The Mountain Meadows Massacre
TJ
though they had just celebrated the tenth anniversary of their arrival into
Utah, there were still fears that the government would interfere in their
affairs. Misunderstandings and hard feelings on both sides continued to
prevail as they had when the Mormons lived in the east.
Mormonism had become a political pariah in the election of 1856. In order to
make sure that the Democratic Party had no positive connections whatsoever
with the LDS Church, newly elected President James Buchanan decided to
replace Utah Governor Brigham Young with Alfred Cumming. To ensure that
Young's replacement would be accepted, Buchanan also dispatched a large
military contingency.
Apparently Buchanan's big mistake was in not officially notifying Young of
the change or of the approaching army. Given past circumstances, it is
difficult to fault the LDS people with the mistaken notion that trouble was
again about to take place. On September 15th, Brigham Young declared martial
law and ordered the Nauvoo Legion to prepare for what was called the "big
fight."
In a classic case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, a wagon
train of over 120 emigrants chose to go through Utah on their way to
California. Their hopes of buying needed supplies were rejected, thus
angering the emigrants. The refusal on the part of the Mormons is somewhat
understandable since the Mormons were expecting a siege and would need to
save the supplies for themselves.
Exacerbating suspicions were rumors that some of the party had expressed joy
in the thought of the coming army possibly annihilating the Mormons. Adding
fuel to the fire was talk that some of the party had actually participated
in the killing of Joseph Smith, including one of them who supposedly had a
gun used in their prophet's death. This was no small offense. At that time,
Mormons who participated in the temple endowment were also making vows to
avenge the blood of the "martyrs" Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. The
angered party turned south towards Cedar City and camped at a well-known
resting-place called the Mountain Meadows.
Circumstances, either real or imagined, led the local LDS leadership to
decide that the emigrants should be "done away with." A plan was concocted
that involved the local Indians, no doubt hoping that they would receive the
blame. On the morning of September 7th, Indians attacked the camp. Wagons
were drawn into a circle and a standoff that would last five days ensued.
According to the Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC), "two men left
their camp in the Meadows, evaded the watchfulness of the Indians and were
making their way to Cedar for help." Along the way, "they met three white
men to whom they told their errand, but were immediately attacked and one of
them was killed. The other escaped and returned to the emigrant camp, with
his news, of course, that the white settlers were doubtless in league with
the Indians for their destruction, since his companion had been killed by
white men." (4:153).
When it was apparent that the Indians could not successfully complete the
job, the Mormons schemed to kill the emigrants by another means. John D. Lee
was chosen to speak with the emigrants. Under a flag of truce with a promise
of armed protection to Cedar City, he successfully convinced the besieged
party to give up their arms and load their wounded in a wagon. The women,
older children, and men would follow behind in that order.
LDS historian and Seventy, B.H. Roberts describes the tragedy in the
following manner:
"Meantime the Indians, several hundred in number, had been concealed in
patches of scrub oaks and cedars behind a swell of the hillside, out of view
from the emigrant camp, but beside the road over which this forming
procession would move. A short distance from the emigrant camp the settlers
from Cedar City and the Clara valley were drawn up in double file, and
between the files the procession of wagons, women and children and men
passed. The file of settlers was then changed from double to single order,
an armed settler by this arrangement marching on the right of each unarmed
emigrant man. When the wagons and the women and children had reached the
stretch of road beside which the Indians were in ambush, the signal agreed
upon was given, and in from three to five minutes the Mountain Meadows
Massacre was made a horrible fact of history" (CHC 4:157).
When the site was later visited by Major James Carleton, he erected a wooden
cross with the words, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord."
According to tradition, Brigham Young, upon reading the inscription some
time later, said, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, and I have repaid!"
(CHC 4:176).
All of the Mormons involved took an oath of secrecy. It would take 20 long
years before the whole story would be told and punishment would be met. Of
all of the Mormons who were involved, only John D. Lee faced the ultimate
wrath of the courts. On March 23, 1877, Lee was escorted back to the
Mountain Meadows and executed by a firing squad.
In 1990 a new set of markers was placed at the site located off Highway 18
north of St. George. Unfortunately this information is even more vague than
what it replaced. A person with no knowledge of the incident would scarcely
understand what really took place there in the mid-nineteenth century.
Hill5045
>From: "TJ" kind...@ibm.net
>Date: 4/21/01 2:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <te3qg41...@corp.supernews.com>
Excellent!
The Mormons purchased the property on which the Mountain Meadows Massacre took
place so that they could control any investigations.
They refuse to let any group, scientist or otherwise have access to the remains
of the victims.
Many of the women and children were killed execution style with a bullet behind
the ear and they don't want that information to get out.
Gordon
Michael
> Excellent!
>
> The Mormons purchased the property on which the Mountain Meadows Massacre
took
> place so that they could control any investigations.
>
> They refuse to let any group, scientist or otherwise have access to the
remains
> of the victims.
>
> Many of the women and children were killed execution style with a bullet
behind
> the ear and they don't want that information to get out.
>
> Gordon
First of all -- I have stood on the ground of the Mountain Meadows, there is
no fence, gate or other barrier to the area. Absolute hogwash as to the idea
of the area being sealed off. There is a marker present and not much else.
Now a question: If the Mormon's supposedly refuse to let anyone have access
to the remains of the victims then how can you accurately assert that "the
women and children were killed execution style with a bullet behind
the ear"? Your "facts" contridict themselves or they are based on rumor and
conjecture only.
-Michael
don m
> <snip>
>
> > Excellent!
> >
> > The Mormons purchased the property on which the Mountain Meadows Massacre
> took
> > place so that they could control any investigations.
> >
> > They refuse to let any group, scientist or otherwise have access to the
> remains
> > of the victims.
> >
> > Many of the women and children were killed execution style with a bullet
> behind
> > the ear and they don't want that information to get out.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> First of all -- I have stood on the ground of the Mountain Meadows, there is
> no fence, gate or other barrier to the area. Absolute hogwash as to the idea
> of the area being sealed off. There is a marker present and not much else.
Good for you.
I have no fence, gate or other barrier around my front yard. Will I let you dig
it up? No. I own it, I can decide who has access to it.
Is this a difficult concept to understand?
>
>
> Now a question: If the Mormon's supposedly refuse to let anyone have access
> to the remains of the victims then how can you accurately assert that "the
> women and children were killed execution style with a bullet behind
> the ear"? Your "facts" contridict themselves or they are based on rumor and
> conjecture only.
>
> -Michael
Wrong. <http://www.sltrib.com/2000/mar/03132000/utah/33327.htm>
Read all about it.
here's a little excerpt of the "saints" work:
by Christopher Smith ("The Salt Lake Tribune", March 13, 2000)
Before the bones were placed back into the earth in the wake of the abrupt
change in a state antiquities permit, they
had started to reveal their secrets. In a 30-hour, round-the-clock forensic
marathon, Novak and her students at the U.
managed to reassemble several of the skulls before BYU officials arrived early
on the morning of Sept. 10 to take the
bones away.
Her results, which are still being compiled for future publication in a
scientific journal, confirm much of the
documentary record. But they also provide chilling new evidence that
contradicts some conventional beliefs about
what happened during the massacre.
For instance, written accounts generally claim the women and older children
were beaten or bludgeoned to death by
Indians using crude weapons, while Mormon militiamen killed adult males by
shooting them in the back of the head.
However, Novak's partial reconstruction of approximately 20 different skulls of
Mountain Meadows victims show:
-- At least five adults had gunshot exit wounds in the posterior area of the
cranium -- a clear indication some were
shot while facing their killers.. One victim's skull displays a close-range
bullet entrance wound to the forehead;
-- Women also were shot in the head at close range. A palate of a female victim
exhibits possible evidence of
gunshot trauma to the face, based on a preliminary examination of broken teeth;
-- At least one youngster, believed to be about 10 to 12 years old, was killed
by a gunshot to the top of the head.
Other findings by Novak from the commingled partial remains of at least 29
individuals -- a count based on the
number of right femurs in the hundreds of pieces of bone recovered from the
gravesite -- back up the historical
record;
-- Five skulls with gunshot entrance wounds in the back of the cranium have no
"beveling," or flaking of bone, on the
exterior of the skull. This indicates the victims were executed with the gun
barrel pointing directly into the head, not
at an angle, and at very close range;
-- Two young adults and three children -- one believed to be about 3 years old
judging by tooth development -- were
killed by blunt-force trauma to the head. Although written records recount that
children under the age of 8 were
spared, historians believe some babes-in-arms were murdered along with their
mothers;
-- Virtually all of the "post-cranial" (from the head down) bones displayed
extensive carnivore damage, confirming
written accounts that bodies were left on the killing field to be gnawed by
wolves and coyotes.
donm
Keith Wood
don m wrote:
>
> Wrong. <http://www.sltrib.com/2000/mar/03132000/utah/33327.htm>
> Read all about it.
This is the same Salt Lake Tribune which claimed in headlines that the
Church was trying to buy the Trib (when, in fact, the paper was bought
by some chain from Colorado).
When it comes to the Church, the Trib is so nearsighted that they can't
tell night from a banana.
don m
which part of the story are you disputing? Or are you refusing to read it
because of the wicked ol Trib?
A simple web search will find the incident in numerous papers across the
country. Find one more to your liking.
Or do you just enjoy the mormon game of attacking the messenger if the
message makes the "saints" appear less than saintly?
I doubt that you will find out about the details of the incident in your
weekly Church News insert.
donm
Keith Wood
don m wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
>
> > don m wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Wrong. <http://www.sltrib.com/2000/mar/03132000/utah/33327.htm>
> > > Read all about it.
> >
> > This is the same Salt Lake Tribune which claimed in headlines that the
> > Church was trying to buy the Trib (when, in fact, the paper was bought
> > by some chain from Colorado).
> >
> > When it comes to the Church, the Trib is so nearsighted that they can't
> > tell night from a banana.
>
> which part of the story are you disputing? Or are you refusing to read it
> because of the wicked ol Trib?
When the course can't be trusted, what is the use of reading the story?
Hill5045
>From: "Michael" Arch...@invalid.com
>Date: 4/21/01 10:54 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <LFsE6.338$5K3.28...@news.sisna.com>
Michael, The church owns the massacre site and no one may dig or have access to
the bones according to the church.
and
While erecting the current monument, some bones were accidentally dug up and
they showed trauma to the heads women and children. The bones were immediately
re-buried according to church direction and no one else was allowed to examine
the bones.
Gordon
Hill5045
>Date: 4/22/01 9:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AE2FEF4...@bctv.com>
Keith, It doesn't say the Church wants to own the Trib, it says the Church
wants to control the Trib. There is a difference.
Gordon
Keith Wood
Sorry, Gordon, they were saying that the Church was trying to buy the
Tribune.
FAWNSCRIBE
Message-id: <3AE30921...@bctv.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When the source of the BOA can't be trusted..the source of the BOM lies for the
Lord and you have other sources for cribbed work..will you then trust THAT
source?
Curious.
Fawn
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/22/2001 12:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AE30921...@bctv.com>
One can use that same logic to determine the truth or falsehood of Joseph
Smith's claims, too. Why trust him on anything, when so much of what he said
was false?
Randy J.
don m
You are certainly welcome to post the deseret news version of the event.
donm
don m
I know that personal "testimony" overrides fact in all discussions on this
forum, but isn't it interesting that the bones were dug up while the church
contractor was digging the foundation for a WALL?
Salt Lake Tribune March 14 2000,
"There are conflicting accounts of whether descendants understood the wall
would require digging a trench around
the grave for a concrete footing. Some MMA members, including the contractor,
interpreted the "do not disturb"
edict to cover the pre-construction archaeological investigation. Once the
archaeologists said all clear, crews could
dig the footing, they believed.
But Scott Fancher says his branch of the family understood the wall would be
"surface-mounted," in keeping with the
church's pledge not to disturb the burial ground in any way."
donm
Keith Wood
Only you and James Brady could envision a "surface-mnounted" wall.
don m
I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't envisioned any kind of wall,
just giving a few excerpts for those of you who fear you may lose your recommend by
looking at the Tribune web site. Michael bore his testimony that it was "absolute
hogwash as to the idea of the area being sealed off." I pointed out that the
bones were dug up as they were digging the foundation for a wall. So your point
is.....?
Mormons are always piously intoning that the next archeological dig may turn up
evidence of mormon history, and then when one falls in their lap they bury their
heads in their book of mormon and try and ignore it.
You guys crack me up.
donm
Salt Lake Tribune March 12, 2000
"What we understood in every correspondence, and we thought we had made perfectly
clear to the church, was that under no circumstances would the remains be
disturbed," says Scott Fancher, whose organization is considering legal action over
the excavation. "Never in my wildest imagination did we expect them to set a
backhoe on this grave and start digging."
