diane, please go discuss this with your bishop. You see, we satanic
atheists know we have to account to ourselves and those all around us for
abominable behavior. There is no absolution for us. We have to carry
around our garbage and deal with it. You have an out. You fail to
see the speciousness of your retort. In comparing the MMM to Haun's
Mill and Carthage, you EXPLICITLY indicated that I approved of the
latter 2. This is a slander. Most religions consider this a serious
moral infraction. I believe they call it a "sin", or some other droll
name. What you fail to see is that this issue is not about who was
right or not right. Haun's Mill, Carthage, MMM, and Bear River
(remember Bear River? Those were the people that BY agreed would have
booty on the northern trail) are OVER. Those people are dead. They
aren't coming back. I couldn't do anything to help them if I cared
(and being some 150 years after the fact, I really care as much for
them as I do for the Albigensians, they aren't cominng back either). What
makes MMM special is that there persists an historical whitewash claiming
to fictitionalize what actually occurred. That is why I bring it up.
There is a pretty clear record and it is unambiguous. Rich has been
"begging" me to post an excerpt written about the MMM and I have been
desisting, saying that the time isn't right. Diane makes it clear that
this time is now.
Here goes:
EXCERPT:
Although it is hard to understand why those devout Mormons could possibly
have thought that slaughtering a group of civilians, regardless of how
obnoxious some of them may have been, could be called a military maneuver,
it is even harder to understand why they thought they could keep a
massacre of that magnitude a secret by killing off everybody old enough to
talk. Did they think that those families lived in a vacuum? That they had
no relatives? No friends? No one that would want to check on them? Did
they think that the Mormon "code of silence" was infallible? Even if it
was, (which is highly unlikely) did they think that none of the Indians
would talk to anybody?
If they really did, they were really wrong.
Almost as soon as the massacre was done, rumors began to spread. The "code
of silence" was kept in the usual manner. Almost nothing was spread to the
outside world; however, there were whisperings among themselves,
particularly among the families of those involved . . . the families in
southern Utah. It didn't take much guesswork for many non- Mormons to
realize that something sinister was going on, that a horrific tragedy had
taken place, and that there was an association between the Indians and the
Mormons in whatever had happened.
The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
emigrants noticed a large number of Indians riding about Parawan. They
also noticed that these Indians had a lot of tinware and clothing tied to
their saddles. There was plenty of time to study this unusual behavior,
because Colonel Dame detained both of these trains in Parawan before
allowing them to proceed.
The first one, the Tanner-Matthews train, having left Salt Lake City
barely a week after the Fancher train, was detained because the fight was
still going on in the Meadows when it arrived in the Parawan vicinity.
Then when these people were allowed to go on, they were taken through
Mountain Meadows after dark. They were told to stay in or close to their
wagons, and right on the trail. They were not allowed to set up their camp
until they were three miles beyond the Meadows. This was strange to them.
Since the written records of this train make no mention of an odor of dead
animals, we assume that the shallow graves of the emigrants had not yet
been invaded by the wolves that Jacob Hamblin saw eating the bodies that
they had dug up. When he returned to the Meadows a week after
Tanner-Matthews had passed through Hamblin counted 18 wolves doing this,
and he noticed that the wolves were partial to the bodies of the women and
the children.
Fifty or more miles on down the trail, at the ford of the Muddy, the
members of the Tanner train met Chief Jackson, and his band. No threats
were made by these warriors, because both Tanner and Matthews were
Mormons, and their guide, Ira Hatch, was well know to Chief Jackson. From
him they learned of the killing of the two men that had escaped to the
California trail the day that young Aiken had been shot. Hatch apparently
remained mum through all of this, because there is no mention of his
having commented on the chief's report. We now know that Hatch was there
with Chief Jackson when the escapees were found, and that he was the one
who ordered the killing.
A few miles before the Tanner train arrived at San Bernardino it was
overtaken by the mail carrier, Bill Hyde, who told them more details of
the fight at Mountain Meadows. He also told them of the record book that
Chief Jackson had taken off the body of one of the men that was killed at
the Muddy.
Quite naturally the non-Mormon members of this train were able to put the
facts, as they knew them, together. They knew that men from the
Fancher-Baker train had been killed as they tried to run for help. They
had seen all of those Indians in Parawan with what appeared to be loot
tied to their saddles, and they had noticed that these Indians seemed to
be perfectly at ease riding around that white man's town. They now knew
that the entire train had been destroyed. It is not at all surprising that
the non-Mormons suspected that there was a close association between the
Mormons and the Indians in whatever had caused the fight at Mountain
Meadows, and many of them were sure that the Mormons had a hand in the
battle as well.
A part of Brigham Young's "battle ax of the Lord" attacked elements of the
Duke train, (which was the second train, after the Fancher-Baker
emigrants, to travel down the California trail.) Two of their leaders,
Collins and Turner, were seriously wounded in that raid. These emigrants
were able to escape to the nearby town of Beaver, where Mormons
intervened, and persuaded the Indians to leave with a number of the
emigrant's cattle. After that episode all of the wagons of this train
united for safety, and proceeded on to Parawan. Like the Tanner-Matthews
outfit that had passed this way the preceding week, these people were also
detained by Colonel Dame. After a couple of Mormon guides were provided,
(for the sum of $1810.00) and after it was considered safe to travel they
were allowed to proceed.
Apparently the site and stench of dead bodies that had been exhumed by
wild animals was something that the Mormon leaders did not want Gentiles
to experience, so this train was detoured around the Meadows on a little
used trail that had been blazed by Parley P. Pratt during the winter of
1849 - 50. Their route from Parawan to Santa Clara, which took them down
the valley east of the Pine Valley Mountains, is now closely paralleled by
Interstate 15.
At their camp seven miles from the ford of the Muddy, these people had a
bad experience that infuriated them. Creeping stealthily through deep
ravines by moonlight Indians were able to steal about 300 head of cattle.
The angered men of the train thought that there were enough of them to
fight the Indians, and drive their cattle back, but the Mormon guides
advised against this. They told the leaders, Duke and Honea, that if they
tried such a thing the Indians very likely would kill them all. Rather
than fight, the guides thought that it would be better for them, the
guides, to calmly approach the Indians, negotiate, and try to retrieve as
many of the cattle as they could. To the disgust of the members of the
train, that was the last they saw of the guides.
Of course it did not occur to the emigrants that to fight such a large
tribe of warriors would have been disastrous, nor did it occur to them
that it took all of the courage and ingenuity of the guides to keep the
Indians satisfied with the cattle rather than the complete annihilation of
the train, which is what the Indians had in mind.
Naturally when the emigrants arrived in California they reported that the
Mormons had used the Indians to steal their cattle, and had pocketed the
$1810.00; and of course all Gentiles believed them.
And stories like this added more fuel to the fire.
There are on record a number of examples of this sort of thing, and
undoubtedly there were a great many more that were never recorded, for we
know of many more trains that passed through southern Utah that fall that
left no written record.
This is how we know of them.
After the massacre, Brigham young, recognizing it as a public relations
disaster, abruptly changed tactics. It was now OK to sell supplies to all
California emigrants. It was now important to give them as much assistance
as possible. From records of supplies purchased in Salt Lake City it is
known that a number of wagon trains passed through on their way to Las
Vegas and San Bernardino in the fall of 1857, and many more obtained
supplies than left journals or diaries to record their experiences along
the way.
However, four wagon trains had members that left a detailed written record
of their experiences. It is from reviewing these records that we are able
get a good idea of how the public at large learned of the massacre.
These are the records that let us know of the emigrants seeing so many
Indians, loaded with loot, riding fearlessly - even as friends - around
the Mormon town of Parawan, and at the same time seeing the war-like
attitude of the Indians toward non-Mormons. These are the records that
tell of the horror of counting skeletons along the trail as the wagons
passed through Mountain Meadows, and of the death of the last two
emigrants who escaped from the Meadows when young Aiden was shot.
