When will the first temple be sold?
Scott Marquardt
The church isn't in trouble, but it could be before long.
Over the centuries, lots of churches were turned into Mosques and so forth.
Their value as churches dwindled with changes in demographics, wars, and so
forth. The population changed, and the buildings were repurposed.
It may be that the Mormon church has overextended itself by building 100
temples. If active, tithing members fall off, if church investments don't
return what's needed, and if ownership of so much real estate becomes a
problem, some of these temples might have to sell.
Anyone care to make a prediction? I'll go ahead and make one: the first
temple will sell before Art Bulla gathers the saints unto Zion. ;-)
- Scott
exmo
> It may be that the Mormon church has overextended itself by building 100
> temples.
115 completed, 7 more under construction and 6 more announced. It's a
regular franchise fer cryin' out loud.
> If active, tithing members fall off, if church investments don't
> return what's needed, and if ownership of so much real estate becomes a
> problem, some of these temples might have to sell.
I think it would be too embarrassing for them to sell off a temple these
days, and the critics would be all over the story. They'd hang onto it
as long as possible, even if it meant reducing hours of operation
drastically. Many of the new smaller regional temples are only operative
a few days a week.
Andrew R
"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com...
>
> Anyone care to make a prediction? I'll go ahead and make one: the first
> temple will sell before Art Bulla gathers the saints unto Zion. ;-)
>
Well I agree with you there, since Hell will Freeze over before that
happens.
Andrew R.
Scott Marquardt
LOL
- Scott
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/28/2003 8:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com>
GBH wanted his legacy to be achieving 10 million membership and 100 temples
under construction by the year 2000.
He spent untold millions of dollars, and who knows how many bogus "convert
baptisms" in third-world countries were effected to meet those goals.
But with the apparent severe downturn in donations, the high bankruptcy and
foreclosure rates in Utah, and the exodus of thousands of former active
tithepayers from the church, GBH's successor's biggest job may be drastic
downsizing.
I doubt that they'll actually sell any temples anytime soon; since most of them
are so new, it would be a PR disaster to dump any after having recently built
them. But if they do have to close some of them, rest assured that the Mormon
PR machine will spin it to appear as a positive.
Randy J.
Stormin Mormon
just fine, thank you.
But it opens up intersting questions. What could one do with a used temple?
Well, with the couple movie rooms, it would make sense for exclusive
showings of pre release movies for celebs. The baptistry could have the
temperature bumped up a couple degrees to make a hot tub. And some of the
other rooms for meetings.
Might make a good executive office perk for the folks from Exxon, Fuji Film,
or maybe heads of state?
I think you're on to something.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.org
.
.
"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:v22fnvol1m8jkga4d...@4ax.com...
Scott Marquardt
>Well, I reject your first several premises. The convert and activity rate is
>just fine, thank you.
</head in sand>
LDS growth has declined progressively from over 5% annually in the late
1980s to less than 3% in 2000 and 2001. There were 292,612 LDS convert
baptisms reported for 2001.32 This is up from a many-year low of 273,973
in 2000. However, this number of convert baptisms is still lower than
the number of converts baptized in 9 of 10 years during the 1990s. Only
1992 had fewer convert baptisms. Following several years of declining
missionary productivity and little increase of congregations or stakes,
2002 brought a further decline with 283,138 convert baptisms, the lowest
number in a decade, as well as the first decline in total stakes (minus
five) since 1857 and the lowest increase in wards and branches (+59)
since 1950.
[...]
"75 percent of foreign [LDS] converts are not attending church within a
year of conversion. In the United States, 50 percent of the converts
fail to attend after a year."
[...]
If we examine the actual growth rates of the Seventh-day Adventist church
-- 2.5 to 3 times that of the LDS Church -- and the convert retention
rates, also 2.5 to 3 times LDS convert retention rates, we find that the
"real growth" rate of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are six to nine
times that of the LDS Church.
[...]