Keith Wood
don m wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
>
> > Only you and James Brady could envision a "surface-mnounted" wall.
Okay, you James Brady and Scott Fancher.
Michael
still think that it is conjecture to say that the "Mormons" refuse to allow
examination of remains at the site because it gives supposed proof that
women and children were slain execution style. It is this assertion of the
motives of the church that I call into question.
The "Mormons" do not deny this event took place. Those who partisipated in
this massacre will be brought before God to be judged of their deeds just as
we all will one day. The church has repeatedly stated that the actions were
terrible and wrong, they have sought out the living relatives of the victims
and made a formal apologies.
I am not sure what else the church can do. But asserting supposed motives
with lack of evidence is conjecture and does not lead to healing. It only
adds more fuel to the fire of hate, bitterness and misunderstanding.
-Michael
<original post snipped>
don m
> I was not bearing any testimony. I was simply relating an observation. I
> still think that it is conjecture to say that the "Mormons" refuse to allow
> examination of remains at the site because it gives supposed proof that
> women and children were slain execution style. It is this assertion of the
> motives of the church that I call into question.
Supposed proof? Are you asserting then that the University of Utah
anthropologists are liars?
Salt Lake Tribune March 13, 2000
"For instance, written accounts generally claim the women and older
children were beaten or bludgeoned to death by Indians using crude weapons,
while Mormon militiamen killed adult males by shooting them in the back of the
head. However, Novak's partial reconstruction of approximately 20 different
skulls of Mountain Meadows victims
show:
-- At least five adults had gunshot exit wounds in the posterior area of the
cranium -- a clear indication some were shot while facing their killers. One
victim's skull displays a close-range bullet entrance wound to the forehead;
-- Women also were shot in the head at close range. A palate of a female victim
exhibits possible evidence of gunshot trauma to the face, based on a
preliminary examination of broken teeth;
-- At least one youngster, believed to be about 10 to 12 years old, was killed
by a gunshot to the top of the head.
Other findings by Novak from the commingled partial remains of at least 29
individuals -- a count based on the number of right femurs in the hundreds of
pieces of bone recovered from the gravesite -- back up the historical record;
-- Five skulls with gunshot entrance wounds in the back of the cranium have no
"beveling," or flaking of bone, on the exterior of the skull. This indicates
the victims were executed with the gun barrel pointing directly into the head,
not at an angle, and at very close range;
-- Two young adults and three children -- one believed to be about 3 years old
judging by tooth development -- were killed by blunt-force trauma to the head.
Although written records recount that children under the age of 8 were spared,
historians believe some babes-in-arms were murdered along with their mothers;
-- Virtually all of the "post-cranial" (from the head down) bones displayed
extensive carnivore damage, confirming written accounts that bodies were left
on the killing field to be gnawed by wolves and coyotes.
Assisted by graduate student Derinna Kopp and other U. Department of
Anthropology volunteers, Novak's team took photographs, made measurements,
wrote notes and drew diagrams of the bones, all part of the standard data
collection required by law. "I treated this as if it were a recent homicide,
conducting the analysis scientifically but with great respect," says Novak.
"I'm always extremely conservative in my conclusions. I will only present what
I can verify in a court of law."
>
>
> The "Mormons" do not deny this event took place. Those who partisipated in
> this massacre will be brought before God to be judged of their deeds just as
> we all will one day. The church has repeatedly stated that the actions were
> terrible and wrong, they have sought out the living relatives of the victims
> and made a formal apologies.
>
Salt Lake Tribune March 14, 2000
"That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of
the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful
day," Hinckley said. The line was inserted into his speech on the advice of
attorneys for the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. The statement, seemingly out of sync with Hinckley's desire
to bring healing to nearly 150 years of bitterness, caused some in attendance
to wonder if any progress had really been made at all. If the Mormon Church
leadership of 1857 was not at least partially to blame for an estimated 120
people slain at Mountain Meadows, then whom should history hold responsible?
"Well, I would place blame on the local people," Hinckley told The Salt Lake
Tribune in a subsequent interview Feb. 23.
That sounds like a real heartfelt apology, doesn't it?
>
>
> I am not sure what else the church can do. But asserting supposed motives
> with lack of evidence is conjecture and does not lead to healing. It only
> adds more fuel to the fire of hate, bitterness and misunderstanding.
>
Are you referring to Hinckley's quote blaming it on the "local people"?
His comments most certainly did add more fuel to the fire.
Salt Lake Tribune March 12, 2000:
In retracing the latest episode, The Salt Lake Tribune conducted numerous
interviews and researched documents obtained under Utah's Government Records
Access and Management Act to find:
Co-sponsors of the monument project -- the LDS Church and the Mountain Meadows
Association -- initially hoped to cover up the excavation, with the MMA
demanding any documentation be "kept out of public view permanently." The
president of the association, Ron Loving, wrote in an Aug. 9 e-mail to the
director of the Utah Division of History: "The families [descended from
victims] and the LDS church will work out what we want to become public
knowledge on this accidental finding."
The vain effort to hide the truth gave rise to wild conspiracy theories among
some descendants. They suspected Loving was working with the LDS Church to
rewrite history by having church-owned Brigham Young University determine the
exhumed victims died of disease, not murder. "I call it 'sanitizing' a foul
deed," Burr Fancher wrote to other descendants Aug. 24.
Utah Division of History Director Max Evans, over the objections of state
Archaeologist Kevin Jones, personally rewrote BYU's state archaeological permit
to require immediate reburial of the bones after receiving the governor's
e-mail. Jones raised numerous questions over the political power play,
including a concern it was "eth- nocentric and racist" to rebury the bones of
white emigrants without basic scientific study when similar American Indian
remains are routinely subjected to such analysis before repatriation.
donm
R. L. Measures
<Arch...@invalid.com> wrote:
> I was not bearing any testimony. I was simply relating an observation. I
> still think that it is conjecture to say that the "Mormons" refuse to allow
> examination of remains at the site because it gives supposed proof that
> women and children were slain execution style. It is this assertion of the
> motives of the church that I call into question.
>
> The "Mormons" do not deny this event took place. Those who partisipated in
> this massacre will be brought before God to be judged of their deeds just as
> we all will one day. The church has repeatedly stated that the actions were
> terrible and wrong, they have sought out the living relatives of the victims
> and made a formal apologies.
>
> I am not sure what else the church can do. ...
€ Confess that:
1. the murders were not committed by a splinter group.
2. Brigham Young participated in a cover-up in the Deseret News.
>But asserting supposed motives
> with lack of evidence is conjecture and does not lead to healing. It only
> adds more fuel to the fire of hate, bitterness and misunderstanding.
>
€ If the church came clean sbout the Massacre, it would cast a shadow of doubt.
cheers, Michael
>
> <original post snipped>
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
R. L. Measures
> Michael wrote:
>
> > I was not bearing any testimony. I was simply relating an observation. I
> > still think that it is conjecture to say that the "Mormons" refuse to allow
> > examination of remains at the site because it gives supposed proof that
> > women and children were slain execution style. It is this assertion of the
> > motives of the church that I call into question.
>
> Supposed proof? Are you asserting then that the University of Utah
> anthropologists are liars?
>
€ Informative post Don. thank you
cheers
--
Clovis Lark
>>From: Keith Wood k...@bctv.com
>>When the course can't be trusted, what is the use of reading the story?
Which source that can't be trusted? Leonard Jones, Utah State
Archeologist? The forensics anthropolgists? The forensics anthrologists
employed at BYU? University of Utah forensic anthropologist Shannon Novak?
Michael
was that the Mormons were attempting a cover up because they did not want
the public to know that children and women were killed at close range. But
you keep belaboring the fact from other sources that they did. Fine...I can
accept this and I am not arguing this point.
What I see is that It is conjecture on your part as to the motives of the
church as to the fact of why they don't allow any idiot with a bulldozer dig
up the moutain meadows area.
I do not disupute other sources or "facts". I dispute you or anyone else
asserting what the churches motives are. If it is fact that women and
children were executed at close range then why would the church need to
cover this fact up in the first place (if this knowledge as you quote from
the Trib. is in the public domain?) This is the conflict of "facts" I keep
beating you over the head with.
You are guessing as to the motives of the church and this is not based on
fact it is only your educated or uneducated guess as to the reasons for what
actions the church has taken in relation to this issue.
-Michael
<snip entire post>
John Manning
Michael,
Is there *any* justifiable *motive* by the 'Church', to murder women and
children?
John Manning
>
> -Michael
>
> <snip entire post>
don m
> You are missing the mark of what I am objecting to. The original assertion
> was that the Mormons were attempting a cover up because they did not want
> the public to know that children and women were killed at close range. But
> you keep belaboring the fact from other sources that they did. Fine...I can
> accept this and I am not arguing this point.
>
> What I see is that It is conjecture on your part as to the motives of the
> church as to the fact of why they don't allow any idiot with a bulldozer dig
> up the moutain meadows area.
>
>
> I do not disupute other sources or "facts". I dispute you or anyone else
> asserting what the churches motives are. If it is fact that women and
> children were executed at close range then why would the church need to
> cover this fact up in the first place (if this knowledge as you quote from
> the Trib. is in the public domain?) This is the conflict of "facts" I keep
> beating you over the head with.
I have not asserted what the church's motive was. Wasn't me.
It is fact NOW that women and children were executed at close range because the
church accidentally dug up the remains. (the idiot with a bulldozer as you call
them). This wasn't known or in the public domain until the state and u. of u.
archeologists, in compliance with state law, examined the remains.
the examination results contradict prevalent stories of how the slaughter took
place.
Your "conflict of facts" that you "keep beating me over the head with" does not
exist. the church was not trying to cover up well known facts. The facts were
only discovered by their unearthing of the remains.
>
>
> You are guessing as to the motives of the church and this is not based on
> fact it is only your educated or uneducated guess as to the reasons for what
> actions the church has taken in relation to this issue.
>
> -Michael
>
>
Lets start over.
you said:
> Now a question: If the Mormon's supposedly refuse to let anyone have access
> to the remains of the victims then how can you accurately assert that "the
> women and children were killed execution style with a bullet behind
> the ear"? Your "facts" contridict themselves or they are based on rumor and
> conjecture only.
I did not make the assertion that the mormons refuse to let anyone have access
to the remains. I pointed out by posting the Trib article that the remains were
accidentally dug up and under state law forensic examination was required.
You have two separate "contradiction of facts" arguments here.
1- if the mormons supposedly refuse access to the remains, how can the
assertion be made on how the were killed?
I think the Tribune article explains exactly how the remains were accidentally
unearthed.
2-"If it is fact that women and children were executed at close range then why
would the church need to cover this fact up in the first place (if this
knowledge as you quote from the Trib. is in the public domain?)"
It wasn't common knowledge that the slayings were done execution style or that
children were killed. This was the first time these remains were ever seen.
children under the "age of accountability" were supposedly spared. (its that
old blood atonement thing).
Later,
donm
Clovis Lark
There is something missing here. The backhoe's booty was, by law, to be
thoroughly examined by forensics anthropologists. However, as soon as the
incident became public, the church and governor insisted that the law be
subterfuged and the examination stopped. Why would they care that the
evidence would reveal executions of children and women? Why would they
care that the Paiute Nation would be exonerated from the accusation that
they were the ones responsible (after 130 years of false claims)?
Because, there were those nasty details. They include BY's acquisition of
all the Fancher party's cattle. They include BY's visit to the site 1
year later and his sarcastic on-site remarks aimed at the US soldiers'
outrage and the monument they erected. They include his supervision
during the destruction of said monument. They include the Church's fear
that an apology leaves them legally liable. Based upon all that, it is
quite clear what the church's motives are.
>>
>>
>> You are guessing as to the motives of the church and this is not based on
>> fact it is only your educated or uneducated guess as to the reasons for what
>> actions the church has taken in relation to this issue.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
> Lets start over.
> you said:
> > Now a question: If the Mormon's supposedly refuse to let anyone have access
> > to the remains of the victims then how can you accurately assert that "the
> > women and children were killed execution style with a bullet behind
> > the ear"? Your "facts" contridict themselves or they are based on rumor and
> > conjecture only.
> I did not make the assertion that the mormons refuse to let anyone have access
> to the remains. I pointed out by posting the Trib article that the remains were
> accidentally dug up and under state law forensic examination was required.
The church and the governor (a church member and descendant of a member of
the attackers of the Fanchers) both acted in violation of Utah state law
to halt access to the remains. They forced the premature halt to
examination. I would say that this indicates the Church's refusal to
access.
> You have two separate "contradiction of facts" arguments here.
> 1- if the mormons supposedly refuse access to the remains, how can the
> assertion be made on how the were killed?