With every succeeding group of people that traveled through southern Utah
during the fall and winter of 1857 there were more stories to tell of the
massacre, and more stories to tell about the Indians and about the
Mormons. The end result was that the citizens of California were more and
more aroused, horrified and angered. They cried out for justice, but deep
down what they wanted was revenge.
If Colonel Dame, and all the others had really thought that they would be
able to keep their deed a secret by "doing away with all who are old
enough to talk," they were really wrong.
Rather than blanketing the fire they had fanned the flames.
END OF EXCERPT.
Diane is free to comment as she chooses. I hope she will seek advice from
those she sees as mentors (unless she has the same ability that those of
us with no faith have, which is to shoulder full responsibility for our
actions and realize where they are hurtful and antisocial).
Nathan Packer
<chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote:
>Tyler Waite wrote:
>
>> > I agree, it could have been better. Too much truth, however, and you risk
>> > charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
>> > course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than
>> enough
>> > food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
>> > interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in
>> recorded
>> > history.
>>
>> Not to mention a prophet who feels his revelations are too personal to share
>> with the church he is the prophet, seer and revelator for.
>
>"revelations" are pretty watered down now. No more of those God and Jesus
>standing in the tree tops revelations. Now a warm feeling is called a
>"personal revelation".
And isn't it nice when those warm feelings bring in more tithing per
capita in the region around all those temples.
Clovis Lark
JSjr died in a municipal riot in which he was a primary actor, not the
only one. Where is your reference that anyone, ESPECIALLY ME, ever stated
that Haun's Mill was self defense? Everything I read was that there was a
posse coming and these folks were warned to get outta there because nobody
was getting out alive when the posse arrived. Seems pretty cut and dried
to me.
>> > To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
>> > horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
>> > them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
>>
>> Huh? That there was an organized system for raiding wagon trains on both
>> major routes through Utah? This is the cause. That BY had sparked what
>> became well known as the Mormon Reformation, inciting people into a
>> zenophobic violent state of mind? These are the causes. Fancher and his
>> group ran smack into this deadly cocktail.
> ........I'm not going to address everything you've just said, just going to
> ask a question. WHY were the Mormons in a "Xenophobic state of mind"? Could
> it be because we were driven clean out of the United States? Could it be
> because the governer of a state made it legal to kill us on sight? Could it
> be because there was an army consisting of nearly HALF the military might of
> the United States bearing down on us at that very moment?
> Huh? Huh? That would, I think, make anybody nervous.
Diane, you said explicitly that I approved of mass murder. Have you
discussed this with your bishop yet?
>> > Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to
> worship
>> > freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
>> > Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
>> > shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits
> make
>>
>> Is this history whitewashed?
> This is history, provable and plain, if you had the courage to look past
> your hatred for us.
You said I approved of mass murder. Will you address this with your
bishop?
>> > lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend
> on
>> > Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
>> > bothered?
>>
>> They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
> No. They would not have. Nobody else was. However, would BY's Mormon
> Reformation have come about without the history that I mentioned...or would
> we still be living peacably in New York with Joseph Smith still alive and
> leading?
I refer you to my question above.
>> > I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as
> the
>> > Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
>> > move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight
> back.
>> > This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
>>
>> Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
> Those down in Iron County had lost entire families to the persecution,
> Clovis. They didn't always live in Iron County. They had been in New York
> and Illinois and Missouri too.
I refer you to my question above. Diane, your turn.
Diana
unresponsive. I asked a question. You wanna answer it or not?
You have to admit, the only evidence I have is what you write; since you
don't mention disaproving of these things, and concentrate only on what you
percieve the Mormons doing to others, I have to go by what is presented to
me.
So...."unbelievable' isn't going to do. Do you, or do you not, approve of
the persecution that the Mormons had to put up with in the early days? If
you don't, why don't you deal with the history in a more even handed manner?
Diana
You bet your sweet patootie I can. My opinion of you is not a sin; it's
simply an opinion. AND a question. Do you, or do you NOT, approve of the
stuff done TO us? Your treatment of LDS history is not very even handed.
If I have misjudged you, I am sorry. However, in this exchange you haven't
said that you disaprove; you've only said that others do. All YOU say is
that it is 'of no concern" to you. Well bub, if you are so concerned with
Mormon history, of the motives and reasons behind the incidents you decry,
such things had BETTER be of concern to you. Such incidents are very much a
part of the MMM.....men who participated in the MMM had very strong memories
of such things, were shot at, lost family members, children, fathers,
brothers, wives in the persecutions and the migrations. While these things
do NOT excuse the MMM, they go a long way toward explaining the mindset that
allowed it.
To be very honest, that there was only ONE incident like the MMM in Mormon
history is a testament to the faith, honor and integrity of the Mormons. I
know of no other people that put up with so much and retaliated so little.
That the MMM happened was terrible. the Fanchers didn't deserve it. However,
even you have to admit that this incident did not happen out of the blue and
for no reason whatsoever.
I blame the men who attacked the train. I ALSO blame the army, the state of
Missourri, the loving Christian neighbors who stole land, lives and
livelihoods.
For instance, I just found out that my mother would own a section of land
that is now down town Kansas City had Gov. Boggs not kicked her family off.
We have no recourse now, never will have..and in large part because of
people like you who do NOT present history with any sort of attempt at even
handedness.
So my opinion of you in this matter remains the same...and you will not even
deny it. Shoot, I'd probably believe you if you did. You seem to be an
honest man.
Diana
<snip>>
> Diane, you said explicitly that I approved of mass murder. Have you
> discussed this with your bishop yet?
You haven't denied it yet. You twist and you turn and you accuse and you go
on and on and on about the MMM.....but you haven't denied that you approve,
or at least don't worry about, what was done elsewhere TO us.
..........and Joseph Smith was NOT killed in the middle of a 'municiple riot
in which he was a prime player'. He was murdered while a prisoner by the
very men who were supposed to be guarding him. They shot him through a
window and when he fell out, they propped him against the wall and shot him
some more.
This is not a riot. This was premeditated murder.
> >> > Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to
> > worship
> >> > freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed
that
> >> > Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone
around
> >> > shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment
'nits
> > make
> >>
> >> Is this history whitewashed?
>
> > This is history, provable and plain, if you had the courage to look past
> > your hatred for us.
>
> You said I approved of mass murder. Will you address this with your
> bishop?
I said that. Until you come out and prove me wrong, I will continue to say
that. Until you treat history with more than your one sided opinion, I will
continue to think that. All you have to do is tell me I'm wrong. You haven't
done that. Does that mean I'm right?
>
> >> > lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to
descend
> > on
> >> > Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have
been
> >> > bothered?
> >>
> >> They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
>
> > No. They would not have. Nobody else was. However, would BY's Mormon
> > Reformation have come about without the history that I mentioned...or
would
> > we still be living peacably in New York with Joseph Smith still alive
and
> > leading?
>
> I refer you to my question above.
Which question?
> >> > I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as
> > the
> >> > Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having
to
> >> > move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight
> > back.
> >> > This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
> >>
> >> Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
>
> > Those down in Iron County had lost entire families to the persecution,
> > Clovis. They didn't always live in Iron County. They had been in New
York
> > and Illinois and Missouri too.
>
>
> I refer you to my question above. Diane, your turn.
No. Your turn. Do you, or do you not, think that the Mormons somehow
"deserved it"? Do you, or do you not, intend to treat the MMM as it truely
is, an incident that is one in a tapestry of history....the rest of which
needs to be examined in order to understand it? Do you, or do you not,
intend to be honest with me, instead of asking me to take this post to my
bishop, as if I had commited some grave sin? I haven't, you know. I just
told you my impression of your posts and my opinion. This isn't a sin, it's
a conclusion. All you have to do is deny it. And then ACT like your denial
means something.