The average missionary in 1989 brought 8 people into the church, while
in 2000 the average missionary brought 4.6 people into the church. When
one accounts for actual activity and retention rates, with the great
majority of LDS convert growth occurring in Latin America and other
areas with low retention and only 20-25% of convert growth occurring in
North America, it can be determined that of the 4.6 persons baptized by
the average missionary each year, approximately 1.3 will remain active.
The average time spent by missionaries in the field (80% Elders, 20%
Sisters) is approximately 22.8 months, so an average of approximately
2.47 converts remain active from the entire mission service of each
missionary.
[...]
Researchers interviewed over 6,000 adults in the United States by
telephone and asked a battery of questions about religious beliefs and
practices. Only 26% of Latter-day Saint reported making any attempt to
share their faith within the past year, compared to 61% of Pentecostals,
61% of Assemblies of God members, and 57% of non-denominational
Christians. In fact, the 26% figure for Latter-day Saints is not
significantly different from the 24% of all adults nationwide who report
making some attempt to share faith.12 These other groups all report
annual worldwide growth rates two to three times higher (6-10%) than LDS
growth rates (2.6-3.0%), paralleling their higher rates of
member-missionary involvement. The above study does not include groups
the Jehovah's Witnesses, among whom almost every member proselytes for
ten or more hours a month, and over 800,000 of the six million members
put in fifty or more proselyting hours each month!
Read the whole bloomin' report before you claim that all is well in Zion.
- Scott
Bubba
"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:4duhnvk3qfpvqhl31...@4ax.com...
Scott Marquardt
Goner
(in message <po7eb.4$YP7.4...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
> What is your source for numbers?
http://www.cumorah.com/report.html
Probably.
--
Cheers,
don marchant
dangerous1.com
I was only joking..... Really
exmo
>
> I would make the Celestial Room into the Master Bed Room. ;-)
>
> Nah, come to think of it, the whole place would be too costly to heat.
Dunno 'bout that. I've seen mansions considerably larger than the
standard new "smaller" LDS Temples (which only average 10-15 thousand
sq.ft.)
John Lemings
Excellent facts that are well supported, Scott. However, Christopher is
the proverbial LDS member with his denial mechanism in full swing. In
fact, his denial mechanism is so powerful, that I often wonder if he
truly is LDS.
> - Scott
John Lemings
John Lemings
> Look at bottom of post.
Reading is truly fundamental, is it not, Scott?
Scott Marquardt
>Scott sez:
>> http://snurl.com/2if4
>>
>> Read the whole bloomin' report before you claim that all is well in Zion.
>
>Excellent facts that are well supported, Scott. However, Christopher is
>the proverbial LDS member with his denial mechanism in full swing. In
>fact, his denial mechanism is so powerful, that I often wonder if he
>truly is LDS.
Anyone who would deny that page's statistics, though, would be denying the
passionate work of people who care very much about LdS growth. It's a tough
one to deny!
- Scott
Tyler Waite
>But if they do have to close some of them, rest assured that the Mormon
> PR machine will spin it to appear as a positive.
Yeah it will be used to lay a massive guilt trip on the members the temple
serves.
>
> Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/30/2003 7:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0euinv406pf5810vn...@4ax.com>
Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts which conflict with
their predetermined conclusions or worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy in his 1850 debate
in France.
Woody Brison is in denial of the fact that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was
illegal, that he Smith denied practicing polygamy, and that Smith "plural
married" other men's wives and had sex with them.
Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with his "plural wives."
Red Davis is in denial that Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
Charles Dowis is in denial of the fact that the "haplogroup X" DNA strain does
not support the idea of Semites migrating to the Americas during "Book of
Mormon times."
Jason Hardy is in denial of the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley lied about the
"God is an exalted man" teaching in media interviews.
Examples like these show us that belief in Mormonism is in essence, an exercise
in denial of demonstrable facts.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/30/2003 10:47 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <blc8io$ssg$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
From reports I hear, that's already being done. Poor GBH thought that building
more temples would increase overall attendance (and revenues), but apparently,
attendance is about the same overall. Meaning, that they are having to finance
and maintain two temples instead of one, while getting no increase in
attendance or revenues. The attendance numbers at the new temples are
apparently being drawn away from the old ones.