> I think the Tribune article explains exactly how the remains were accidentally
> unearthed.
> 2-"If it is fact that women and children were executed at close range then why
> would the church need to cover this fact up in the first place (if this
> knowledge as you quote from the Trib. is in the public domain?)"
> It wasn't common knowledge that the slayings were done execution style or that
> children were killed. This was the first time these remains were ever seen.
> children under the "age of accountability" were supposedly spared. (its that
> old blood atonement thing).
Ethnic cleansing...
> Later,
> donm
R. L. Measures
> Michael wrote:
>
> > You are missing the mark of what I am objecting to. The original assertion
> > was that the Mormons were attempting a cover up because they did not want
> > the public to know that children and women were killed at close range. But
> > you keep belaboring the fact from other sources that they did. Fine...I can
> > accept this and I am not arguing this point.
> >
> > What I see is that It is conjecture on your part as to the motives of the
> > church as to the fact of why they don't allow any idiot with a bulldozer dig
> > up the moutain meadows area.
>
> >
> >
> > I do not disupute other sources or "facts". I dispute you or anyone else
> > asserting what the churches motives are. If it is fact that women and
> > children were executed at close range then why would the church need to
> > cover this fact up in the first place (if this knowledge as you quote from
> > the Trib. is in the public domain?) This is the conflict of "facts" I keep
> > beating you over the head with.
>
> I have not asserted what the church's motive was. Wasn't me.
> It is fact NOW that women and children were executed at close range
because the
> church accidentally dug up the remains. (the idiot with a bulldozer as
you call
> them).
€ I heard it was a backhoe - being use to dig the footing for a wall.
€ Executing pregnant women is not politically-correct.
> This was the first time these remains were ever seen.
> children under the "age of accountability" were supposedly spared. (its that
> old blood atonement thing).
>
>...
€ A day that will live in infamy, Don.
R. L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
It was seemmingly religious cleansing, Don. The Fancher-party was white
and delightsome. For not belonging to Brigham's church, 120 members of
the Fancher-party paid with their lives..
Truth_Seeker
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010422162826...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
If a prophet gets something wrong, one can surmise he was only acting as a
man in that instance. If he gets something right that no one could have
gotten right but for being a prophet, that speaks volumes. Do we have
Biblical examples of men of God who erred? Yes, plenty.
We know that Peter screwed up and denied Jesus 3 times after having received
a witness from God that Jesus was the Son of God. We know that Moses was
denied entry into the promised land for an error in judgment in the
wilderness. Imagine that, Moses, the law giver, the man who saw God making
an error in judgment and being denied the right to see the promised land
after leading Israel for 40 years. This doesn't mean that Moses wasn't
greatest among all the Israelite prophets.
David, the only king who God said was of God's own heart, committed adultery
and was also complicit in the death of the man with whose wife he committed
adultery. Yet David subsequently gave us the Psalms, which contain much
prophetic scripture concerning the Messiah.
Sampson was given the power of God to rule and conquer, yet erred and lost
that power. Doesn't mean he wasn't originally chosen to do God's work among
Israel.
Thus, we have ample evidence that God has called imperfect men to carry out
his purposes, including JS. That JS was imperfect and made mistakes brings
the works of God down to the level of man, instead of being so
irreconcilably out of our reach or understanding that all we can hope for is
that God will simply elect us unto salvation due to our inherited
wretchedness. This gives me, an imperfect man, hope and greater faith in
the forgiving nature of God.
Michael
dreadful massacre (and you know it), I was talking about why the church does
not allow any idiot with a bulldozer to start plowing up the meadows.
"John Manning" <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE50F14...@cableone.net...
don m
> Once again you miss the mark. I was not talking about the motive behind the
> dreadful massacre (and you know it), I was talking about why the church does
> not allow any idiot with a bulldozer to start plowing up the meadows.
>
I guess because they wanted to do it themselves.
donm
Clovis Lark
good, good...
> donm
CommUnitarian
It is merely a buzzword brought up to justify whatever antiMormons want to say
and do to Mormons.
Adequate discussion of the Mountain Meadows Massacre would require it be placed
in its proper historical context, along with other atrocities coming both by
and against the Mormons.
For instance, Japanese are quick to note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are
atrocities, but never mention Pearl Harbor, or anything that happened in
Manchuria *prior* to this event.
Blacks are always howling about slavery, but never mention that Haiti is the
only country in the world where blacks actually fought and gained their
freedom. Everywhere else the slaves were freed by persons of nonblack races who
wanted to do the right thing.
The real howler is that Blacks claim that the U.S. in general has a racist
attitude toward them because blacks were victimized during slavery by whites.
The Japanese claim that white America is racist against them as a nation
because Japan victimized Americans during WWII.
Truth and justice mean absolutely nothing when self-justification is the
primary motive.
A person could read 10,000 posts on A.R.M. about Mountain Meadows and never
discover anything about the edict of extermination in Missouri, or of the
Haun's Mill Massacre.
The message of Christianity is that man's inhumanity to man must stop.
The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
Raleigh
Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
There is more hope for fools than for them.
--Proverbs 26:12 NRSV
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
€ The extermination idea came from Rigdon.
> The message of Christianity is that man's inhumanity to man must stop.
>
€ Christanity has been bloody for the past 10 centuries. It all started
with Pope Innocent III.
> The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
>
> Raleigh
€ The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
same man who tried to cover it up.
FAWNSCRIBE
did this atrocity were true blue members of the supposedly one TRUE church..yet
their conduct showed murder and mayhem.
Higher claims will engender higher scrutiny.
If the members of the so called one TRUE church can do this kind of thing with
all of the coverups that would put Watergate to shame, then no wonder some keep
bringing it up.
I am familiar with many massacres in this country and this one surprisingly is
one of the LEAST known outside of Mormon circles.
In fact...Mormons in other parts of the country I have met haven't delved into
it much either.
Remember, it isn't the magnitude of the massacre.It pales in comparison to some
others, BUT again, when you have those who did all this claiming to be members
of the so called cream of the crop church....then you get a second look that
might not normally come your way.
Fawn
Hertzdonut
CommUnitarian wrote:
> The Mountain Meadows Massacre is never discussed as an issue on A.R.M.
>
> It is merely a buzzword brought up to justify whatever antiMormons want to say
> and do to Mormons.
>
> A person could read 10,000 posts on A.R.M. about Mountain Meadows and never
> discover anything about the edict of extermination in Missouri, or of the
> Haun's Mill Massacre.
>
> The message of Christianity is that man's inhumanity to man must stop.
>
> The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
O contraire. The historical context of the MMM has been discussed in depth on ARM.
The history of the Missouri extermination order was also dicussed in detail. I do
not recall any discussion of the Haun's mill masacre.
If you want to get into history and discuss it rationally, then don't start out by
accusing the critics of "Bashing" I can quote enough bashing of other religions by
prominent Mormons to make your head spin.
Don't get into a pissing contest about Mormon/Gentile conflict unless you are
wearing a full Goretex (tm) suit.
Bryce
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
True, Rigdon was the first person to use the "E"-word, in his Salt Sermon.
From http://www.lds-mormon.com/sr.shtml
"Poor judgments were made on both sides which ultimately lead to the Boggs'
Extermination Order and Rigdon and others spending time in jail. It also led to the
unfortunate death of many Mormons and non-Mormons. Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" and 4th of
July speech were two catalysts to the problems that arose. After Brigham
Young excommunicated Rigdon, Elder Orson Hyde stated that Rigdon was the "cause of
our troubles in Missouri". This is only partially true. Hyde and the others
conveniently forgot to mention that Joseph Smith sanctioned both of Rigdon's
speeches. Smith had the church's own publication entitled the Elder's Journal print
one of the speeches and encouraged all church members to purchase a copy and read
it."
I think rpcman is right. There was plenty of poor judgment on both sides.
CommU does a disservice to his side by trying to equate the Mountain Meadows
Massacre to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While I don't fully support the
decision to bomb, America was in a state of war, and the cities were valid
industrial targets. On the other hand, the Fancher party had absolutely nothing to
do with Johnson's Army. The only reasons for attacking were revenge and cattle.
> > The message of Christianity is that man's inhumanity to man must stop.
> >
> € Christanity has been bloody for the past 10 centuries. It all started
> with Pope Innocent III.
Far longer than that. As soon as Constantine made Chrisitanity the state religion,
there was a massive and violent push to stamp out heresy wherever it lurked.
> > The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> > something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> > religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
> >
> > Raleigh
>
> € The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
> same man who tried to cover it up.
I've always had trouble believing that. Care to satisfy my skepticism?
> --
> - Rich... 805.386.3734.
> www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Glenn Thigpen
Fawn, are you not a member of the one true church?
Glenn
Bryce
CommUnitarian wrote:
> The Mountain Meadows Massacre is never discussed as an issue on A.R.M.
Until now?
> It is merely a buzzword brought up to justify whatever antiMormons want to say
> and do to Mormons.
>
> Adequate discussion of the Mountain Meadows Massacre would require it be placed
> in its proper historical context, along with other atrocities coming both by
> and against the Mormons.
>
> For instance, Japanese are quick to note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are
> atrocities, but never mention Pearl Harbor, or anything that happened in
> Manchuria *prior* to this event.
>
> Blacks are always howling about slavery, but never mention that Haiti is the
> only country in the world where blacks actually fought and gained their
> freedom. Everywhere else the slaves were freed by persons of nonblack races who
> wanted to do the right thing.
>
> The real howler is that Blacks claim that the U.S. in general has a racist
> attitude toward them because blacks were victimized during slavery by whites.
> The Japanese claim that white America is racist against them as a nation
> because Japan victimized Americans during WWII.
>
> Truth and justice mean absolutely nothing when self-justification is the
> primary motive.
>
> A person could read 10,000 posts on A.R.M. about Mountain Meadows and never
> discover anything about the edict of extermination in Missouri, or of the
> Haun's Mill Massacre.
Should they? I always assumed that the subjects would have to be handled under
separate threads. Why do you think that they are so intimately connected?
> The message of Christianity is that man's inhumanity to man must stop.
>
> The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
I'm a non-Christian, so I guess I must have a non-Christian message.
My "bashing" of the Mormon Church[ofjesuschristoflatterdaysaintsamen] is not a
strange attempt at avenging the wrongs of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Nor do I
think that the Massacre in and of itself is excuse enough for criticizing the
Church as a whole. But when you start delving into the decades-long coverup, the
blood atonement doctrine, and the sheer inhumanity of the massacre, I think that
the subject speaks very pointedly about the LDS Church's claim to be the "one true
church on the face of the Earth."
Horobiru
-------------------
> The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
There is, however, one critical caveat: the others didn't claim to be
receiving divine guidance at the time. Brigham Young certainly did.
Given that, it is reasonable and *expected* that they be held to a
higher standard.
R. L. Measures
wrote:
€ If the massacre was perpetrated by break away members of the org.,
all of them would have been booted by the #1 guy -- i.e. - Brigham Young.
Juanita Brooks came to pretty much the same conclusion.
cheers
R. L. Measures
€ good point
CharlesSWaters
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>
> Thr trouble with the Mountain meadows Massacre is the fact that the ones who
> did this atrocity were true blue members of the supposedly one TRUE church..yet
> their conduct showed murder and mayhem.
The trouble with the 300,000 people burned as witches in Europe several
centuries ago is that the ones who did this atrocity were true blue
christians of the supposedly one faith of the true Bible..yet their
conduct showed murder and mayhem.
--
Charles
"A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if
He knew the facts of the case." - Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936)
"And in the beginning there was nothing. And God said, Let there be
light. And there was still nothing but now you could see it!" (Anon)
R. L. Measures
> FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> >
> > Thr trouble with the Mountain meadows Massacre is the fact that the ones who
> > did this atrocity were true blue members of the supposedly one TRUE
church..yet
> > their conduct showed murder and mayhem.
>
> The trouble with the 300,000 people burned as witches in Europe several
> centuries ago is that the ones who did this atrocity were true blue
> christians of the supposedly one faith of the true Bible..yet their
> conduct showed murder and mayhem.
€ Sure, according to RCC records, c. 330,000 were publicly executed by
the Holy Office of the Inquisition, but only about 1/10 of them were
burned alive. (*Vicars of Christ* - the dark side of he vatican, Fr.
Peter De Rosa, SJ)
Hertzdonut
Bryce wrote:
> > € The extermination idea came from Rigdon.
>
> True, Rigdon was the first person to use the "E"-word, in his Salt Sermon.