>
>
>
Diana
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c7358b7.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:<3c543de0$1...@news.antelecom.net>...
> > "Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C53A68C...@dangerous1.com...
> > > Tyler Waite wrote:
> > >
>
> Diana, you've been griping about that for years.
You bet I have.
> I've got news for
> you--when my grandmother died, the missionaries showed up within days
> (which I am sure was coincidence--I don't think they scan obits) and
> wanted to know I could be with her forever. I took great offense at
> it--the woman was a Methodist attending a Baptist church. So what?
> She's dead.
You can't tell the difference between being told you are going to follow
your husband to hell and being told that it's possible for both you and your
loved one to be together forever? Give me a break, Lee. The missionaries
(even you admit that it was a coincidence) wanted to offer you something
positive. All that creep at the funeral wanted to do is condemn us. Believe
it or not, there IS a difference!!
>
> Then the fundamentalists (who I swear DO scan the obits) used the
> occasion to convince me to get saved.
>
> That's not persecution. I had the same thing happen that you did, but
> I don't feel persecuted. I just thought those people were lacking
> compassion and jerks. (The LDS missionaries came back later to try
> again even. I chalked it up to being kids.)
You are correct, what happened to you wasn't persecution. Not even close.
However, what happened to me is NOT what happened to you. I'll bet you
anything that the missionaries did not tell you that you were going to burn
in hell forever, did they?
> >
> > As the widow in question, I will say that I thought it hilarious then
and
> > still think it hillarious now, but funny or not, I've come to expect
this
> > sort of thing. Having my twelve year old daughter pushed out of a
> > 'Christian' bookstore by a clerk who was yelling that "Mormons aren't
> > Christian and have no business in here!!" didn't improve my opinion
much,
> > and neither did being stoned...with real rocks..myself.
> >
> > So you will excuse me if I think that Mormons are persecuted, just a wee
> > bit, won't you?
>
> Good grief, Diana, where do you live?
What earthly difference does that make?
However, the funeral and the bookstore were here in California. The stoning
was in England.
> You've got Laura Schelessinger
> on your side on national radio, after all. Furthermore, I couldn't
> tell you what religion most of my neighbors are, much less care.
Same here, Lee. I'm sorry I burst your bubble here, the one that protects
you from knowing that people of minority religions get persecuted, but guess
what........they do. The Jews and the Mormons and the JW's and the Moonies
and..and..and...I don't claim that the Mormons are reserved for special
treatment, because we are not.
I suggest that you go into your nearest Christian book store and look for
the 'cult' section. (the more discrete call it the 'comparative religion'
section...at least the one in Logan Utah does..) You will find there a
rather exhaustive list of belief systems that are open season.
Diana
> Lee Paulson wrote:
>
> > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:<3c543de0$1...@news.antelecom.net>...
> > > "Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C53A68C...@dangerous1.com...
> > > > Tyler Waite wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
> > > > >
> > > > > So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that
lawyer in
> > > > > Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a
damn
> > > > > about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
> > > >
> > > > that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written.
It is
> > > > a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the
church
> > > > reinforces that for them.
> > >
> > > We FEEL persecuted because we ARE persecuted.
>
> case closed.
Indeed it is.....but you will notice that the CHURCH didn't do anything to
"reinforce" my opinion of this. Personal experience is personal experience
and rather difficult to argue with. Are you going to tell me, after what I
have written here, that we are NOT persecuted? Do you dare?
camnchar
> > No mention of Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs in the head,
>
> Uh, Porter Rockwell was not tried for shooting Boggs in the head, and he
> said that he didn't do it...so claiming that he did is a little silly,
don't
> you think? Besides, Porter was several hundred miles away from the site
of
> the shooting at the time it was done. Boggs had more enemies than the
> Mormons.
Give me an instance of Porter Rockwell denying that he shot Boggs. I've
read several biographies, and none provide any evidence of this. To the
contrary, when asked directly, he would simply refuse to answer.
Even a cursory knowledge of the facts in question refute your story, but
it's the main line given to the true believers. Try reading an acount by
someone more objective. For an even-handed approach, you could try "Man of
God/Son of Thunder" by Harold Schindler (who, if he wasn't LDS, was
extremely sympathetic to Rockwell -- but even he concedes that Rockwell shot
Boggs). Climb out of the shell, Diana.
> I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions the
> Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
Arguing from silence is a fallacy. I noticed that you don't have anything
to say about the many atrocities of Vlad the Impaler. Does that mean that
you approve of them?
Chuck
camnchar
>
> "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u575v4e...@news.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>
> > > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
> > >
> >
> > Whoa-ho, Diana. Yeah, there's not alot of point to comment and debate
> about
> > the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the
> faith
> > when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do?
That's
> > human nature.
>
> Yes. It's human nature to "prove" how bogus a faith something is and use
> things done BY members of that faith to others. However, to cavalierly
> dismiss the things done TO members of that faith is unfair and shows a
lack
> of objectivity that borders on approval.
>
> I went too far in accusing Clovis of approving things like Hauns Mill. On
> the other hand, I honestly haven't seen any indication from him that he
> disaproves of stuff like that, in fact, he has gone to rather great
lengths
> to excuse it by alluding to mythical actions by Danites.
You are arguing from silence, Diana. Do you understand what that means, and
why it is a fallacy?
Chuck
TheJordan6
>Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2002 22:33 EST
>Message-id: <a2vsas$uig$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
>
>> The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
>
>So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
>Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
>about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
Interestingly, I have two ex-Mormon friends from Atlanta who told me
independently that they had a stake president there who admitted privately to
them that "There isn't a damn thing true about the church, but it's a great
place to raise a family."
I wonder if that lawyer quoted in the New Yorker might have been that SP.
Randy J.
camnchar
news:3c54...@news.antelecom.net...
> > I refer you to my question above. Diane, your turn.
>
> No. Your turn. Do you, or do you not, think that the Mormons somehow
> "deserved it"? Do you, or do you not, intend to treat the MMM as it
truely
> is, an incident that is one in a tapestry of history....the rest of which
> needs to be examined in order to understand it? Do you, or do you not,
> intend to be honest with me, instead of asking me to take this post to my
> bishop, as if I had commited some grave sin? I haven't, you know. I just
> told you my impression of your posts and my opinion. This isn't a sin,
it's
> a conclusion. All you have to do is deny it. And then ACT like your denial
> means something.
Diana, you are sinking lower and lower. Your entire argument is based on
the silence of Clovis on one particular issue, a silence which is no
different than the silence of Clovis on any number of issues. Are you
prepared to tackle Clovis on his silence on an infinite number of issues, or
defend your own?
Try as you may, you cannot derive any conclusion from silence. If you can't
understand this basic principle, then you may want to seek out an informal
logic class, or google-search "argument from silence" or "basic fallacies."
Chuck
Steven Dufour
> Interestingly, I have two ex-Mormon friends from Atlanta who told me
> independently that they had a stake president there who admitted privately to
> them that "There isn't a damn thing true about the church, but it's a great
> place to raise a family."
Is that bad?
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 12:50 EST
>Message-id: <3c543de0$1...@news.antelecom.net>
Diana, there are jerks in every religion, and Mormonism is no different. For
instance, LDS missionaries are taught to contact people who have just had a
death in the family to teach them the "true plan of salvation." Some people
think that that tactic isn't much better than ambulance-chasing, and are highly
offended by it. Some interpret it as being "persecuted" for being members of a
religion other than Mormonism.