Randy J.
somedude
Lucky for them that, as a church, they don't have to pay property tax on
all those temple lots.
garydw
"exmo" <ex...@freeatlast.com> wrote in message
news:3F7923...@freeatlast.com...
I have already sent a letter to Gordon, and told him I would be glad to take
the Memphis, TN temple off their hands.
Dave
Davenews:0euinv406pf5810vn...@4ax.com...
Woody Brison
> Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts which conflict with
> their predetermined conclusions or worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
>
> Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy in his 1850 debate
> in France.
>
> Woody Brison is in denial of the fact that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was
> illegal, that he Smith denied practicing polygamy, and that Smith "plural
> married" other men's wives and had sex with them.
>
> Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with his "plural wives."
>
> Red Davis is in denial that Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
> the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
>
> Charles Dowis is in denial of the fact that the "haplogroup X" DNA strain does
> not support the idea of Semites migrating to the Americas during "Book of
> Mormon times."
>
> Jason Hardy is in denial of the fact that Gordon B. Hinckley lied about the
> "God is an exalted man" teaching in media interviews.
>
> Examples like these show us that belief in Mormonism is in essence, an exercise
> in denial of demonstrable facts.
You know, Randy, you are a giant. With one post you have
epitomized all of antimormonism, the negative religion.
For NOT ONE of the "facts" you refer to above is real.
We went over the John Taylor debate thoroughly and the
antis were unable to show that he lied, in refering to
John Bennett's mischaracterizations of LDS life.
You yourself were unable to refute my defense of the
legality of plural marriage. For instance, we're still
waiting for you to explain, if it was illegal, why
Congress had to pass laws against it.
I've yet to see a real example of where Joseph Smith
clearly denied practicing polygamy after he had begun
to practice it, but maybe if you antis keep puffing long
enough you can find one, or make one.
Funny how a man can father several children by his first
wife, but be unable to beget any with all the many women
the antis imagine he slept with. Could it be the antis
are kind of frustrated sexually?
Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
attack anyway.
If there were anything in the Book of Mormon to prove
that the Lehites were the only ancestors of the modern
native Americans, I'm sure the antis would be pouncing
on it, but as it is we just have to be content with them
stalking around the issue.
And I have no doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley has told
the truth to one and all. Of course, by subtle
manipulation the antis can make it appear not so, but
so what -- street magicians do more than that everyday.
So, is that the essence of antimormonism? positing
of imaginary facts? A real paradox, something 100%
negative made from positing.
Wood
Clovis Lark
Yo Woody, my main man! Long time no hear! how's the viola coming?
Drop me a line!
Goner
(in message <f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>):
LOL
> Wood
Indeed
--
Best,
don m
Goner at Dangerous1.com
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having
to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
[Douglas Adams]
GRaleigh345
Ray McIntyre is in denial that Community of Christ rules and regulations
prohibit performing same sex marriages and ordaining practicing homosexuals.
He is also in denial about the fact that the leadership of the church don't
ever obey the rules, they just hold them up as a smokescreen.
The complete text of the wedding bulletin for the gay wedding at the Community
of Christ in Eugene Oregon is posted on the Centerplace.org discussion board.
The bride (or is it groom?} was Sharon Troyer, a World Church appointee. (But
the main office is like Seargent Schultz--"It knows NOTHING.")
Raleigh
Christianity isn't an "ism." "Isms" are counterproductive to Christianity, be
they Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Calvinism, Unitarianism, or whatnot. The
only "ism" that is a legitimate part of Christianity is baptism.
Guy R. Briggs
> not...@notdoot.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
<snip>
>> Anyone who would deny that page's statistics, though, would
>> be denying the passionate work of people who care very much
>> about LdS growth. It's a tough one to deny!