>
> From http://www.lds-mormon.com/sr.shtml
>
> "Poor judgments were made on both sides which ultimately lead to the Boggs'
> Extermination Order and Rigdon and others spending time in jail. It also led to the
> unfortunate death of many Mormons and non-Mormons. Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" and 4th of
> July speech were two catalysts to the problems that arose. After Brigham
> Young excommunicated Rigdon, Elder Orson Hyde stated that Rigdon was the "cause of
> our troubles in Missouri". This is only partially true. Hyde and the others
> conveniently forgot to mention that Joseph Smith sanctioned both of Rigdon's
> speeches. Smith had the church's own publication entitled the Elder's Journal print
> one of the speeches and encouraged all church members to purchase a copy and read
> it."
>
While people usually think of the word "extermination" to mean "Kill every last one of
them" I believe that in this case the word was used to mean "Force them to leave-- with
force, if necessary"
Just tossing in 2 cents....
R. L. Measures
<hertz...@nomail.ooo> wrote:
€ - exterminate - tr.v.
To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. See Synonyms at
abolish. [Latin exterminEre, exterminEt-, to drive out - American
Heritage Dicionary
FAWNSCRIBE
From: Glenn Thigpen glen...@beaufortco.com
Date: 5/5/2001 9:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF4CED5...@beaufortco.com>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a member of the body of Christ and THAT is the one true church....however
the LDS church teaches they ALONE are true while others have SOME truth.
The denominational precept applies to the LDS church though they insist it
doesnt.
The JWS also insist they ALONE are true..however when it comes to the MMM, the
members like to say 'Wahhhhhhh we aren't as bad as the other churches" and they
prosyletize FROM other churches claiming Christianity, so ltes not pretend the
LDS think they are just another bunch of guys on the block all serving the same
Lord.
When it comes time to compare churches the LDS wish to say they alone are
TRUE..then when it comes time to justify the actions of racist policies and MMM
they say"We arent any WORSE than anyone else"
You cant have it both ways.Higher claims again mean higher scrutiny AND
accountablitiy
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/5/2001 9:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF4D915...@newsguy.com>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>
> Thr trouble with the Mountain meadows Massacre is the fact that the ones who
> did this atrocity were true blue members of the supposedly one TRUE
church..yet
> their conduct showed murder and mayhem.
The trouble with the 300,000 people burned as witches in Europe several
centuries ago is that the ones who did this atrocity were true blue
christians of the supposedly one faith of the true Bible..yet their
conduct showed murder and mayhem.
--
Charles>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Read the post I did for Glenn....
Individuals are Christian not whole masses of folks who think they are saved by
a group plan.
If you are the TRUE church dont then compare yourselves to others who are
supposedly NOT in possesing thr fullness thereof of the gospel.
You too want it both ways.
You WANT to be the cream of the crop and garner converts FROM other Christian
groups...BUT when the policies of the one TRUE church ( supposedly) are held to
the light of day..you find your individuals are just as prone to violenve and
mayhem and then say GOD instructed to do what was done in the name of racism
and the MMM.
Its hypocrisy at its worst
Fawn
Hertzdonut
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
> > While people usually think of the word "extermination" to mean "Kill
> every last one of
> > them" I believe that in this case the word was used to mean "Force them
> to leave-- with
> > force, if necessary"
> >
>
> € - exterminate - tr.v.
> To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. See Synonyms at
> abolish. [Latin exterminEre, exterminEt-, to drive out - American
> Heritage Dicionary
Exterminate
1) (obsolete) : To drive out or away (as from the boundaries of a country) : Banish,
Expel.
Merriam Webster 3rd ed.
Webster's secondary definition carries more the idea of extermination by utter
destruction.
We do well to keep in mind that words often change meaning over time.
Bryce
Hertzdonut wrote:
I'm confused. Which use of the word "exterminate" meant only driving people from the
state? Rigdon's or Boggs'?
Glenn Thigpen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I am a member of the body of Christ and THAT is the one true church....however
> the LDS church teaches they ALONE are true while others have SOME truth.
> The denominational precept applies to the LDS church though they insist it
> doesnt.
> The JWS also insist they ALONE are true..however when it comes to the MMM, the
> members like to say 'Wahhhhhhh we aren't as bad as the other churches" and they
> prosyletize FROM other churches claiming Christianity, so ltes not pretend the
> LDS think they are just another bunch of guys on the block all serving the same
> Lord.
> When it comes time to compare churches the LDS wish to say they alone are
> TRUE..then when it comes time to justify the actions of racist policies and MMM
> they say"We arent any WORSE than anyone else"
> You cant have it both ways.Higher claims again mean higher scrutiny AND
> accountablitiy
> Fawn
Fawn, you said "I am a member of the body of Christ and THAT is the one true
church". That leaves no room for any caveats, no wiggle room. If you believe that
you belong to the "one true church" then there can be no higher scrutiny for
anyone else. To do so admits that you do not belong to the "one true" church.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
What has Brigham Young to do with the MMM?
Glenn
R. L. Measures
<glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
€ All tracks led back to his office. He tried in vain to cover it up in
the Deseret News. He ordered the destruction of the U. S. Army's marker
at the site of the massacre. .
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> Read the post I did for Glenn....
> Individuals are Christian not whole masses of folks who think they are saved by
> a group plan.
This is the usual distancing that most christians use to avoid their group
responsibility. You where criticising the mormons for some atrocity,
and if that and a few others were the only such atrocities, while a
chargable event, would not remotely begin to compare to what
christians have done to any group, large or small, over the past 2000 years.
All christians are lead by some humans. You were given some form
of instruction by someone. You can not go back and say that you were
a christian without any human interaction. Therefore, everything that
you believe is based in part upon what others have told you. Hence any
charge you make about Mormon Leadership, can be made for the
Christian Leadership which brought you the materials upon which
you rest your faith. It can be as false as you claim that of the Mormons.
It can be as petty and vicious minded, and directing the engagement
of atrocities just as much as that of any other group.
When I was young, there were a few christian leaders who protested
war. But far more found biblical grounds, and especially prominant
was Billy kill-a-commie-for-christ Graham, to support all manner
of violence to save the world from so called godless communism.
You of course can wrap yourself up in a smug distancing by
claiming these all were not christian, and you are the only true
single christian left on the planet. But that does not prove that
these people were not christian, and found in their christian
beliefs, and leaders, reason to kill anything that moved.
> If you are the TRUE church dont then compare yourselves to others who are
> supposedly NOT in possesing thr fullness thereof of the gospel.
> You too want it both ways.
Your implicit or explicit claim is that you are following the truth, and
if your group has commited atrocities, why should you criticise others
until your own house is clean, and those current members setting
in ashes and sackcloth for a period of time to prove your repentance.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/6/2001 3:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AF5A353...@beaufortco.com>
You mean other than planning it, ordering it, covering it up, blaming the
Indians for it, and protecting the perpetrators for 20 years?
Not much.
Randy J.
Hertzdonut
Bryce wrote:
> > > € - exterminate - tr.v.
> > > To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. See Synonyms at
> > > abolish. [Latin exterminEre, exterminEt-, to drive out - American
> > > Heritage Dicionary
> >
> > Exterminate
> > 1) (obsolete) : To drive out or away (as from the boundaries of a country) : Banish,
> > Expel.
> > Merriam Webster 3rd ed.
> >
> > Webster's secondary definition carries more the idea of extermination by utter
> > destruction.
> > We do well to keep in mind that words often change meaning over time.
>
> I'm confused. Which use of the word "exterminate" meant only driving people from the
> state? Rigdon's or Boggs'?
I doubt that either Boggs or Rigdon meant that the people should all be massacred.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>€ The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
>same man who tried to cover it
How can something be almost certain? That is like almost being a virgin.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>Thr trouble with the Mountain meadows Massacre is the fact that the ones who
>did this atrocity were true blue members of the supposedly one TRUE church..
We are constantly told that Mormons are not true Christians--that the
"true" Christians who follow the "Real Jesus" are the one TRUE church.
So. How did members of this one TRUE church of the real Jesus perpetrate
the Haun's Mill Massacre? If true churches cannot commit massacres, then
orthodox Christianity forfeited its laurels long ago.
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>If you want to get into history and discuss it rationally, then don't start
>out by
>accusing the critics of "Bashing" I can quote enough bashing of other
>religions by
>prominent Mormons to make your head spin.
>
>Don't get into a pissing contest about Mormon/Gentile conflict unless you are
>wearing a full Goretex (tm) suit.
>
>
I suggest a sampling of the population. Enter a crowd of people passing out
antiMormon leaflets in front of a Mormon temple and ask how many know what MMM
is. Then ask how many have ever heard of Haun's Mill.
One might suppose that no orthodox Christian had ever killed anybody in
the entire history of the world. As usual, most of the arguments against
Mormonism misfire, because they are so generalized in scope that they blast
orthodoxy at the same time.
CommUnitarian
>From: Horobiru no...@nowhere.org
>There is, however, one critical caveat: the others didn't claim to be
>receiving divine guidance at the time. Brigham Young certainly did.
>Given that, it is reasonable and *expected* that they be held to a
>higher standard.
>
All I know is that the protestant believer has the "real Jesus" in his
heart to tell him right from wrong. That ostensibly makes him more divinely
connected than either the Mormon or the Catholic. How does such a one go so
horribly wrong, if he has the "real Jesus" in his heart?
CharlesSWaters
So you're a hemorrhoid. That explains a lot scarlet women.
R. L. Measures
grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
> > meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >€ The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
> >same man who tried to cover it
>
> How can something be almost certain? That is like almost being a virgin.
>
> Raleigh
€ The LDS org. has a military type verticle chain of command. No one but
the stud goose could have ordered the massacre. Juanita Brooks - the
author of the book: The Mountain Meadows Massacre - came to pretty much
the same conclusion.
--
Bryce
CommUnitarian wrote:
> >Hertzdonut hertz...@nomail.ooo
> wrote:
>
> >
> >If you want to get into history and discuss it rationally, then don't start
> >out by
> >accusing the critics of "Bashing" I can quote enough bashing of other
> >religions by
> >prominent Mormons to make your head spin.
> >
> >Don't get into a pissing contest about Mormon/Gentile conflict unless you are
> >wearing a full Goretex (tm) suit.
> >
> >
>
> I suggest a sampling of the population. Enter a crowd of people passing out
> antiMormon leaflets in front of a Mormon temple and ask how many know what MMM
> is. Then ask how many have ever heard of Haun's Mill.
I'll bet you five bucks that both incidents will garner at least an 75% recognition
rate. Heck, I'll give you 2 to 1 odds.
> One might suppose that no orthodox Christian had ever killed anybody in
> the entire history of the world. As usual, most of the arguments against
> Mormonism misfire, because they are so generalized in scope that they blast
> orthodoxy at the same time.
Well, that sucks if you're an evangelical protestant. For other worldviews,
there is no hypocrisy. Not surprisingly, LDS apologetics avoids discussing such
worldviews (despite an occassional mumbled reference to Alma 30).
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn, you said "I am a member of the body of Christ and THAT is the one true
church". That leaves no room for any caveats, no wiggle room. If you believe
that
you belong to the "one true church" then there can be no higher scrutiny for
anyone else. To do so admits that you do not belong to the "one true" church.
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong Glenn..because we are in the body as INDIVIDUALS not whole denominations.
The LDS church claims their CHURCH is true....hence they need not proselytise
from OTHER Christian groups if they feel that.THEY are the ones who make the
higher claim.
When one is an individual WITHIN the body he is accountable as an INDIVIDUAL
within the body of Christ..
There is no family and group plan for salvation.Jesus calls people
individually..we RECIEVE individually and are ACCOUNTABLE individually
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/6/2001 7:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF603AF...@newsguy.com>
--
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Charles.. I worry about you..you go off on the deep end more and more.When you
can't refute content you come up with stuff like this.
Go and try not to be a proctologist no more
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/6/2001 12:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF5AC08...@ucsd.edu>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
John you are running like a lemming iver a hill here sir...
here is why
The BODY of Christ as referred to in scripture is composed of individuals not
denominations.
The Lutherans dont make up the leg, the Methodists the toe and the LDS the
head.
ALL those who become Christians do so INDIVIDUALLY.
Don you understand that?
THEN as such we are then membersof the body of Christ.
With different gifts and we bring things TO that body.
Think of us as individual CELLS in the Body not whole appendages.
I say when one makes a higher CLAIM,then they must submit to higher scrutiny of
that Claim.
Jesus made very high CLAIMS and he came under scrutiny for them
Same with the apostles.
Same for every Christian.
What do you want? A spiritual HMO plan where you join the group plan and then
WHAMMO you get all the benefits of the group?
There is ALWAYS human interaction in learning but there is INDIVDUAL
accountability to determine if what is taught is TRUE.
The Bereans were highly commended because they didnt just say WOW...PAUL said
such and such so I do it...no they CHECKED the scriptures DAILY to see if what
was said is true.