My own non-Mormon father, who was married to my Mormon mother for 53 years,
instructed her that he didn't want a "Mormon funeral." He arranged for the
preacher of a little Methodist country church where his cemetery plot was to
preach his service. My mother ignored his wishes, and she had her stake
president son-in-law deliver the eulogy, and her bishop give the "plan of
salvation" talk, and the Methodist preacher was left with only a couple of
minutes. I'm sure that the whole experience made the preacher think that all
Mormons are nutzoid.
After my family resigned from the LDS church, my Mormon brother whom I was
closest to throughout my life told me "I feel like I've lost a member of my
family."
My oldest brother, who is 63, left the LDS church in the '60's. He has been a
Baptist deacon for many years, and he has a son and a son-in-law who are
Baptist preachers. His family has been "persecuted" by the Mormon members of
my family, including me when I was a Mormon until about five years ago, because
they were in the "wrong religion." Before we left the LDS church, we were
hardly on speaking terms with them; but now, I have apologized to them for my
arrogant "superior" attitude towards them as a Mormon all those years, and now
we have a good relationship. As several of my siblings, nieces and nephews
have left the LDS church over the last few years, we have discussed how badly
we all treated the non-Mormon family members over the years, and we're trying
to repair the relationships that religious differences have damaged over the
decades.
A few years ago, I gave my TBM sister and her kids a ride home from church. As
we passed various Proetestant churches, whose services were letting out, her
kids would comment "Nice church---too bad it isn't true." They repeated this
with every church we passed, until I was sick of hearing it. That shows the
attitude those adolescent Mormon kids are being indoctrinated with in Sunday
School, seminary, and their homes.
The point being that people of all religions can be jerks or "persecute"
others, and Mormons are no exception. When you complain about how non-Mormons
have treated you, understand that there are thousands of Mormons out there who
are treating non-Mormons just as badly every day.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 12:46 EST
>Message-id: <3c543ce6$1...@news.antelecom.net>
Diana, I hate to break this to you, but reporters who are not paid by LDS Inc.
are under no obligation to write only "faith-promoting" propaganda for the
benefit of the LDS church. The New Yorker article wasn't intended to be a
missionary tract.
When GBH "counseled" the reporter not to talk to "our critics," GBH's intention
was that only the pro-LDS side of Mormon history, doctrine, practices, and
culture be exposed. Imagine if for instance, a tobacco company executive
advised a reporter not to talk to "our critics." That reporter's job is to
seek out and interview those critics whom the executives don't want them to
talk to.
The problem is that about 95% of Mormons, and probably 98% of non-Mormons, know
nothing about the dubious aspects of Mormon history, doctrine, or practices.
All that most of them have heard is how the Mormons have been "persecuted" for
no apparent reason. They know nothing about the REAL causes for the Mormons'
problems, which can be traced directly to the teachings and policies of men
like Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Brigham Young. And you are among that
95% of Mormons who are utterly clueless about those real reasons.
A reporter's job is to tell the facts and let the chips fall where they may,
not to act as an apologist for Mormonism. The LDS church spends enough money
on its own PR. They shouldn't try to dictate what reporters should or
shouldn't write about.
Randy J.
Tyler Waite
> For instance, I just found out that my mother would own a section of land
> that is now down town Kansas City had Gov. Boggs not kicked her family
off.
> We have no recourse now, never will have..and in large part because of
> people like you who do NOT present history with any sort of attempt at
even
> handedness.
And one of my ancestors owned a nice farm on Adam ondi Aman, but that still
doesn't erase the fact that Rigdon pronounced an extermination order on the
enemies of the church (Salt Sermon) prior to Boggs pronouncing one on the
saints. Had Boggs made his pronouncement without any provocation from
hostile pronouncements on the part of the mormon leadership you might have
reason for us to feel sorry for you. But instead you just focus on your
side of the story. 'Look what was done to my ancestors!' Start looking at
what some of your ancestors did to their neighbors. I also have an ancestor
that went on night time raids against gentile homes. I'm so proud! not.
Diana do you feel that in all instances of persecution that the saints
endured the basis for the persecution was completely groundless and only
done out of hatered spite and jealously on the part of the gentiles?
Why don't you try pronouncing an extermination order on the residents of a
state and see what kind of reception you receive from the governor of that
state? Nobody is advocating that the saints should have been persecuted.
The problem is when saints act as if they were blameless for all that
happened to them. 'It was all Satan's doing.' 'The saints were just doing
God's work.' But what can you expect that's what they are taught. It is
not appropriate to preach non-faith promoting church history.
Cheap Suit
Hinckley is an excellent businessman. He seems to have no interest in theology.
But then, the theology he has inherited doesn't give him much to work with. Like
Enron, I think they are just trying to make as much as they can before it falls
apart.
Tyler Waite
may,
> not to act as an apologist for Mormonism. The LDS church spends enough
money
> on its own PR. They shouldn't try to dictate what reporters should or
> shouldn't write about.
Luckily GBHs Jedi mind tricks are a bit rusty and had no effect on the
reporter. ;)
>
> Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2002 15:43 EST
>Message-id: <UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com>
>
>But it still does not tell us just what all the Mormon church actually
>owns....
>
>Did learn that they own more than just KSL TV and radio, they own more than
>15 TV and radio stations.
>
>I for one would like to know just how many business the church really does
>own.
A somewhat dated list can be read in the 1985 "The Mormon Corporate Empire," by
John Heinerman and Anson Shupe.
Randy J.
>"rabidcorgi" <rabid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:59ef674d.02012...@posting.google.com...
>> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:<a2uifh$q1j$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
Tyler Waite
> "reinforce" my opinion of this. Personal experience is personal experience
> and rather difficult to argue with. Are you going to tell me, after what I
> have written here, that we are NOT persecuted? Do you dare?
So what, does persecution mean the church is true? Christians are
persecuted in Islamic countries. Islamic people were persecuted in the US
after 9-11. All religions are persecuted in China and were persecuted in
Russia. Hindu's persecute Sikhs. Sikhs kill Hindus out of retribution.
And on and on it goes. Does that make all of these religions true? It is a
sad part of human nature that the dominant culture tends to persecutes the
weaker culture. Stop looking at the persecutions the saints endured as
proof that the church is true. There are plenty of religions in the world
that have endured greater persecution than the Mormons ever did. Just look
at the Bahai religion! There have been more Bahai's slaughtered for their
faith than Mormons in all their persecutions.
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > In article <u575igs...@news.supernews.com>, "Mike W"
> > <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > camnchar wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > Steven Dufour wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have
> >> > > > to wait until I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it.
> >> > > > Thanks.
> >> > > >
> >> > > camnchar wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> >> > >
> >> > R. L. Measures wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's
> >> > dark side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter
> >> > Larry Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite
> >> > interesting.
> >> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the
> >> > meaning of the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in
> >> > Mormonism than there are in Hinduism.
> >> >
> >> > cheers
> >> >
> >>
> >> Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
> >> title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
> >> wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
> >> "intellectuals" were being purged.
>
> > € As has often been the case in the Salvation business , there are
> > libidinal men who can not tolerate allowing women even modest amounts of
> > power. In the present day Mormonite church, women can not receive any
> > priesthood powers. However, there is evidence that Joseph Smith, Junior
> > gave women two priestly powers. In prophet Smith¹s private journal, he
> > recorded that he told women they would possess priesthood privileges,
> > gifts and blessings permitting them to heal the sick and cast out devils.