>
> Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts
> which conflict with their predetermined conclusions or
> worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
>
> Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy
> in his 1850 debate in France.
>
Borrowing a page from Woody, if polygamy was Mormon doctrine in
1850 when Taylor supposedly lied about it, why did it have to
presented to the Saints in conference - and voted on, which is what
turned it into Mormon doctrine - a year or so later?
<snip>
> Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with
> his "plural wives."
>
Never ONCE have I made that argument, and you and I have discussed
this before if memory serves. What I HAVE written is that you have
precious little evidence of Smith's sexual activities, and even less
evidence that Smith's unbridled lust was the motivating factor for
polygamy (as opposed to procreation as motivating factor).
bestRegards, Guy.
Clovis Lark
Let us not forget that the burning of the Nauvoo temple was in response to
a failure to sell it by a nonholder of title who resided in Deseret.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> If there were anything in the Book of Mormon to prove
> that the Lehites were the only ancestors of the modern
> native Americans, I'm sure the antis would be pouncing
> on it, but as it is we just have to be content with them
> stalking around the issue.
According to the Book of Mormon, the "Promised Land" was "reserved" as
an "inheritance" for Lehi and his "seed," and the land had been "kept
from other nations" so it would not be "overrun," leaving Lehi's
"seed" with out their promised "inheritance." Here's the reference:
7 Wherefore, this aland• is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.
And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the
commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of bliberty• unto
them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if
so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound
ccursed• shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it
shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be akept• as yet from
the knowledge of other bnations; for behold, many nations would
overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise•, that binasmuch• as
those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall
keep his commandments, they shall cprosper• upon the face of this
land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may
possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall
dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this
land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the
land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
Read it at the official LDS Internet Site, at
http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1
So, Woody, how do you propose getting the Promised Land full of
pre-Lehites -- enough to wash out any expectation of the Hebrews that
the Book of Mormon describes as populating ancient America?
Oh, and by the way. Did you ever come to grips with the manner in
which your fellow apologist (Charles Dowis) misrepresented the Book of
Mormon by claiming it does not mention swine in an ancient-American
context? I (and others) have asked you to comment on Charles'
misrepresentation, and it seems you've simply ignored the issue.
Since you seem unfamiliar with what the Book of Mormon says, here's
the reference on the swine:
16 And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and
the house of Emer did prosper exceedingly under the reign of Emer; and
in the space of sixty and two years they had become exceedingly
strong, insomuch that they became exceedingly rich—
17 Having aall• manner of fruit, and of grain, and of bsilks•, and of
fine linen, and of cgold•, and of silver, and of precious things;
18 And also aall• manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep,
and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which
were useful for the food of man.
19 And they also had ahorses•, and asses, and there were elephants and
cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more
especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
Read it on the official LDS Internet site at
http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/9/18#18
> And I have no doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley has told
> the truth to one and all. Of course, by subtle
> manipulation the antis can make it appear not so, but
> so what -- street magicians do more than that everyday.
Let's look at what your prophet, seer, and revelator said:
In an interview with Time magazine (TIME Aug. 4, 1997) Gordon B.
Hinckley was asked "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God
the Father was once a man like we are?"
Hinckley replied: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we
emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public
discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under
which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical
background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know
that others know a lot about it."
You can see a transcript of the entire interview at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/04/13/SC36289.DTL
Now look at Hinckley's lies:
1) Lie number one: "I don't know that we teach it [the doctrine that
God the Father was once a man.]
In fact, the LDS Church DOES teach that doctrine. Here's what was
taught in the unified 1997 LDS priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual
"The Teachings of Brigham Young", p. 34, it
says:
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a
God is unique to this church."
2) Lie number 2: "I don't know that we emphasize it."
Here's what the founder of Mormonism taught:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God....yea, that
God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as
Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible....
[Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345-346.]
Would Gordon B. Hinckley (prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints) have us believe that the church does NOT teach "THE
FIRST PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL?" That's what founder Joseph Smith
called it. How is it that Hinckley thinks he can lie about the "FIRST
PRINCIPLE OF THE GOSPEL" by implying that it's not taught or
emphasized?