Some folks in ANY group dont check..they run over the cliff like a lemming
Thats why you have cults, deceptive teachings, wacko offshoots, the Jim Jones
folllowers, JWS, Hale Bopp advocates, Mark Koresh followers and people who
follow those knuckle headed false evangelists like Benny Hinn and others who
teach a name it, claim it and frame it gospel.This stuff is passed off as from
God, deceivers and false prophets and goodness knows what else passing as for
GODS will for man.
Dont you tell me everything I believe is based in part of what I am told..I can
also CHECK and can READ to see if what I am told matches UP.
Let GOD be true and every man a liar if need be.
I dont distance myself from ANYONE who does things in the name of God that
weren/t
When they had preachers teaching slavery as from God..they ALSO had
abolitionist preachers who stood up and fought tooth and nail to help those
people because they KNEW from scriputre this was wrong.
When you had people doing wrong on ONE side you had men of courage on the OTHER
as INDIVIDUALS who stood up for right and to heck with the cost.
The LDS church however makes a carte blancr rule..not scriptural and EACH AND
EVERY one of you as a priestholder did it.
You couldnt sneak blacks in as priests because you KNEW it was wrong..NOPE each
and every TBM in good standing bought Lock , stock and barrel what was taught
as TRUE even if it felw in the face of scriputre.
INDIVIDUALS follow Christ
INDIVIDUALS are accountable for what they do and guess what..when you have
those IN the group say it is from GOD when they do bad...then they have to
answer for that.
In the LDS church your PROPHET does the talking..your THINKING is done...so
under that kind of hierarchy then you are set up to think you are
denominationally at peace with God and individually not accountable.
I never said anywhere or implied I am the only TRUE Christian on the
planet..but then again YOU are saying the LDS church IS the only TRUE church.
You always people lumped in a grup...but thats because you are LDS and the idea
that your CHURCH might not be TRUE leaves you with the shivers.
Are you as an INDIVIDUAL saved John?
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/6/2001 6:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20010506212253...@ng-fy1.news.cs.com>
>fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE)
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Raleigh..quickly are you Unitarian?Just curious and if so why?
ANYHOW back to question.
The term Body of Christ is what is meant here I think.
We as INDIVIDUALS make up that body.
We are called to slavation INDIVIDUALLY we ACCEPT Jesus individually and as
INDIVIDUALS we make up the body.
The BODY ( or you may use *church* though for some it means denomination) is
made up of those who are saved.
The people who killed folks as they did INDIVIDUALLY are accountable for
following their LEADER instead of Christ.
Those in the Crusades who slaughtered people are going to stand at the
judegment seat not in a platoon but as INDIVIDUALS.
The whole company C at a modern day massacre isnt going to come befroe Christ
to give an acount, the individual MEN are.
What the PROBLEM is is this.
We have people who willingly put themselves under a hierarchal leader who may
order something WRONG and if we are Christians we follow GOD rather than man.We
dont pass the buck to accountability and say "HE told me so I did it with NO
responsibility"
There is a price to paid for that stand.
We may have to LEAVE a group saying they folllow God and dont
We may have to go to jail for our beliefs.
We may even have to Die and pay the heaviest price in this life for our stand.
Think INDIVIDUALS not GROUP.
Also, a person says he is a believer and will follow christ and willingly
submits to a leader who is false? They are accountable.
ESPECIALLY when they KNOW it is wrong.
Fawn
"Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life, NO man comes to the Father
except through ME"
John 14:6
FAWNSCRIBE
I suggest a sampling of the population. Enter a crowd of people passing out
antiMormon leaflets in front of a Mormon temple and ask how many know what MMM
is. Then ask how many have ever heard of Haun's Mill.
One might suppose that no orthodox Christian had ever killed anybody in
the entire history of the world. As usual, most of the arguments against
Mormonism misfire, because they are so generalized in scope that they blast
orthodoxy at the same time.
Raleigh
Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
There is more hope for fools than for them.
--Proverbs 26:12 NRSV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most MORMONS don't know in depth of MMM and Hauns Mill ( not to mention the
Bear River massacre) sheesh....LOL
Only surface skim stuff.
Here is a question...Do you feel the ones who willingly subjected themselves to
ANY leaders, on BOTH sides, who ordered them to do wrong will be INDIVIDUALLY
accountable?
And do you feel if one claims they are MORE true than another , and willingly
belong to a group that teaches such, that they must submit to higher scruitny?
Fawn
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>Raleigh..quickly are you Unitarian?Just curious and if so why?
>ANYHOW back to question.
I am a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church). That
makes me a Communitarian.
>The BODY ( or you may use *church* though for some it means denomination) is
>made up of those who are saved.
>
>The people who killed folks as they did INDIVIDUALLY are accountable for
>following their LEADER instead of Christ.
And, since when protestants kill, they are assumed to be doing so on their
own cognizance, whether they do it alone or in concert with others of higher or
lower rank, why is it that Mormonism is to be condemned for doing it, but other
denominations who claim to be better members of the body of Christ (or members
to the exclusion of Mormons) can do it and elicit only the response "Oh, well,
people are not perfect."?
>Those in the Crusades who slaughtered people are going to stand at the
>judegment seat not in a platoon but as INDIVIDUALS.
Exactly. So why are Mormons told that at the last judgement, they are going
to be condemned for being Mormons?
>What the PROBLEM is is this.
>We have people who willingly put themselves under a hierarchal leader who may
>order something WRONG and if we are Christians we follow GOD rather than
>man.We
>dont pass the buck to accountability and say "HE told me so I did it with NO
>responsibility"
>There is a price to paid for that stand.
Following a specific leader who is wrong is not any different than following a
mob who is propelled by the tradition of the Southern Baptist Convention. If
the compulsion to kill, crush, and destroy comes from diffuse sources within
the religion, then it is acceptable, but not if it comes from a less rarefied
source?
>stand.
>Think INDIVIDUALS not GROUP.
That is what the Mormon church is: a group of individuals who follow Jesus
Christ. I object mainly to this notion that only noncultists (subjectively
defined) have the right to individual determination.
>Also, a person says he is a believer and will follow christ and willingly
>submits to a leader who is false?
In that case, I would classify all Catholics as being in very grave
trouble, unless they are arbitrarily defined as noncultists, and can squeak by
with the individual determination rule.
>Fawn
>"Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life, NO man comes to the Father
>except through ME"
>John 14:6
Fawn, the way that you have quoted this makes my day. The context makes it
appear that you cite Jesus as having stated that *you* are the Way, the Truth,
and the Life. Welcome to the club. Dennis Kelvie says that I am without
substance, and thus am the immortal, invisible, impalpable God of the
Trinitarians.
You and I need to start the Legion of Gods. Got a cape?
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> John you are running like a lemming iver a hill here sir...
> here is why
> The BODY of Christ as referred to in scripture is composed of individuals not
> denominations.
If your point is that christians can be totally anarchistic in belief system, I'll
be in total agreement.
If on the other hand your point is that some groups have more of a a
Truth(tm) than others, then I disagree. I will point out that if you
criticise another group based on some appeal to some universal Truth(tm)
then you are taking just the same position that you are criticising,
hence you are hypocritical.
>
> The Lutherans dont make up the leg, the Methodists the toe and the LDS the
> head.
> ALL those who become Christians do so INDIVIDUALLY.
> Don you understand that?
As far as I know, the LDS beliefs are that one must choose to believe
in the LDS belief system. That no one is 'saved' just by membership
registery. Even in the case of baptism for the dead, the dead person
will be given a choice as to which place they will inhabit in the
happy hunting ground.
Hence, you have no quibble with LDS any more than the Lutherans, et al.
And I'll point out another overlooked item, Catholic, is 'Universal',
now please tell me how you exempt the Catholics from the charge
of overreaching their claims to Truth(tm) when in their very name
they claim universality.
I'll also pointout that in Catholicism, unless one is specifically
excommunicated, one is 'saved' after baptism, and that is usually
at birth. Hence if you wish to quibble about 'saved by membership
direct your remarks to the Catholic belief system.
This addresses the individual relative to 'saved' status. This has
nothing to do with christians working as a group, expressing
their beliefs that no other system is to be tolerated, and that
any unbelievers are to be exterminated just because they
do not believe. This has happend time and time again, and
each time the christians have claimed their self-righteousness
in their extermination of the foes.
This again to iterate, has nothing to do with claims of saved
status, this has to do with how christians work as a group. They
are vicious, given to murder, and define themselves to always
be in the right, because their god is the only true god, and
their beliefs are the only true beliefs.
You express this yourself in that you will not allow anyone
else to have any other belief about the nature of god, the
relationship between humans and that god, and the right
conduct one human with the other.
FAWNSCRIBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I have a Xena Warrior Princess outfit left over
from Halloween..can I use that? I'll bring the flaming sword!...LOL
I never EVER use the excuse "Oh well peoplae aren't perfect" to justify murder
and mayhem.MY point is only that if one claims to be part of denomination (that
is what the LDS are no matter what they call it)...and that DENOMINATION
espouses policy that results in murder and mayhem being called fro by GOD...and
that they are doing Gods bidding, and that they THEN go one step further and
claim they( the church) is TRUER than any other, then the CLAIM must be
submitted to the higher scrutiny.
All throughout sripture we see personal accountability for those who are
willing to subject themselves to the yoke of those who call themselves doing
Gods will but ultimately are doing their own.
At the last judegemtn any Mormon, Baptist,member of the inquisition, JW ( whose
leaders forbid blood transfusions to save a life), and anyone of ANY
denonination will INDIVIDUALLY stand before the judgement seat and start
yammering on why they did what they did .
If they wish to say.."Oh our LEADERS told it was GODS will" and it wasnt? The
leaders TOO have to answer.
The moan that"Well we BELIEVED them because we WILLINGLY are part of a group
that says our PROPHET( or leader) spoke for YOU Lord by revelation" wont cut
the mustard.
In the case of the massacres..whether Mormon or not Mormon the leaders will
stand account .
As INDIVIDUALS.
Look deeper though...when GOD is claimed to be telling ONE side they ALONE are
truer than anyone, then you have a deeper claim to justify.
I'd hate to be there trying to justify doing exactly opposite what scripture
taught and try to pass the buck on a prophet OR Governor.
If a mob in the Southern Baptist Cpnvention decided to order mayhem and murder,
say GOD told tghem to do it..then claimed they ALONE were truer than any OTHER
denomination they would get the same condemnation from me on that practice.
What happens all too often is this
You get Lone Rangers out there who go off on their own.
You have murder
You have lies and cover ups
You have accountability
but SELDOM do you have someone saying GOD wants them to do it( unless they are
nuts) and worse..that they are TRUER for having thier leaders set up this kind
of hiererachy in the first place.
The LDS I do believe sincerely THINK they are following Jesus christ.
I really do.
By and large I would assume they feel that with all sincerity...HOWEVER...and I
am not being nasty here I hope.
If I say I am a follower of Karl marx and then advocate capitalism..no matter
WHAT I CALL myself I am deceiving myself on something basic.
The definition in its ENTIRETY.
Do the LDS follow they Jesus they KNOW?
Sure
But is the jesus they KNOW the one in the Bible?
Is something as basic as Jesus father having a body of flesh and bones
compatible?
Is the fact that Jesus was God IN the flesh compatible with those who say Nay.
These arent just ASPECTS of the same Jesus.
These are DIFFERENT Jesus'
There are some basics that have to be determined I think.
If you say you know Fawn..she is 6 ft tall, Indian and is a writer and is a
hurdler and archery competitor....and the guy down the street says he knows
Fawn..she is five feet 2 , Swedish, a singing teacher and has had paralyzed
arms since birth...the NAME is the same but the CHARACTERISTICS are so opposite
that the two are talking about different people.
SOME of those aspects cannot be reconciled.
That is what i am saying.
I purposely put in this scripture for ya ( as you notice I NEVER use them as a
tag..cause I THOUGHT you might get the twist..LOL..<wink> <wink> you did and Im
proud of you:)))
Actually..it is wonderful Jesus IS the way...since so many like to think ANY
Jesus they cook up or ANY religion they espouse will STILL get them to God ( or
Nirvana)
Smooch
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/7/2001 1:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF704A1...@ucsd.edu>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
be in total agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let us start simply, point by point and I suggest you make a few typos to
loosen up some:) I am being light hearted here and hope you will be too..at
least in presentation of content.
The Body of Christ, as referred to in scripture is composed of indiduals not
denominations..we will leave it EXACTLY as that to start.I wrote what I meant.
I do not believe Christians can be totally anarchistic in belief. You DID say
anarchistic...and I don't don't think you meant anachronistic..did you? That
wouldn't apply either, BUT lets start...