> > After 1921, the old devils in the hierarchy started telling Mormon women
> > that they could only enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their
> > husbands. 15 months after LDS historian and author Dr. D. Michael Quinn
> > published an essay on this subject, he was barred from church archives and
> > excommunicated. Subsequently, Quinn wrote a book titled "The Mormon
> > Hierarchy: Origins of Power". In December 1994, author and researcher
> > Brent Metcalf was excommunicated from god's one true church because he
> > edited ³New Approaches to the Book of Mormon ², a collection of essays
> > that question the historicity of the Book of Mormon . Between September
> > 1993 and October 1994, seven high profile Mormons were excommunicated by
> > the LDS "Authorities". For her efforts in writing "No Man Knows My
> > History" , professor Fawn Brodie received rave reviews from the New York
> > Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune - and excommunication
> > from the Mormonite church. When she was excommunicated, it was rumoured
> > that the reason for excommunicating her was not so much because of what
> > she said in her Smith bio. - it was for the thoroughness of her research
> > and documentation. It seems that Fawn Brodie¹s greatest sin was that she
> > had left no path of "plausible deniability" for the all-male Mormon
> > hierarchy.
>
> >>Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
> >> get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
> >>
> > € Notre Dame U has one, so why not BYU?
>
> > € cheers, Mike
>
> "The university violated former English Professor Gail Turley Houston's
> academic freedom when it refused to give her continuing status, BYU's
> version of tenure, the AAUP said. The administration had accused Houston
> of attacking BYU in speeches at a nonchurch sponsered forum on Mormon
> studies, and in Student Review, a non-campus newspaper."
>
€ ... SOP for church affiliated "learning" institutions.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
R. L. Measures
<di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:a2vpvi$u3v$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> > Diana <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
> >
> .... ... I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed that
> Joseph Smith died in a blazing gunfight.. .. ... ...
€ Did Joseph Smith, Junior kill anyone on the day when he was killed?
R. L. Measures
<di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2601022...@port66.dial.vcnet.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > > For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
> > > writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both
sides of the
> > > story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
> > > distortion.
> >
> lies? No.....except perhaps by ommision. This was a masterful article by a
> man who was careful to include most of the facts, leaving out only those
> that would reflect well upon us, and using emotionally negative modifiers
> whenever he could.
€ I do not recall writing this, Diana.
R. L. Measures
fourd...@earthlink.net (Steven Dufour) wrote:
€ Shame and guilt inculcation is hardly good.
Cheap Suit
When did you ask me a question? You weren't responding to a post of mine.
>
>
> You have to admit, the only evidence I have is what you write; since you
> don't mention disaproving of these things, and concentrate only on what you
> percieve the Mormons doing to others, I have to go by what is presented to
> me.
or, if you were capable of rational thought, you might decide you don't have
enough knowledge to make an informed opinion.
>
>
> So...."unbelievable' isn't going to do. Do you, or do you not, approve of
> the persecution that the Mormons had to put up with in the early days? If
> you don't, why don't you deal with the history in a more even handed manner?
So know you are accusing Clovis, Chuck and me of supporting the murder of
mormons because we don't argue both sides of the discussion?
Unbelievable.
Jackie Chan
>
> > Indeed it is.....but you will notice that the CHURCH didn't do anything to
> > "reinforce" my opinion of this. Personal experience is personal experience
> > and rather difficult to argue with. Are you going to tell me, after what I
> > have written here, that we are NOT persecuted? Do you dare?
>
> So what, does persecution mean the church is true? Christians are
> persecuted in Islamic countries. Islamic people were persecuted in the US
> after 9-11. All religions are persecuted in China and were persecuted in
> Russia. Hindu's persecute Sikhs. Sikhs kill Hindus out of retribution.
> And on and on it goes. Does that make all of these religions true?
or, Does this make ANY of them true?
Cheap Suit
> "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
>
> > I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions the
> > Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
>
> Arguing from silence is a fallacy. I noticed that you don't have anything
> to say about the many atrocities of Vlad the Impaler. Does that mean that
> you approve of them?
>
> Chuck
Evidently so. Vlad had his temple work done along with Hitler. Diane must
have been the one who did Vlad's work. She hasn't denied it, so it must be
true.
These wacky mormons, what can you do?
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 23:37 EST
>Message-id: <a32kes$99t$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
Yes, GBH may look like Yoda, but he lacks the force to B. S. non-Mormons.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
>
> A few years ago, I gave my TBM sister and her kids a ride home from church. As
> we passed various Proetestant churches, whose services were letting out, her
> kids would comment "Nice church---too bad it isn't true." They repeated this
> with every church we passed, until I was sick of hearing it.
LOL, sounds like my mother.
Cheap Suit
>
> The problem is that about 95% of Mormons, and probably 98% of non-Mormons, know
> nothing about the dubious aspects of Mormon history, doctrine, or practices.
> All that most of them have heard is how the Mormons have been "persecuted" for
> no apparent reason. They know nothing about the REAL causes for the Mormons'
> problems, which can be traced directly to the teachings and policies of men
> like Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Brigham Young. And you are among that
> 95% of Mormons who are utterly clueless about those real reasons.
Everyone wants to talk about Gov. Boggs, no one wants to talk about Sidney Rigdon.
"Elder Rigdon was the prime cause of our troubles in Missouri, by his fourth of
July oration." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 667)
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 23:46 EST
>Message-id: <a32l0a$9bh$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
On that note----Many years ago, an LDS Sunday School teacher in my old ward
made the comment that "The Mormons were persecuted more than any other religjon
in the history of the world." That ignoramus didn't realize that a recent
convert in the class was born and raised a Jew. Her ignorant comment ended the
convert's short fling with Mormonism.
Mormons like Diana have a common problem, and that problem is abject ignorance
of Mormon history. The actual fact is that 19th-century Mormons were
"persecuted for their beliefs" like the Mafia and the Ku Klux Klan are
"persecuted for their beliefs" today. There are hundreds of thousands of
Mormons just like Diana who live their lives in a complete fog, believing that
19th-century Mormons were Amish-like pacifists who did absolutely nothing to
invite actions against them. That attitude exists because of the revision of
history and the brainwashing efforts of Mormon leaders over 170 years.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 01:23 EST
>Message-id: <3C54EE53...@dangerous1.com>
>
>TheJordan6 wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem is that about 95% of Mormons, and probably 98% of non-Mormons,
>know
>> nothing about the dubious aspects of Mormon history, doctrine, or
>practices.
>> All that most of them have heard is how the Mormons have been "persecuted"
>for
>> no apparent reason. They know nothing about the REAL causes for the
>Mormons'
>> problems, which can be traced directly to the teachings and policies of men
>> like Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Brigham Young. And you are among
>that
>> 95% of Mormons who are utterly clueless about those real reasons.
>
>Everyone wants to talk about Gov. Boggs, no one wants to talk about Sidney
>Rigdon.
>
> "Elder Rigdon was the prime cause of our troubles in Missouri, by his fourth
>of
>July oration." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 667)
>
>
>
> dangerous
Yes, that was Brigham Young's spin on the "Salt Sermon" many years later, when
it had become fashionable to try to absolve Smith of the Missouri troubles by
blaming them all on Rigdon. However, what Young didn't say, and what 98% of
Mormons (including Diana) don't realize is that Joseph Smith endorsed Rigdon's
remarks and had them published in a pamphlet. Young's apologetics also
contradicted the testimony of numerous Mormons who swore that it was Smith who
promised to "take this state, and then the entire United States," and wage a
"war of blood and gore from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic."
Randy J.
Clovis Lark
> Randy J.
I'm still waiting for Diana to take a transcript of her comments to her
bishop...
Clovis Lark
A couple of days ago, Diane accused me of supporting the murder of mormons
at Haun's Mill. I am still awaiting her retraction and evidence that she
discussed this absolutely filthy comment with her bishop.
Clovis Lark
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:a328jl$7rg$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Diana <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
>>
>> > "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:a2vr88$ua2$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> > No mention of the many mormons killed by their neighbors, raped,
> beaten,
>> >> > drivin from their homes and no mention of Gov. Boggs and his infamous
>> >> > extermination order, either....