What is it about Mormons and their leaders that they feel this
apparent obligation to lie about what the Church teaches?
3) Lie number 3: I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in
public discourse.
Again. Here's what was taught in the unified 1997 LDS
priesthood/Relief
Society lesson manual "The Teachings of Brigham Young", p. 34, it
says:
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a
God is unique to this church."
There are MANY other references. Some of the best are found at
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/gbh-god.htm
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon140.htm
In the February 1982 issue of The Ensign, the question appeared:
"Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement – 'As man now is,
God once was; as God now is, man may be' – accepted as official
doctrine by the Church?"
In response, Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church
Education System answered, and summarized the situation by saying:
"It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both
acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." [The Ensign,
February 1982.]
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God....yea, that
God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as
Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible....
[Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345-346.]
"He is our Father – the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in
mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being…. It appears
ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous
traditions, that God has once been a finite being;…[Brigham Young,
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 333-334]
"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are
beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed
before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly
body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. [Apostle
Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1853-1854, 20.]
"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we
have,
and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms!
We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single
line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God
once was; and as God is, man may become." [President Spencer W.
Kimball, Our Great Potential, Ensign, May 1977, page 49.]
Here are several Internet sites that explain in greater detail and
show how Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, lied about Church doctrine:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/gbh.shtml
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon140.htm
It's interesting that Woody thinks Hinckley told the truth -- but
then, being a Mormon apologist isn't about intellectual honesty. It's
about doing/saying what's needed to maintain the corporation of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Borrowing a page from Woody, if polygamy was Mormon doctrine in
> 1850 when Taylor supposedly lied about it, why did it have to
> presented to the Saints in conference - and voted on, which is what
> turned it into Mormon doctrine - a year or so later?
In the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter
heading to section 132 reads:
"Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo,
Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting
covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also
plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was
recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the
doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by
the Prophet since 1831."
This clearly illustrates that the church had what it claimed were
revelations that legitimized the practice of plural marriage as early
at 1831. However, as late as 1837, Church representatives were
denying that they practiced or *BELIEVED* in polygamy, and claiming
that they BELIEVED "that one man should have one wife:"
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. [History of
the Church, vol. 5, page 30 (May 1836). This statement also appeared
in the Doctrine and Covenants, until 1876 when D&C 132 was first
introduced. Similar wording was repeated in Messenger and Advocate
(Aug 1835, pg. 163), and Messenger and Advocate (May 1837), page.
511.]"
Which Doctrine and Covenants was correct? The current one, or the one
prior to 1876?
By the way, Guy. Since you apparently think that voting is how
something becomes doctrine, do you reject the changes that have been
made to the temple ceremony? Specifically, do you still think the
bloody oaths should be in the temple ceremony, since they were removed
without a vote?
Do you also reject as doctrinal the changes that have been made to the
Book of Mormon without a vote? Specifically, do you think the Book of
Mormon should still read "white" instead of "pure?" Do you accept
those chages, even though they were never voted upon?
Here's another example. Nowhere in the LDS scriptures does it say
that women cannot hold the priesthood, yet the LDS Church does not
allow it. However, the practice of not allowing women to hold the
priesthood has never been voted upon. Since it has not been voted
upon, do you agree that women should be allowed to hold the priesthood
in the LDS Church?
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
> attack anyway.
Woody, under what circumstances (if any) would you write the prophet
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and ask him if he
wanted you to murder a busload of people?
Please be specific.
Joshua Gemmell
Not when Satan want it sold. That's for sure.
I am glad, that with more temples, the less power Satan has over you.
- Joshua Gemmell
someguy
Riiiiiight. <slowing backing away>
TheJordan6
>Date: 10/2/2003 11:29 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <64c46056.03100...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>> not...@notdoot.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Anyone who would deny that page's statistics, though, would
>>> be denying the passionate work of people who care very much
>>> about LdS growth. It's a tough one to deny!