Thats some of the major problem.. (we will go with anarchistic),some feel they
can do a spiritual anarchy, overthrow anything OUT that doesn't please them,
get a new revelation that may be diametrically opposed to what Christ taught,
and say its okay, they are still doing Christs work.
Not so.
We will cut bait there...HOWEVER let me go on to explain that scripture teaches
there is an order to what is going on.
One asks to recieve Christ INDIVIDUALLY as Lord and savior ( not a group plan
here either)
When one does this with a sincere heart, they then receive the Holy Spirit
they are then led into all truth.
My position is based on Biblical scripture I believe.
The LDS claim to be thr TRUE church, as do other groups such as the JWS....and
claim to be almost in a spiritual one upmanship to others who are SUPPOSED to
be in the same BODY of Christ.
The Lds do believe one must choose the belief system..I am talking choosing
CHRIST individually.
Hon, MANY folks both in the LDS church and other denominations believe just
BEING a member makes them in good standing with GOD if not with the *church*.
Heck in America people think by virtue of BEING American they are Christian.
This is one reason why so many think this whole notion of a personal one on one
relationship with Jesus and being asked are you SAVED? a confusing one.
It isn't actually.
Its scriptural:))
The dead are given a choice in LDS belief and that is LDS belief...I find no
basis for it scripturally.
The ideaof the threelayered choice is also a belief that is LDS but not
necessarily scriptural.
Catholic is universal..the meaning is *universal* not the name LOL..the
catholic church as used in some folks liturgy means universal church, not
denomination.
I have absolutely no qualms about saying the Catholic Church which wants to
claim more truth? Is not better than the LDS..YOUR quibble should be with them
not me..in fact you all can discuss this and toss in the JWS too as they too
make the claim of being more TRUE...LOL
I m not Catholic BTW.
One is saved PRECISELy as how scriputre outlines.
Not after all you can do as nephi says
Not by membership
not by trying to run around Mt Sinai for salvation...but as scriputre outlines.
There is no such thing as a relatively saved status..LOL..you are or aren't and
should KNOW .
You CAN know if you are.Are you?Many l kinds of *systems* can be *tolerated*
not all kinds of systems need be embraced.
I havent said a word about exterminating anyone so if you are combining another
post with this, it isnt productive.
It isnt me who says that no one else can have another belief..they can do as
they please.I have family who are JW , animists and all kinds of stuff..HOWEVER
if one is saying they are CHRISTIAN?
Then yes, there is a standard to uphold..a touchstone..a base..and it is very
clear that one who IS a follower of jesus is accountale individually, called
individually and recieves him individually.
I don't know how more simple I can make that.
JESUS said( not me)
"I am the way the truth and the life, NO man gets to the Father except through
ME" ( and not past Smith either..LOL)
Not sneaks past the Father.
Not bypasses the Son
No other Jesus in the back pocket either.
Lee Strobel did an admirable job of addressing that in his book A Case for
faith
Go read it:)
fawn
Glenn Thigpen
That is your take on it. But it does not hold water. Other Christian
denominations proselyte for themselves and aginst other denominations. But that
does not matter. If you feel that you belong to the "one true church", you cannot
hold anyone or any organization to a higher standard than you hold yourself. To do
so is hypocrisy and again, admitting that you do not belong to the "one true
church". You cannot have it both ways.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> In article <20010506212022...@ng-fy1.news.cs.com>,
> grale...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian) wrote:
>
> > > meas...@vcnet.com (R. L. Measures)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Ā? The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
> > >same man who tried to cover it
> >
> > How can something be almost certain? That is like almost being a virgin.
> >
> > Raleigh
>
> ? The LDS org. has a military type verticle chain of command. No one but
> the stud goose could have ordered the massacre. Juanita Brooks - the
> author of the book: The Mountain Meadows Massacre - came to pretty much
> the same conclusion.
The logistics of that situation pretty much negate any such conclusion.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
Fawn, you claim to belong to the "one true church". As such. how can there be any
higher scrutiny? You have not been able to answer that with any logic whatsoever.
What higher laws were the people who perpetrated the MMM breaking as opposed to
those who perpetrated the Haun's Mill masscre?
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> In article <3AF5A353...@beaufortco.com>, Glenn Thigpen
> <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote:
>
> > Horobiru wrote:
> >
> > > -------------------
> > > > The continuing nonchristian message of A.R.M. is that because Mormons did
> > > > something bad a long time ago, that any and all bashing of them and their
> > > > religion is justifiable. It ain't the same thing, folks.
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > There is, however, one critical caveat: the others didn't claim to be
> > > receiving divine guidance at the time. Brigham Young certainly did.
> > > Given that, it is reasonable and *expected* that they be held to a
> > > higher standard.
> >
> > What has Brigham Young to do with the MMM?
> >
> > Glenn
>
> ? All tracks led back to his office. He tried in vain to cover it up in
> the Deseret News. He ordered the destruction of the U. S. Army's marker
> at the site of the massacre. .
Rich, you know that there is no credible evidence that links Brighma Young to the
perpretration of the MMM. I hope you know how far from Salt Lake City the Mountain
Meadows are. The only information about Brigham that we have is that he told the
messenger that brought him the news about the Fancher train was told to tell the
LDS in the area to leave them alone. This messenger was too late to avert the
calamity. Now if you could produce some real evidence, not speculation.......
Glenn
FAWNSCRIBE
That is your take on it. But it does not hold water. Other Christian
denominations proselyte for themselves and aginst other denominations. But that
does not matter. If you feel that you belong to the "one true church", you
cannot
hold anyone or any organization to a higher standard than you hold yourself. To
do
so is hypocrisy and again, admitting that you do not belong to the "one true
church". You cannot have it both ways.
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Name all the Christian churches that proselytize other Christians....people
like the JWS do because they feel they alone are TRUE..the LDS do because they
feel they alone are TRUE..Name me how many Methodists you know who go to a
Lutehrans door and proselytize him to become a Christian.
Sow me the goods on how many Baptists go to a Presbyterians door and ask him to
become Christian?
You dont seem to get this point.
If you view them AS christian you need not ask them to BECOME Christian.
People will ask if a person WITHIN a denomination is saved..or if they know
Jesus as personal savior..why?
Because sitting in a seat in a church doesnt MAKE you a Christian any more than
sitting in a garage makes you a car.
You will find PERSONAL discussions on people accepting Christ PERSONALLY.
If one is in a cult hpwever, doesn't KNOW the Biblical jesus, then you will
find people trying to get them back on track.
One saying that everyone accepts the SAME jesus, when the Jesus some sects and
cults revere is a DIFFERENT jesus still makes that one a Christian.
There has to be some touchstone.
Now you can believe as you wish..and so can anyone else....OBVIOUSLY the LDS
church no more thinks all other groups are true ENOUGH to please God or they
wouldnt be at their door.
Higher claims..Higher scrutiny
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn, you claim to belong to the "one true church". As such. how can there be
any
higher scrutiny? You have not been able to answer that with any logic
whatsoever.
What higher laws were the people who perpetrated the MMM breaking as opposed to
those who perpetrated the Haun's Mill masscre?
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glenn this isnt that HARD hon..the one true church are INDIVIDUALS within the
body of christ which IS the church.
The ones who follow Christ are the CHURCH
They are believers
They are outlined in scripture.
Tell me who YOu think the Body of Christ is composed OF? Only the LDS? Or do
you get to be the head and everyone else is the toe or the eyelashes?
ALL members WITHIN the body have a function .
If however YOU are saying only the LDS church is true..then you are saying
basically others cannot be true.
You aren't CLAIMING to have a higher precentage of truth( you dont)..such as
giving yourself 89% truth..the Baptists 2% and the Methodists the
leftovers...no you are claiming the others are possessed of SOME turht but YOu
are the one church ( denomination not BODY OF CHRIST) that is the creme de la
creme..the standard to be spiritually..YOU Are the calibrator in the
experiement and everyone else is the control group so to speak....the ones in
whom God is working with the Prophet and all the rest .
That flies squarely against Biblical teaching and promotes a self appointed
truth you CLAIm but does not hold water when EXAMINED.
GOD is the final arbiter Glenn..GOD..not your prophets, your leaders, your
higher ups or anyone else.
and SCRIPTURE is the touchstone ALONG with the Holy Spirit.
If you fly against THAT you cannot be TRUE.
Or God is a liar.
The higher laws the people perpetrated in the MMM massacre is THIS.
They not only did these things.
They did them thinking they had the approval of God..and finally, that they
belinged to a denomination that teaches that what they do instructionally given
by their leaders makes them TRUE.
The ones at Hauns Mill who violate Gods word are in the exact same boat.
They will answer INDIVIDUALLY
and when they try to pas it off as coming from God..if they did..and then
claimed they were TRUE?
They answer for that too
BOTH sides.
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
cults revere is a DIFFERENT jesus still makes that one a Christian.
There has to be some touchstone.
Now you can believe as you wish..and so can anyone else....OBVIOUSLY the LDS
church no more thinks all other groups are true ENOUGH to please God or they
wouldnt be at their door.
Higher claims..Higher scrutiny
Fawn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I meant to say
One saying everyone acceots the same jesus when some sects and cults revere a
DIFFERNT jesus, that still DOESNT make one Christian:)
Sorry Glenn
Fawn
Glenn Thigpen
> Name all the Christian churches that proselytize other Christians....people
> like the JWS do because they feel they alone are TRUE..the LDS do because they
> feel they alone are TRUE..Name me how many Methodists you know who go to a
> Lutehrans door and proselytize him to become a Christian.
> Sow me the goods on how many Baptists go to a Presbyterians door and ask him to
> become Christian?
> You dont seem to get this point.
> If you view them AS christian you need not ask them to BECOME Christian.
> People will ask if a person WITHIN a denomination is saved..or if they know
> Jesus as personal savior..why?
> Because sitting in a seat in a church doesnt MAKE you a Christian any more than
> sitting in a garage makes you a car.
> You will find PERSONAL discussions on people accepting Christ PERSONALLY.
> If one is in a cult hpwever, doesn't KNOW the Biblical jesus, then you will
> find people trying to get them back on track.
> One saying that everyone accepts the SAME jesus, when the Jesus some sects and
> cults revere is a DIFFERENT jesus still makes that one a Christian.
> There has to be some touchstone.
> Now you can believe as you wish..and so can anyone else....OBVIOUSLY the LDS
> church no more thinks all other groups are true ENOUGH to please God or they
> wouldnt be at their door.
> Higher claims..Higher scrutiny
> Fawn
Fawn,
Everything you have said about proselyting is irrelevant. When you say that you
belong to the "one true church", whether it be a denomination or individual, you
put yourself at the top. You have missed that point completely. Is there anything
higher than the "one true church"? You are making claims that the LDS Church is
not "the one true church" and that LDS are not really Chriatian. So in effect you
are setting yourself and your religion up as superior to the LDS religion you
believe that the LDS religion is false. Higher claims..higher scrutiny.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
How do you come by that Fawn? None of the historians who have ever done any
research on this event have ever pointed out anyone as thinking they were
committing murder on approval from God. And the letter delivered by the messenger
from Brigham Young told the members of the Church to let the members of the
Fancher party alone.
>
> belinged to a denomination that teaches that what they do instructionally given
> by their leaders makes them TRUE.
And that is not true. We are taught that what our leaders teach us or tell us
to do instructionally must be in conformance with our Holy Scriptures.
>
> The ones at Hauns Mill who violate Gods word are in the exact same boat.
> They will answer INDIVIDUALLY
> and when they try to pas it off as coming from God..if they did..and then
> claimed they were TRUE?
> They answer for that too
> BOTH sides.
> fawn
There you have something I can agree with. Anyone who commits murder will be
judged by the same standards, by God.
Glenn
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> Let us start simply, point by point and I suggest you make a few typos to
> loosen up some:) I am being light hearted here and hope you will be too..at
> least in presentation of content.
> The Body of Christ, as referred to in scripture is composed of indiduals not
> denominations..we will leave it EXACTLY as that to start.I wrote what I meant.
> I do not believe Christians can be totally anarchistic in belief. You DID say
> anarchistic...and I don't don't think you meant anachronistic..did you? That
> wouldn't apply either, BUT lets start...
I don't think I've said that my objections to your statements were based on
how someone is saved in the christian system. I an addressing how
individuals who identify themselves as christian have behaved as a
group, or as denominations.
It is also clear, that you missunderstand the word 'anarchy'. While many
may make that term identical with 'chaos', 'an-archy' simple means without
leadership, and is usually taken by anarchists to mean, the individual determines
for themself a course of acthion, set of principles, etc.
You seem to appeal on the one hand to such a leadershipless approach
to the christian belief system. However, from what you have said, you
belief the christian bible as cannonized by Jerome to be the ultimate
source of Truth(tm).