>> >>
>> >> Insofar as I can tell, Haun's Mill is accepted as part of the
> historical
>> >> record. I found not one source (I obviously haven't seen every one)
> that
>> >> said these people deserved what they got nor denying it took place.
> That
>> >> is different than MMM. In the case on MMM, admission to the murders
> then
>> >> admits to other aspects which lead to other things, ending in the
> piracy
>> >> policy.
>> >>
>> >> > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
>> >>
>> >> Diana, I have to hand it to you. I would give most anyone the benefit
> of
>> >> the doubt in even the most acrimonious debate. But this comment comes
>> >> close to the basest of them. Been to your bishop lately? Take a hard
>> >> copy of your post along. Cheers.
>>
>> > With all due respect, Clovis, you have shown NO indication that you
>> > disaproved of anything that was done TO us. You simply keep repeating
> all
>> > the stuff you say we did. That to me indicates your disaproval of
> Mormons to
>> > the extent that you approve of what was done to us.
>>
>>
>> Diana, dear, I keep to issues of fact. I tend to debate where facts seem
>> to be mangled. I have never seen any post here claiming that Haun's Mill
>> was the result of people who were not involved. Even satan's agent
>> Brodie says there is no justification for it. So why would it be of
>> concern to me. I'm not here tom raise the dead on basis of unjust or just
>> homicide. I deal with historical whitewash. I think you raised this as a
>> strawman. I note that you pulled the same tactic 4 years ago.
>>
>>
>> > Please feel free to prove
>> me incorrect. >>
>>
>>
>> Now, Will you take your post and show it to your bishop? Will you admit
>> you threw it in as a smokescreen? Can you seriously claim that there is
>> any similarity as to the mangling of history as it pertains to the MMM and
>> the brutal slaughter of the 19 who remained at Haun's Mill? You brought
>> it up and you are on the line. I'm waiting. Can you go to your bishop
>> and show your post with its context, including my response? Your
>> integrity is at stake.
> You bet your sweet patootie I can. My opinion of you is not a sin; it's
> simply an opinion. AND a question. Do you, or do you NOT, approve of the
> stuff done TO us? Your treatment of LDS history is not very even handed.
No, Diana. You said I approved. I'm not going to let you dance away from
this, or side step on to some tangent. You stepped up to the plate. Now
it's time to play ball. Go see your bishop. Take your comment along.
Ask him to discuss this with you.
> If I have misjudged you, I am sorry. However, in this exchange you haven't
> said that you disaprove; you've only said that others do. All YOU say is
> that it is 'of no concern" to you. Well bub, if you are so concerned with
> Mormon history, of the motives and reasons behind the incidents you decry,
> such things had BETTER be of concern to you. Such incidents are very much a
> part of the MMM.....men who participated in the MMM had very strong memories
> of such things, were shot at, lost family members, children, fathers,
> brothers, wives in the persecutions and the migrations. While these things
> do NOT excuse the MMM, they go a long way toward explaining the mindset that
> allowed it.
> To be very honest, that there was only ONE incident like the MMM in Mormon
> history is a testament to the faith, honor and integrity of the Mormons. I
> know of no other people that put up with so much and retaliated so little.
> That the MMM happened was terrible. the Fanchers didn't deserve it. However,
> even you have to admit that this incident did not happen out of the blue and
> for no reason whatsoever.
> I blame the men who attacked the train. I ALSO blame the army, the state of
> Missourri, the loving Christian neighbors who stole land, lives and
> livelihoods.
For the gallery wishing to do research, Missouri is spelled with one "ar",
which is why your search turned up nothing...
> For instance, I just found out that my mother would own a section of land
> that is now down town Kansas City had Gov. Boggs not kicked her family off.
> We have no recourse now, never will have..and in large part because of
> people like you who do NOT present history with any sort of attempt at even
> handedness.
> So my opinion of you in this matter remains the same...and you will not even
> deny it. Shoot, I'd probably believe you if you did. You seem to be an
> honest man.
I am still demanding that you take your comment to your bishop to discuss
it.
Clovis Lark
The issue is not who did what to whom. The issue is accusing people of
approving of mass murder because they hold a different perspective than
you. I cannot think of a single minister, priest, rabbi, bishop, etc. who
would approve of such a comment. Indeed, there might be serious case for
libel. I am still waiting for Diana's admission of this behavior and that
she has discussed it with her bishop.
Diana
<snip>>
> > So know you are accusing Clovis, Chuck and me of supporting the murder
of
> > mormons because we don't argue both sides of the discussion?
No. I am saying that I believe that you approved of the above because you
don't take any of that into account when blasting the things you accuse
Mormons of doing. You pluck out the incidents from history that support your
view, and then tell ME that incidents like Hauns Mill are 'history' or don't
concern you. Trouble is, incidents like Hauns Mill are extremely important
to things like the MMM, in understanding the mindset, in getting to know all
the actors in the play. You simply dismiss such things as unimportant, or
else you talk about the Danites.
Since all I read from you about such things is the awful things that were
done BY Mormons, and that things like Hauns Mill were not important or
history or don't concern you, I am left with no other option than this: you
think that Mormon lives were less important than non-Mormon lives, that your
concern for accuracy applies only to those things that will support YOUR
case.
With the MMM, I am well aware of the actions, the heinous actions, of the
men who attacked the train. I make no excuses for them. I don't water down
the evil of the act. I DO, however, set it in a framework of the history, so
that I know why it happened. You haven't done the same; you present it as if
it were a natural part of being Mormon, that we would all rise up and kill
if people like you didn't keep harping on the subject.
A fair analysis of the MMM WOULD INCLUDE Hauns Mill, the migrations, the
settlements, the army, all of it, not just the incident itself out of
context. Trust me, it wouldn't come out any less evil a happening if you did
that.
> A couple of days ago, Diane accused me of supporting the murder of mormons
> at Haun's Mill. I am still awaiting her retraction and evidence that she
> discussed this absolutely filthy comment with her bishop.
Sorry, I still think you do, if only by dismissing the incident as
unimportant.
There fore I see nothing to retract.
As for discussing this with my bishop.....you really know nothing at all
about us, really, do you? The bishop is NOT a priest/confessor. If I sin, I
can't go to him, get a penance and everything will be fine. I have to do any
repenting needed all by myself.
So far, the only think I need repent of in THIS matter is being
undiplomatic. I still think you approve of what was done to us, even if on
an unconscious level. If you didn't, you wouldn't dismiss Hauns Mill so
cavalierly.
Diana
"camnchar" <camn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Pi358.4762$Qg2.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
> > > No mention of Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs in the head,
> >
> > Uh, Porter Rockwell was not tried for shooting Boggs in the head, and he
> > said that he didn't do it...so claiming that he did is a little silly,
> don't
> > you think? Besides, Porter was several hundred miles away from the site
> of
> > the shooting at the time it was done. Boggs had more enemies than the
> > Mormons.
>
> read several biographies, and none provide any evidence of this. To the
> contrary, when asked directly, he would simply refuse to answer.
He said, and I quote.."If I had shot him, he would be dead". end quote.
> Even a cursory knowledge of the facts in question refute your story, but
> it's the main line given to the true believers. Try reading an acount by
> someone more objective. For an even-handed approach, you could try "Man
of
> God/Son of Thunder" by Harold Schindler (who, if he wasn't LDS, was
> extremely sympathetic to Rockwell -- but even he concedes that Rockwell
shot
> Boggs). Climb out of the shell, Diana.
>
> > I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions the
> > Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
>
> Arguing from silence is a fallacy. I noticed that you don't have anything
> to say about the many atrocities of Vlad the Impaler. Does that mean that
> you approve of them?