>>
>> Naaaaahhh. Irrational fanatics can and do deny any facts
>> which conflict with their predetermined conclusions or
>> worldviews. A few examples from ARM:
>>
>> Guy Briggs is in denial that John Taylor lied about polygamy
>> in his 1850 debate in France.
>>
> Borrowing a page from Woody, if polygamy was Mormon doctrine in
>1850 when Taylor supposedly lied about it, why did it have to
>presented to the Saints in conference - and voted on, which is what
>turned it into Mormon doctrine - a year or so later?
We're not discussing whether or not polygamy was Mormon doctrine in 1850 or
not. We're discussing whether or not John Taylor lied about teaching or
practicing polygamy in his 1850 remarks.
But to answer your question, before 1852, the only official rule of marriage in
the LDS Church was monogamy. Since John Taylor and many other top Mormon
leaders were polygamists before 1852---and most of them lied about being
polygamists---then all of those Mormon leaders were liars, hypocrites, and were
in violation of the own church's rules of marriage.
I have detailed the specific lies in John Taylor's 1850 remarks numerous times
here on ARM. I repeat them again below. These are the lies you remain in
denial about.
Guy wrote:
>>>The French had read Bennett's book, based some of
the debate on it, and Taylor was denying the lies Bennett had published.
Randy wrote:
>>Guy, for you to "make your case," you're going to have to show from Taylor's
remarks where he admitted to an "approved" or "proper" form of polygamy. He
denied polygamy in toto, not just the "lies Bennett had published." And since
he was at that time a polygamist, his denial was a lie.
Guy wrote:
> I took delivery of a parcel from Utah Lighthouse Ministry yesterday
afternoon.
This statement does not address or refute my remarks just above it in the
least. Your failure to address them further illustrates your intellectual
dishonesty.
>As I now have the document in question - the complete pamphlet, not just
snippets of it - I can better answer you. This was the account of a public
debate with 3 protestant ministers on the prosecution, Taylor on the defense:
>"I again arise with pleasure, but am somewhat
surprised to hear the remarks made by Mr. Robertson.
He states that he cannot prove a negative, and that
he is not bound to prove Joseph Smith was a bad man.
I understand that he challenged me - that in that
challenge he represents Joseph as a daring impostor.
I know nothing of Mr. Smith that is not good; he
ought to prove his assertions or not make them. I am
not the challenger; I am on the defence. Am I to be
brought here to answer charges, and then become my
own accuser? Let them bring forth evidence and I am
prepared to rebut it."
>IOW, the format of the debate was answering the charges of the accusers -
that's exactly what Taylor did.
Wrong. If Taylor had merely stated something like "Bennett's and Caswall's
writings are a pack of lies," and ended his remarks there, he could have left
himself "wriggle room" for you to assert that he didn't lie. But when Taylor
went beyond referring to Bennett or Caswall, and he specifically denied
teaching or practicing any form of non-monagomous marriage systems, he clearly
entered the realm of deception.
>>>> ... rather, Taylor's remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND
UNCATEGORICALLY denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than "one wife or
one husband." NOWHERE in Taylor's remarks did he infer that he, or the church
he represented, taught or practiced a "correct" version of polygamy that had
been "misstated" by "ill-informed denunciators", to use Roberts' term.
>>>Taylor couldn't even bring himself to repeat some of Bennett's lies, instead
referring to them as "actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,
such
that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." He called
them "too outrageous to admit of belief."
>>As usual, you are in intellectual denial of the rest of what Taylor actually
said.
>No. I'm trying to show what Taylor actually said, not your editorial of it.
Guy, where is "my editorial" in the following statement of Taylor's?
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptised into this church should be held
sacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of
Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we
believe, that one man should have one wife; and one
woman, but one husband, except in case of death when
either is at liberty to marry again."
Those are Taylor's exact words, as you have quoted from his pamphlet below.