This fundamentally no different than the way a mormon, or many other believers
of a system, approaches how they determine the nature of 'god', 'humans',
etc. Just with the mormons the scriptural cannon did not stop
with Jerome. And on that account, you can not prove to me that
Jerome had some special knowledge on the end word of revelation,
such that Joseph Smith's 'revelations' are to be discounted. In a word,
if Joseph Smith's writings are to be discarded, but the SAME
criteria so should the writings collated by Jerome the set of
which is called 'The Bible'.
And as a group, the behavior of the mormon is in no
way different than the way other christians have behaved in the past,
and in some cases behave in the present moment. Christian groups
protest abortions, and some believers shoot clinic staff members. This
is NO DIFFERNENT than some so called muslim terrorist shooting
people, or no different than hindus shooting people. NO DIFFERENT.
If you think your christiain beliefs avoid this, you will have to convince
me by showing a large group of christians who do not shoot people,
advocate dropping bombs to protect their way of life, or carring placards
when someone's sexual proclivities don't match their Truth(tm) set,
to name a few popular christian activities over the last 40 years.
This is based on my belief that your god did not command you in
the New Testament to set up any government, to control anything
beyond your relationship with your god.
If you claim that you have some edict to chastize others, then I will
clearly say you are NO DIFFERENT than any other christian group
member who has take such a command and executes someone,
or many, aka a massacre, for their non-belief.
From my point of view christians today in the US are a whinny
bunch of obsessives, more worried about how others may
conduct themselves in the bedroom, than being the witnesses
of love that their god incarnate commanded them to be.
You have shown yourself to be no different.
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> Name all the Christian churches that proselytize other Christians....people
> like the JWS do because they feel they alone are TRUE..the LDS do because they
> feel they alone are TRUE..Name me how many Methodists you know who go to a
> Lutehrans door and proselytize him to become a Christian.
The fact that Methodists no longer seem to have the home missionary zeal they
once had, does not mean that they never had it...
In the case of Lutheranism, the conversions from Catholicism to Lutheranism
was at the end of a number of wars, much bloodshed, and eventually
whether or not the Prince of the region was Catholic or Lutheran.
If you wish to see how Luther himself handeld dissent, see his approach
to the 'peasant' revolt, where Mr. "Justified-by-Faith-alone" supported
his sponsor princes in taking up arms and brutally suppressing any
populist form of religious experience.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/6/2001 1:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3AF58A67...@yahoo.com>
>
>
>
>Hertzdonut wrote:
>
>> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
>>
>> > > While people usually think of the word "extermination" to mean "Kill
>> > every last one of
>> > > them" I believe that in this case the word was used to mean "Force them
>> > to leave-- with
>> > > force, if necessary"
>> > >
>>
>> >
>> > € - exterminate - tr.v.
>> > To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. See Synonyms at
>> > abolish. [Latin exterminEre, exterminEt-, to drive out - American
>> > Heritage Dicionary
>>
>> Exterminate
>> 1) (obsolete) : To drive out or away (as from the boundaries of a country)
>: Banish,
>> Expel.
>> Merriam Webster 3rd ed.
>>
>> Webster's secondary definition carries more the idea of extermination by
>utter
>> destruction.
>> We do well to keep in mind that words often change meaning over time.
>I'm confused. Which use of the word "exterminate" meant only driving people
>from the
>state? Rigdon's or Boggs'?
Obviously, Boggs', since that is exactly what happened. If Boggs had meant for
every last Mormon man, woman, and child to be killed, he could have ordered it
done when the Missouri militia surrounded Far West. But he didn't. He ordered
an investigation of the skirmishes, heard testimony from numerous witnesses,
had only the Mormon leaders who were the main perpretrators jailed, and ordered
that the rest of the Mormons be escorted out of the state by the militia.
Contrary to Boggs, speeches by both Smith and Rigdon threatened literal
"extermination," because they wanted the entire state of Missouri to be
exclusively Mormon domain. Smith promised a "war of blood and gore from the
Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic." It was such fiery rhetoric from them, in the
summer of 1838, that incited their followers to pillage and burn "Gentile"
towns of Millport and Gallatin in October; those acts caused the battle of
Crooked River and the Haun's Mill massacre. Boggs issued his "extermination
order" as a last resort, because he realized that the fanatical Mormons would
obey Smith's and Rigdon's orders to the death, if need be. And Boggs' plan
worked; when Smith realized that Boggs was just as serious about "war" as Smith
was---but that Boggs' militia heavily outnumbered Smith's "Danites"---Smith
sent out John Corrill and Reed Peck to "beg like a dog for peace." If Boggs
had not issued such a strong order, calling Smith's hand, many hundreds of
Mormons might have been killed, with their blood on Smith's hands.
Instead of cursing Boggs, today's Mormons should praise him, for calming down
the mad-dogs Smith and Rigdon.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 5/6/2001 9:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010506212022...@ng-fy1.news.cs.com>>>_ The MM massacre was almost certainly ordered by Prophet Young - the
>>same man who tried to cover it
>
> How can something be almost certain? That is like almost being a virgin.
>
> Raleigh
"Almost certain" meaning that overwhelming evidence leads to Young's
culpability. The only thing lacking is his own confession.
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Thanks for straightening this out, Randy.
cheers
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
Bryce
Glenn Thigpen wrote:
Would you care to point to a single historian who concluded that the leaders of the
massacre knew God would disapprove, and decided to do it anyways? There is plenty
of evidence that they believed they were right in their actions. Exhibit A would be
the simple fact that the massacre occurred.
I've always found Brigham's letter regarding the Fancher party to be pretty
convincing, but a lot of folks on this board nevertheless claim that Brigham was
culpable. Could one of them please explain this discrepancy?
> > belinged to a denomination that teaches that what they do instructionally given
> > by their leaders makes them TRUE.
>
> And that is not true. We are taught that what our leaders teach us or tell us
> to do instructionally must be in conformance with our Holy Scriptures.
First, I think that in the situation where a living prophet disagrees with the
scriptures, it isn't clearly explained what to do. For the most part, Church
leaders aren't even going to bring up the possibility. To them, the scriptures =
God's Will, and the prophet = God's Will.
Second, when it comes to the MMM, there is all sorts of scriptural justification
for these sort of wholesale slaughters. The entire Old Testament is soaked in more
blood and gore than "Saving Private Ryan."
> > The ones at Hauns Mill who violate Gods word are in the exact same boat.
> > They will answer INDIVIDUALLY
> > and when they try to pas it off as coming from God..if they did..and then
> > claimed they were TRUE?
> > They answer for that too
> > BOTH sides.
> > fawn
>
> There you have something I can agree with. Anyone who commits murder will be
> judged by the same standards, by God.
Whoa! They agreed on something. The pigs which are doing aerial maneuvers outside
my window are completely shocked by this bizarre turn of events.
Glenn, Fawn, most of your argument so far has revolved around whether or not the
Church should be held to a higher standard because of its claims of truth, and
whether Christians should be held to the same higher standard because its claims of
truth don't mesh well with the numerous slaughters perpetrated by professed
Christians.
Fawn has argued that, since Christianity is an individual instead of a group
program* that anyone committing atrocities in the name of God isn't really a
Christian. The argument smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, allowing the
claimant to dismiss any contrary evidence. Hence, if you buy into the
presupposition that Christians could not do such things, and that anyone who *has*
done such things isn't a Christian by default, then it becomes impossible to
disprove the claim.
I've found that claims which cannot be disproven aren't terribly meaningful.
Glenn, on the other hand, has been claiming that, since Christians also claim
exclusive rights to truth, that it's unfair for Christians to hold the LDS Church to
a higher standard. Not a bad argument, but it smacks of sophistry, since Glenn
himself doesn't buy into their claims. It would be more relevant to ask, "If the
Church believes itself to have direct access to the Mind of God(TM) to a far greater
extent than any other religion, and furthermore claims that the truth of a set of
religious beliefs is demonstrated "by [its] fruits," and yet there is no discernible
difference in the behavior of Mormons as opposed to other religions, what does that
say about their claims to truth?" A bit wordy, but I think you get the gist.
* I would argue that, while this is the case today, it wasn't seen that way until
at least the time of the Reformation.
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn,
Everything you have said about proselyting is irrelevant. When you say that
you
belong to the "one true church", whether it be a denomination or individual,
you
put yourself at the top. You have missed that point completely. Is there
anything
higher than the "one true church"? You are making claims that the LDS Church is
not "the one true church" and that LDS are not really Chriatian. So in effect
you
are setting yourself and your religion up as superior to the LDS religion you
believe that the LDS religion is false. Higher claims..higher scrutiny.
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No Glenn, what I had to say about prodelytizing IS important and relevant
because it cuts to the heart of how a denomination views ITSELF.
The LDS says it alone is the true CHURCH
If the church is really the Body of CHRIST then somehow they have this subgroup
thing going on where others are not really AS true.
That is absurd.
You don't proselytize from a group that you feel already POSSESSES the very
thing one feels they HAVE.
That would be the truth about being in the Body of Christ.
Again, I will show you some parameters.
The Jesus the LDS subscribe to is one whose very Father is a man.
Jesus was supposed to have taken ON flesh and BECOME a man.
If his father was a man and his mother was a woman, he would not need to take
ON flesh he would have always BEEN flesh.
These kinds of things ( I gave but one example) is the problem here.
We are essentially talking two different NATURES of the very one we are both
talking ABOUT.
If the Bible sets up what it means to BE in the body of christ...and there are
boundaries TO that, then on the very basics we must be on the same page as to
essentials.
We aren't
I am not setting my*religion* as truer..I am saying the Body of CHRIST is
composed of true believers in the Biblical Jesus and if one falls OUTSIDE of
that he may CLAIM truth but by definition he isnt.
You STILL can't get past denomination versus individual members
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Message-id: <3AF7701F...@ucsd.edu>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>>>..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr justifed by faith alone ( which is taught Biblically BTW) is an INDIVIDUAL.
Individuals WITHIN the denominations are still INDIVIDUALLY accountable.
You still have the LDS proseltyzing from Christian groups.
The LDS church self appoints itself as the only TRUE church
That claim has to be looked at closely with far more evidence than Smiths self
promoting revelations.
I am quite familiar with denominational backgrounds.
You too ( as most LDS do ) have a problem with seeing INDIVIDUAL accountability
before God and claiming ones DENOMINATIONAL association being the only one
which is TRUE.
the LDS test doesn't stand up BTW
Sorry
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/7/2001 7:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF76018...@beaufortco.com>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Glenn , how many times has the MMM and all the accompnaying documentation been
presented to you?
You just don't want to SEE it.
You are TAUGHT what you are to believe instructionally must be from YOUR Holy
Scriptures.
YOURS not necessarily GODS.
The leaders SAY it is scripture..you BELIEVE that, then assume that what they
tell you goes along with all that is HOLY writ and it always isnt
I am not going into a long dissertation on the Danites, blood oaths, MMM,
Juanita Brooks works, documentation on the Fanchers, the trail back to Brigham
or all of that with you.
It has been done.
If you substituted ANYONES name for Brigham Youngs in politics today you'd have
a political thriller on the best seller list
fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Fawn has argued that, since Christianity is an individual instead of a group
program* that anyone committing atrocities in the name of God isn't really a
Christian. The argument smacks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, allowing
the
claimant to dismiss any contrary evidence. Hence, if you buy into the
presupposition that Christians could not do such things, and that anyone who
*has*
done such things isn't a Christian by default, then it becomes impossible to
disprove the claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This has zilch to do with contrary evidence.
It is Biblical fact.
One can claim to BE something and NOT be that very thing.
I have said this ad nauseum to Adrian and others who somehow have the notion
any spirit that whispers in their ear must be of God
Any so called * good* deed( in mans eyes not necessarily Gods eyes) must be of
God
that every person CLAIMING to be a Christian IS
or any church that self proclaims itself as TRUE must be if the followers feel
it is.
I say we must ALWAYS have a touchstone..a base..a comparison to see if
something matches UP.
All throughout scriputre we are shown that individuals are the Body of Christ.
The body made up OF these believers following the Way came individually,
received individually and are accountable individually.
The scripture at 1 Corinthians 12 says
For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of
the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
13
For [1] by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or
Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14
For the body is not one member, but many.
15
If the foot says, ""Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,'' it
is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
16
And if the ear says, ""Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,''
it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were
hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He
desired.
19
If they were all one member, where would the body be?
20
But now there are many members, but one body.
21
And the eye cannot say to the hand, ""I have no need of you''; or again the
head to the feet, ""I have no need of you.''