I'm not dealing with the history of Transylvania, We ARE dealing with the
history of the Mormons. Strawman.
As to my coming to a conclusion based on what is NOT found..that is, any
mention of, never mind disaproval of, Hauns Mill et al......well, isn't that
precisely what you are doing when you argue that the Book of Mormon is
false? That is...if it is mentioned in the Book of Mormon but YOU CANT FIND
IT, it is therefore false?
You cannot use an approach for one thing, then criticise me for using the
same approach on you. If you don't make it plain in your posts that you
disaprove of what was done to us as much as you disaprove of what we did,
then I have to conclude, using your own logic, that you do NOT disapprove of
what was done to us.
All any of you have to do is say that you do disaprove, and not a single one
of you has, so far. I find that very telling. Honest, but telling.
Diana
> "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
> >
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:u575v4e...@news.supernews.com...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
> > > >
> > >
> > about
> > > the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the
> > faith
> > > when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do?
> That's
> > > human nature.
> >
> > Yes. It's human nature to "prove" how bogus a faith something is and use
> > things done BY members of that faith to others. However, to cavalierly
> > dismiss the things done TO members of that faith is unfair and shows a
> lack
> > of objectivity that borders on approval.
> >
> > I went too far in accusing Clovis of approving things like Hauns Mill.
On
> > the other hand, I honestly haven't seen any indication from him that he
> > disaproves of stuff like that, in fact, he has gone to rather great
> lengths
> > to excuse it by alluding to mythical actions by Danites.
>
> You are arguing from silence, Diana. Do you understand what that means,
and
> why it is a fallacy?
I understand arguing from silence. I also understand that, when presented
with a chance to NOT be silent, y'all are refusing to speak. Instead, you
are excusing your silence (well, Clovis is...) by dismissing these things
with words like 'history' and 'unimportant'.
I claim that these things are VITAL to the understanding of what came later,
that attempting to understand the MMM without mentioning and analysing them
is useless.
Clovis Lark
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:a32al3$81j$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> <snip>>
>> Diane, you said explicitly that I approved of mass murder. Have you
>> discussed this with your bishop yet?
> You haven't denied it yet. You twist and you turn and you accuse and you go
> on and on and on about the MMM.....but you haven't denied that you approve,
> or at least don't worry about, what was done elsewhere TO us.
Diane, it is not my burden to deny this. Go see your bishop, take your
comments to him and discuss this. The go read posting history and get
someone to explain the definition of "libel". Your persistent repetition
of this libel increases its severity. Not since Fawn have I seen such
behavior.
> ..........and Joseph Smith was NOT killed in the middle of a 'municiple riot
> in which he was a prime player'. He was murdered while a prisoner by the
> very men who were supposed to be guarding him. They shot him through a
> window and when he fell out, they propped him against the wall and shot him
> some more.
Diane, take your comment, "But I forgot, you approve of that stuff" to
your bishop. Report back to us his advice.
> This is not a riot. This was premeditated murder.
>> >> > Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to
>> > worship
>> >> > freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed
> that
>> >> > Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone
> around
>> >> > shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment
> 'nits
>> > make
>> >>
>> >> Is this history whitewashed?
>>
>> > This is history, provable and plain, if you had the courage to look past
>> > your hatred for us.
>>
>> You said I approved of mass murder. Will you address this with your
>> bishop?
> I said that. Until you come out and prove me wrong, I will continue to say
> that. Until you treat history with more than your one sided opinion, I will
> continue to think that. All you have to do is tell me I'm wrong. You haven't
> done that. Does that mean I'm right?
Diane, are you going to compound libel by repeating it ad infinitum? I'm
tempted to show this to a lawyer friend.
>>
>> >> > lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to
> descend
>> > on
>> >> > Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have
> been
>> >> > bothered?
>> >>
>> >> They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
>>
>> > No. They would not have. Nobody else was. However, would BY's Mormon
>> > Reformation have come about without the history that I mentioned...or
> would
>> > we still be living peacably in New York with Joseph Smith still alive
> and
>> > leading?
>>
>> I refer you to my question above.
> Which question?
>> >> > I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as
>> > the
>> >> > Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having
> to
>> >> > move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight
>> > back.
>> >> > This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
>> >>
>> >> Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
>>
>> > Those down in Iron County had lost entire families to the persecution,
>> > Clovis. They didn't always live in Iron County. They had been in New
> York
>> > and Illinois and Missouri too.
>>
>>
>> I refer you to my question above. Diane, your turn.
> No. Your turn. Do you, or do you not, think that the Mormons somehow
> "deserved it"? Do you, or do you not, intend to treat the MMM as it truely
> is, an incident that is one in a tapestry of history....the rest of which
> needs to be examined in order to understand it? Do you, or do you not,
> intend to be honest with me, instead of asking me to take this post to my
> bishop, as if I had commited some grave sin? I haven't, you know. I just
> told you my impression of your posts and my opinion. This isn't a sin, it's
> a conclusion. All you have to do is deny it. And then ACT like your denial
> means something.
Diane, show your remark, "But I forgot, you approve of that stuff." to
your bishop and see what he advises. I am storing your repetitions of
your libel in a folder. I'll see what my next step will be.
>>
>>
>>
Clovis Lark
I know that. You can go to your bishop for advice. I'm not asking for
repentence. I am asking for a formal apology and retraction.
> So far, the only think I need repent of in THIS matter is being
> undiplomatic. I still think you approve of what was done to us, even if on
> an unconscious level. If you didn't, you wouldn't dismiss Hauns Mill so
> cavalierly.
For the third time she repeats this libel. Remember, I'm compiling this.
Clovis Lark
Funny, I was dealing with the history of Ootah and libeling me with an
accusation involving the state of Missouri was not a straw man. The world
is indeed a mysterious place.
> As to my coming to a conclusion based on what is NOT found..that is, any
> mention of, never mind disaproval of, Hauns Mill et al......well, isn't that
> precisely what you are doing when you argue that the Book of Mormon is
> false? That is...if it is mentioned in the Book of Mormon but YOU CANT FIND
> IT, it is therefore false?
> You cannot use an approach for one thing, then criticise me for using the
> same approach on you. If you don't make it plain in your posts that you
> disaprove of what was done to us as much as you disaprove of what we did,
> then I have to conclude, using your own logic, that you do NOT disapprove of
> what was done to us.
> All any of you have to do is say that you do disaprove, and not a single one
> of you has, so far. I find that very telling. Honest, but telling.
You don't read too well.
Clovis Lark
Another repetition of the libel.
camnchar
>
> "camnchar" <camn...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Pi358.4762$Qg2.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
> > > > No mention of Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs in the head,
> > >
> > > Uh, Porter Rockwell was not tried for shooting Boggs in the head, and
he
> > > said that he didn't do it...so claiming that he did is a little silly,
> > don't
> > > you think? Besides, Porter was several hundred miles away from the
site
> > of
> > > the shooting at the time it was done. Boggs had more enemies than the
> > > Mormons.
> >
> > Give me an instance of Porter Rockwell denying that he shot Boggs. I've
> > read several biographies, and none provide any evidence of this. To the
> > contrary, when asked directly, he would simply refuse to answer.
>
> He said, and I quote.."If I had shot him, he would be dead". end quote.
Source, please. Note, however, that this isn't a denial, it's a
hypothetical.
> > Even a cursory knowledge of the facts in question refute your story, but
> > it's the main line given to the true believers. Try reading an acount
by
> > someone more objective. For an even-handed approach, you could try "Man
> of
> > God/Son of Thunder" by Harold Schindler (who, if he wasn't LDS, was
> > extremely sympathetic to Rockwell -- but even he concedes that Rockwell
> shot
> > Boggs). Climb out of the shell, Diana.