How do Bennett's or Caswall's allegations wipe out this statement of Taylor's,
wherein he characterized polygamy as a "crime," and emphatically declared that
the only form of marriage his church allowed was one husband or one wife?
>And now that I have the pamphlet as printed, you have no more wriggle room.
The only "wriggle room" that needs to be talked about in this thread is inside
of the straitjacket you should be wearing.
>>One more time, caps mine for emphasis:
>>"As to the charge of POLYGAMY, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church AND IS STRICTLY
ENFORCED. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, 'Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with THE CRIME OF FORNICATION AND POLYGAMY, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.' "
>Randy, I read the whole pamphlet front to back yesterday afternoon. About 50
pages worth. I'm at a loss to find what you have cited above. Perhaps you
could point me in the right direction? Was it on Day 1, Day 2 or Day 3?
Guy, everybody on this forum (except you, apparently) understands that ellipses
are used to omit portions not directly relevant to the subject at hand, to
avoid having to quote reams and reams of material. You yourself have repeated
the same words of Taylor's below as what I quoted above.
>Until then, here's what Taylor ACTUALLY said. I laughed out loud when I
realized that all I had to do to get to the truth was find the words to replace
the ellipses, and restore the words that the antiMormons had snipped.
Guy, WE KNOW THAT TAYLOR'S REMARKS WERE SNIPPED. Now PLEASE TELL US HOW THOSE
SNIPPED WORDS CANCEL OUT TAYLOR'S BLANKET DENIAL OF POLYGAMY.
><Reporter: (in hushed tones) Thanks, Walter. I am here at the
site of the debate between John Taylor and three Protestant
ministers. James Robertson has just spoken, and has reported
bold and audacious pretensions of these so-called Latter-day
Saints. Mr. Taylor attempted to stop Robertson from reading
a speech - that he did not consider it proper. The chairman
agreed, but Robertson read most of the speech anyway. He
quoted the testimony of Bennett and Caswell, claimed that
Joseph Smith kept a seraglio of "Sisters of the White Veil,"
"Sisters of the Green Veil;" and that a body of men known as
"Danites" or "Destroying Angels" had caused the hostility of
Americans to the Mormonite body, and that Gov. Boggs had been
assassinated by this body. Taylor stands and approaches the
dais. A hush falls over the crowd.>
>"It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that
he also attaches a great deal of importance to the
statements of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of
course, for want of better testimony. I have already
referred to their characters, I have already stated
that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a
man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent
people will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the
same object.
Seeing as how Taylor himself told lies in this very speech in which he
criticized Bennett and Caswall, Taylor had no greater moral authority than did
they.
>"I have also spoken of John C. Bennett's character;
perhaps these gentlement suppose that great importance
is to be attached to Mr. Caswell's statement because
he is a reverend gentleman; but reverend gentlemen can
tell falsehoods, when it answers their purpose, as
well as others. I will presently show some of their
proceedings. We have had a terrible account about the
murder of Governor Boggs, I suppose given by Mr.
Caswell. Ex-governor Boggs is now living in
California, at the gold mines. (Laughter.) But I
suppose he must be dead, because a reverend gentleman
said so.
After Boggs was shot, it was assumed that he would die because of the extent of
his injuries. In fact, Porter Rockwell was back in Nauvoo eight days after the
shooting, and upon his return, the Nauvoo papers erroneously reported that
Boggs had been
"shot and killed." The fact that other parties also erroneously reported that
Boggs had died does not wash away the evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith
paid Rockwell to kill Boggs.
>Mr. Robertson has told us of a certain
editor, who was afraid to pollute his paper with
remarks made by some of the gentlemen before referred
to. It certainly would have been more to the credit
of the persons concerned, notwithstanding they had
no regard for the truth, if they had a little more
regard for delicacy; and with all due deference, I
must say, that men of the calling and profession of
my opponents, would have displayed a little more
taste, if they had posessed a little more of that
delicacy of feeling which actuated the editor. We are
accused here of polygamy, and actions the most
indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such as none but
a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.