22
On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to
be weaker are necessary;
23
and those members of the body which we [5] deem less honorable, on these we
bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more
presentable,
24
whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so
composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have
the same care for one another.
26
And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is
honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
Notice verse 27 says we are all INDIVIDUALLYmembers of it.
This is important because all too often people get this notion they hop on the
DENOMINATION bandwagon, moaing that "There are so many different
denominations..divisions etc hence the LDS *church* is TRUE because we are
different and unified"
But that is not reading what is in the TEXT.
In the early church, the Apostles were constantly putting out fires in churches
where they were writing letters reproving people, practices at times,
smoothing over dissensions etc, but ALWAYS they referred to these as BROTHERS
in the BODY of believers.
The LDS has the idea that squabbles and some dissension meant these were not
still BROTHERS.
The Bible clearly shows that there were many times they had to submit to
counsel, be rrpoved, shape up yet were still considered members of that BODY .
WHY?
because individuals in the churches of Galatia, Ephesus, Thessalonica etc were
the ones making up the BODY.
Uniformity is not Unanimity
There has to be a core base that ones adhered to to BE Christian...that is
taught all throughout the NT.
SCRIPTURE was that touchstone along with the Holy Spirit.
Today we have however some denominations who claim they are TRUE, and the idea
of a personal one on one saving relationship with Jesus is downplayed.
When was the last time ( or first time) you heard a Jw or LDS etc talk about
when they came to be saved?
One on one?
Most of the time you hear about the CHURCH..as if the LDS CHURCH was the body
Its isnt
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/7/2001 8:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF76313...@ucsd.edu>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your opinion is your own...and I am sorry you hate to see the Bible touted as
to how a christian should conduct himself.It sort of cramps the style of some
guys like you maybe who perhaps like to couch wanting multiple women under the
guise of being a *restorationist*, but I am no prude, could care less about
bedroom habits of others and feel sex in the proper relationship is a grand,
glorius, adventurous and magnificent gift of God.
A prudish libraian with a bun I am not.
HOWEVER..you may call that whiny and such, I call it being a godly woman who
knows HOW to be feminine and Christian .
Now...on to other things Dr. John Clark Ruth
I was following your bent toward making the term anarchy spiritual as it means
strictly speaking of a governmental restraint.
And I assume you weren't talking govt.
I appeal not at all to a leadership approach sir..I appeal to the RIGHT
leadership approach.
I appeal to the approach of GOD as leader.
I believe the Bible is Gods written word for man for our day, that it is wrong
to play fast and loose with scripture and to turn it on its head to sustain a
prophet who has shown himself to be a man of little character, bad translation
skills, heretical thought, moral insensitivity and false prophesy to not be
the way to go.
I make NO bones I am a Christian, saved by grace alone, not by works, being
transformed not merely reformed with a spruced up paint job and believe that my
opinion means nothing if it isnt supported by scriputre and the Holy Spirit.
Scripture however is the touchstone.
Holy Spirit is the teacher and the one who makes one understand the touchstone.
Your pitiful assertion as USUAL belies INDIVIDUALS versus DENOMINATIONS
Individuals in the Body and those who think their DENOMINATION s.
I will hammer that point over and over until you get it.
It is KEY to understanding the base of the believrs position.
I posted more in depth under one of ther MMM posts to Glenn I believe..look it
up.
HOW many Christians do you know shoot people, drop bombs and carry placards?
You need to get out more.
I can show you MANY MANY MANY who work with the poor, hundry and alone.
The ones serving in soup kitchens, quietly helping others in many ways.
Doing ALL the good deeds most call good, but what makes them RIGHTEOUS deeds is
because they have a saving faith not merely a SAID faith.
Do I have an edict to chastize?
What do you mean by chastize?
Correct falsehood as I see it from the Bible?
What does SCRIPTURE say to do ?
Lets see okay?
It speaks about CORRECTING and REPROVING ( which if everyone is right then
there is no need to do that)..and in Jude ( I can post many passages but times
a wasting here:)
Jude 1:22 and 23 says And have mercy on some, SAVE others, snatching them out
of the fire, and on some have mercy with fear..."
All across the board we are told as believers to help our brothers, even when
they fail, to show love, mercy and snatch them BACK if necessary to help.
This stand by the wayside approach and let anything pass by as truth is not
TAUGHT in scriputre.
Ever.
Most Christian believrs I know do reflect the love of Christ...and I am sorry
you equate bringing out points you dont feel comfy with as being *chastized*
Maybe it is.
But then again, we are to align ourselves with God not HIM with us
And besides..it is a great JOY and marvel to be a Christian..I mean that
John...it is omething to know each night that Jesus died for ME..and to me? Its
an inexpressible joy!
And also..sometimes the one who REALLY cares tells you what you need to
hear..not only what you LIKE to hear.
Fawn
Glenn Thigpen
Fawn,
Your explanation does not wash. Your idea of the "one true church" excludes
the LDS. That set whatever religion you have as superior to any other religious
movement that falls outside your definition. Everything else about denominations,
etc. is irrelevant to the issue.
Glenn
FAWNSCRIBE
Date: 5/8/2001 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <3AF87C3E...@beaufortco.com>
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
Glenn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My explanation not only washes better than a box of Tide, it is scriptural.
Not that may fly against what you'd like to THINK but I am posting what Gods
WORD says about us coming INDIVIDUALLY as the members of the body.
You however seem stuck in saying it eliminates the LDS CHURCH..Individuaks not
denominations Guy.
And if the Lds adhere to a different jesus than who is outlined in scriputre
which DESCRIBES the Body, then they are also members of a body, but is it the
body of the Biblical Christ.
Thats all I am saying.
Take a literal body.
A Human body
cells make up the body
Individual cells meake up the members of the literal body
You may say you are adding a toe, but if the toe isnt a human toe but say for
the sake of atgument, it is a chimpanzee toe it is not of the same kind as
what is in the human body.
If you have the body of chirst outlined, the parameters, the qualifications,
the descriptions...and someone wishes to add something CALLING it the Body of
Christ then the CLAIM must be checked.The TOE must be examined to see if it is
a chimps toe or a human toe.
You can't just incorporate anything you want and thereby say, the human body
with a chimps TOE now makes the whole body a Chimpanzee.
What the LDS church has taught is that they ALONE are true...hence what is left
is some mish mash of something NOT true.
You can't have itthat way and be scriptural.
Fawn
Glenn Thigpen
> Glenn Thigpen wrote:
>
>
> > How do you come by that Fawn? None of the historians who have ever done any
> > research on this event have ever pointed out anyone as thinking they were
> > committing murder on approval from God. And the letter delivered by the messenger
> > from Brigham Young told the members of the Church to let the members of the
> > Fancher party alone.
>
> Would you care to point to a single historian who concluded that the leaders of the
> massacre knew God would disapprove, and decided to do it anyways? There is plenty
> of evidence that they believed they were right in their actions. Exhibit A would be
> the simple fact that the massacre occurred.
Since none of those who were involved except for John D. Lee were ever fingered, we
have nothing except speculation. The fact that exhibit A occurred leads no one to a
logical conclusion that the perpretrators thought that God approved of their actions.
Anger, fear, and mob psychology are the more likely driving forces behind the MMM.
>
>
> I've always found Brigham's letter regarding the Fancher party to be pretty
> convincing, but a lot of folks on this board nevertheless claim that Brigham was
> culpable. Could one of them please explain this discrepancy?
>
> > > belinged to a denomination that teaches that what they do instructionally given
> > > by their leaders makes them TRUE.
> >
> > And that is not true. We are taught that what our leaders teach us or tell us
> > to do instructionally must be in conformance with our Holy Scriptures.
>
> First, I think that in the situation where a living prophet disagrees with the
> scriptures, it isn't clearly explained what to do. For the most part, Church
> leaders aren't even going to bring up the possibility. To them, the scriptures =
> God's Will, and the prophet = God's Will.
That is a matter of opinion on your part. That is not what I have been taught over
the years.
>
>
> Second, when it comes to the MMM, there is all sorts of scriptural justification
> for these sort of wholesale slaughters. The entire Old Testament is soaked in more
> blood and gore than "Saving Private Ryan."
However we are not living in Old Testament Times nor under the Mosaic Law. I think
that the early LDS mostly understood that.
And "mainstream" Chritianity does not buy into the claims of the LDS Church. But the
standards of conduct are the same for the most part, although the LDS does have the Word
of Wisdom where most other Christian sects seem to be more relaxed or maybe have no
policy or doctrine on such matters.
There is no sophistry here. Just equal application of equal standards. If there is a
standard which one group has that another does not, that is another matter.
> It would be more relevant to ask, "If the
> Church believes itself to have direct access to the Mind of God(TM) to a far greater
> extent than any other religion, and furthermore claims that the truth of a set of
> religious beliefs is demonstrated "by [its] fruits," and yet there is no discernible
> difference in the behavior of Mormons as opposed to other religions, what does that
> say about their claims to truth?" A bit wordy, but I think you get the gist.
Ah, but mainstram Christianity says that individual members have access to the mind
of God and that is why we do not need prophets on the earth and deny that the LDS have
that greater access. As to discernable fruits, that would be a rather large task to
undertake. How would you go about qualifying such?
How closely members of an organaization adhere has little to do with the truths which
it embraces. The Mafia is an example. Close, one might even say, religious adherance to
the principles upon which it is founded.
Glenn
Glenn Thigpen
> Glenn , how many times has the MMM and all the accompnaying documentation been
> presented to you?
> You just don't want to SEE it.
> You are TAUGHT what you are to believe instructionally must be from YOUR Holy
> Scriptures.
> YOURS not necessarily GODS.
> The leaders SAY it is scripture..you BELIEVE that, then assume that what they
> tell you goes along with all that is HOLY writ and it always isnt
> I am not going into a long dissertation on the Danites, blood oaths, MMM,
> Juanita Brooks works, documentation on the Fanchers, the trail back to Brigham
> or all of that with you.
> It has been done.
> If you substituted ANYONES name for Brigham Youngs in politics today you'd have
> a political thriller on the best seller list
> fawn
Fawn,
There has been very little "accompanying documentation" on arm. From all
reports, Juanita Brooks' research into the MMM is the best that has been done so
far, and she certainly laid no trail back to Brigham Young. Her words on this:
"The complete-the absolute-truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by
any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and
those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best" (Brooks,
p. 223.)
Now what can you demonstrate beyond that that does not depend upon opinion?
Glenn
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> Mr justifed by faith alone ( which is taught Biblically BTW) is an INDIVIDUAL.
I have not contested that.
>You still have the LDS proseltyzing from Christian groups.
What's wrong with that. Unless you hide your light under a bushel, you
witness, and unless you go to a church, if you go, in a cave populated by hermits,
someone amongst your acquaintences proslytizes.
> The LDS church self appoints itself as the only TRUE church
Prove by the written texts that mormons believe are authoritive and prove
that it is not the True(tm) church...
> That claim has to be looked at closely with far more evidence than Smiths self
> promoting revelations.
> I am quite familiar with denominational backgrounds.
> You too ( as most LDS do ) have a problem with seeing INDIVIDUAL accountability
> before God and claiming ones DENOMINATIONAL association being the only one
> which is TRUE.
As I've said before, few if any christians had made any accomodation for
any other religion until recently. And when Joseph Smith was alive
it was very much the case that almost all white inhabitants of the
current area covered by the US had no regard for many other
christian groups, to the point where one would have one denomination's
cemetary separated from the other, if the community did not have
burials on the church property. Even more so for any 'heathen'
religions either of the native americans, or any of the far of
mission fields that were being supplied with missionaries to
spread the good word of covered breasts, and woman in
supine inactive position for sexual acts, oh, and by the way
the big plan of redemption from their evil habits.
Why should mormons be any different than those christians. What, because
you now know the Truth(tm)?
John Clark
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
> HOW many Christians do you know shoot people, drop bombs and carry placards?
Where I live, I will be more likely to run into a gun toting trained killer
christian
than a peace seeking Tantric.
And 99% of the individuals that I've ever seen carrying placards at abortion
clinics protesting the process claim to be christian.
I have often thought about carring a placard with a erect penis with
bedecked with a condom, at the same place some christian is carrying a
placard with splattered dead baby bits. Who do you think will be arrested
first, if one one else is at all.
Glenn Thigpen
Fawn,
That is completely irrelevant to the subject.
Glenn
Hertzdonut
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> bedroom habits of others and feel sex in the proper relationship is a grand,
> glorius, adventurous and magnificent gift of God.
> A prudish libraian with a bun I am not.
> HOWEVER..you may call that whiny and such, I call it being a godly woman who
> knows HOW to be feminine and Christian .
>
You are a sweetie, Fawn. I think that you and my Mrs. would adore one another.
<smile>
Go get 'em girl! <grin>