> >
> > > I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions
the
> > > Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
> >
> > Arguing from silence is a fallacy. I noticed that you don't have
anything
> > to say about the many atrocities of Vlad the Impaler. Does that mean
that
> > you approve of them?
>
> I'm not dealing with the history of Transylvania, We ARE dealing with the
> history of the Mormons. Strawman.
You do need to seek out that class on informal logic. You don't know what a
strawman is. And you *still* haven't stated that you abhor the atrocities
of Vlad the Impaler! Does that mean you *still* support them?! I've also
noticed you've remained quite silent about the 9/11 tragedy. Using your
logic ...
> As to my coming to a conclusion based on what is NOT found..that is, any
> mention of, never mind disaproval of, Hauns Mill et al......well, isn't
that
> precisely what you are doing when you argue that the Book of Mormon is
> false? That is...if it is mentioned in the Book of Mormon but YOU CANT
FIND
> IT, it is therefore false?
Informal logic, my dear. Basic fallacies. You're getting your arguments
mixed up. When the Book of Mormon predicts that something should be found
in an abundant enough supply that it brings the expectation that that
something should be found -- and we have found many other things in the
exact same time period less resilient than steel armor or wheel-drawn
chariots -- then that counts as evidence against the historicity of the Book
of Mormon. When the Book of Mormon claims that the Native Americans
descended from Jews but the mtDNA evidence shows otherwise, that counts as
evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
What *would* be a parallel with your persistent strange penchant for arguing
from silence is if I made the claim, "The Book of Mormon has nothing to say
about oral sex with goats, therefore in Mormonism that is not a sin." Do
you see the parallel here? I'm trying to be patient.
> You cannot use an approach for one thing, then criticise me for using the
> same approach on you.
It ain't the same approach. Can you see that now?
> If you don't make it plain in your posts that you
> disaprove of what was done to us as much as you disaprove of what we did,
> then I have to conclude, using your own logic, that you do NOT disapprove
of
> what was done to us.
No, you are arguing from silence, which is a fallacy. I am not allowed to
draw conclusions from your silence, and you are not allowed to draw
conclusions from mine. Clear now?
> All any of you have to do is say that you do disaprove, and not a single
one
> of you has, so far. I find that very telling. Honest, but telling.
Did you take your post to your Bishop yet, as Clovis advised? What does he
think of your accusations?
Chuck
Lee Paulson
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c7358b7.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
> > > > Tyler Waite wrote:
> > > >
> <snip>
> >
> > Diana, you've been griping about that for years.
>
> You bet I have.
>
> > I've got news for
> > you--when my grandmother died, the missionaries showed up within days
> > (which I am sure was coincidence--I don't think they scan obits) and
> > wanted to know I could be with her forever. I took great offense at
> > it--the woman was a Methodist attending a Baptist church. So what?
> > She's dead.
>
> You can't tell the difference between being told you are going to follow
> your husband to hell and being told that it's possible for both you and your
> loved one to be together forever? Give me a break, Lee. The missionaries
> (even you admit that it was a coincidence) wanted to offer you something
> positive. All that creep at the funeral wanted to do is condemn us. Believe
> it or not, there IS a difference!!
The fundamentalists told me exactly that. I don't really care. Hell
is not a real place first of all, and second of all, it's **NOT**
persecution, Diana. Persecution implies some sustained and directed
efforts. Jerks making fools of themselves are not persecuting you or
me.
>
> >
> > Then the fundamentalists (who I swear DO scan the obits) used the
> > occasion to convince me to get saved.
> >
> > That's not persecution. I had the same thing happen that you did, but
> > I don't feel persecuted. I just thought those people were lacking
> > compassion and jerks. (The LDS missionaries came back later to try
> > again even. I chalked it up to being kids.)
>
> You are correct, what happened to you wasn't persecution. Not even close.
> However, what happened to me is NOT what happened to you. I'll bet you
> anything that the missionaries did not tell you that you were going to burn
> in hell forever, did they?
Oh. Fundamentalists condemning me to hell is not persecution, but it
is for you? Got it. You're LDS, ergo, it's persecution. I'm an
atheist, so it's not. Gee, funny world you live in.
>
> > >
> > > As the widow in question, I will say that I thought it hilarious then
> and
> > > still think it hillarious now, but funny or not, I've come to expect
> this
> > > sort of thing. Having my twelve year old daughter pushed out of a
> > > 'Christian' bookstore by a clerk who was yelling that "Mormons aren't
> > > Christian and have no business in here!!" didn't improve my opinion
> much,
> > > and neither did being stoned...with real rocks..myself.
> > >
> > > So you will excuse me if I think that Mormons are persecuted, just a wee
> > > bit, won't you?
> >
> > Good grief, Diana, where do you live?
>
> What earthly difference does that make?
>
> However, the funeral and the bookstore were here in California. The stoning
> was in England.
>
> > You've got Laura Schelessinger
> > on your side on national radio, after all. Furthermore, I couldn't
> > tell you what religion most of my neighbors are, much less care.
>
> Same here, Lee. I'm sorry I burst your bubble here, the one that protects
> you from knowing that people of minority religions get persecuted, but guess
> what........they do. The Jews and the Mormons and the JW's and the Moonies
> and..and..and...I don't claim that the Mormons are reserved for special
> treatment, because we are not.
You burst no bubble, Diana. LDS are not generally persecuted, and
what you describe is not persecution. Period. Christians in
Afghanistan are persecuted. Falun Dafa et al. in China are. You are
simply harrassed by jerks.
>
> I suggest that you go into your nearest Christian book store and look for
> the 'cult' section. (the more discrete call it the 'comparative religion'
> section...at least the one in Logan Utah does..) You will find there a
> rather exhaustive list of belief systems that are open season.
Why would I care? Why would you? I can go into the nearest grocery
store and find The National Enquirer slamming Hilary Clinton. I'd bet
she gets a whole lot more coverage, and she doesn't seem to feel she's
persecuted.
camnchar
If you understand what arguing from silence is, why do you keep doing it?
If you make the claim that Clovis or myself approves of the Haun's Mill
Massacre, you have to back that up with something that Clovis or myself has
said. That's how it works.
Now, you made the claim, you back it up. Search through Google and see if
you can find a statement by Clovis or myself that approves of the Haun's
Mill Massacre. If you can't, then an apology at least is in order.
Clovis's suggestion of that trip to the Bishop may also do you some good.
> I claim that these things are VITAL to the understanding of what came
later,
> that attempting to understand the MMM without mentioning and analysing
them
> is useless.
And Clovis has rejoined that history is clear on the details of Haun's Mill.
The details of Mountain Meadow, however, are less so. We had an opportunity
to clarify when the bones of some of the deceased were disinterred a while
back, but the LDS governer wouldn't have that, and so the details still
remain muddy.
Chuck
R. L. Measures
<twa...@informationinplace.com> wrote:
> > For instance, I just found out that my mother would own a section of land
> > that is now down town Kansas City had Gov. Boggs not kicked her family
> off.
> > We have no recourse now, never will have..and in large part because of
> > people like you who do NOT present history with any sort of attempt at
> even
> > handedness.
>
> And one of my ancestors owned a nice farm on Adam ondi Aman, but that still
> doesn't erase the fact that Rigdon pronounced an extermination order on the
> enemies of the church (Salt Sermon) prior to Boggs pronouncing one on the
> saints. Had Boggs made his pronouncement without any provocation from
> hostile pronouncements on the part of the mormon leadership you might have
> reason for us to feel sorry for you. But instead you just focus on your
> side of the story. 'Look what was done to my ancestors!' Start looking at
> what some of your ancestors did to their neighbors. I also have an ancestor
> that went on night time raids against gentile homes. I'm so proud! not.
> ...
€ the laugher is that TB mormonites still refer to Jews as "gentiles".
...