Note Taylor's characterization of polygamy in negative terms, as something to
be "accused of." This shows Taylor's intention to depict polygamy as being
immoral or improper. As Taylor was a polygamist at the time, this is his Lie
No. 1.
>These things are too outrageous to admit belief;
therefore leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,'
the 'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those
gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors,
as they think best, I shall content myself by reading
our views of chastity and marriage, from a work
published by us, containing some of the articles of
our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330.
Here Taylor covers his church's secret polygamy practice by referring to their
official publication which prohibited it. This is Taylor's Lie No. 2.
>"1. According to the custom of all civilised nations,
marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies;
The Mormons' "plural marriages" were done in secret, and in violation of the
law,
so this is Taylor's Lie No. 3.
> therefore we believe that all marriages in this
Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, should
be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared
for that purpose:
Note Taylor's assertion that "ALL MARRIAGES.....should be solemnized...in
public." As Mormon "plural marriages" were done in secret, often behind locked
doors, and shrouded in deceit, this is Taylor's Lie No. 4.
>and that the solemnization should
be performed by a presiding High Priest, High Priest,
Bishop, Elder, or Priest, not even prohibiting those
persons who are desirous to get married, of being
married by other authority. We believe that it is not
right to prohibit members of this church from
marrying out of the church, if it be their
determination so to do, but such persons will be
considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.
> "2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and
thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons
to be married, standing together, the man on the
right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed,
by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by
the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections,
he shall say, calling each by their names: 'You both
mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband
and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to
this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly
for each other, and from all others, during your
lives.'
As the Mormons' secret polygamous system included having sex with persons other
than one's legal "companion", this is Taylor's Lie No. 5.
>And when they have answered 'Yes,' he shall
pronounce them 'husband and wife' in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the
country and authority vested in him: 'may God add his
blessings keep you to fulfill your covenants from
henceforth and forever. Amen.'
>"3. The clerk of every church should keep a record of
all marriages, solemnized in his branch.
Since Mormon "plural marriages" were done in secret, and records of them kept
in secret, this is Taylor's Lie No. 6.
>"4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptised into this church should be held
sacred and fulfiled.
As Mormon "plural marriages" violated the law, and Joseph Smith and other
Mormon leaders made a mockery of legal marriage contracts by "plural marrying"
the wives of other men, this is Taylor's Lie No. 7.
>Inasmuch as this Church of
Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication, and polygamy:
Note that Taylor characterizes polygamy as a "crime", along with fornication,
when Taylor himself was secretly practicing polygamy.
>we declare that we
believe, that one man should have one wife; and one
woman, but one husband, except in case of death when
either is at liberty to marry again.
As Taylor obviously knew the Mormons had a secret marriage system which allowed
more than one "wife", this is Taylor's Lie No. 8.
>It is not right
to persuade a woman to be baptised contrary to the
will of her husband, neither is it lawful to
influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be
baptised, or leave their parents without their
consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that
husbands, parents and masters who exercise control
over their wives, children, and servants and prevent
them from embracing the truth, will have to answer
for that sin."
This portion you quoted is irrelevant. That's why people use ellipses, Guy.
But you have our thanks for posting Taylor's complete remarks; they show just
how offensive and blatant a liar he truly was.
>Note that Taylor referred to "the charge of polygamy,"
>Note that when restored to its original form, Taylor referred to specific of
Bennett's allegations: Saints of the White Veil and Saints of the Green Veil.
Please tell us how that cancels out Taylor's eight lies which I have documented
above.
Since polygamy, in actual practice, was essentially the same thing that Bennett
had alleged---a secret system by which Mormon men could "plural marry", and
have sex with, women to whom they were not legally married---the issue of the
terms Bennett used to describe that practice, in light of Taylor's blanket
denial of polygamy, is nothing more than a red herring on your part.
>> ... which my Webster's defines as "the state or practice of having more than
one spouse at a time." Polygamy is what the Mormons were being accused of,
polygamy is what Taylor was secretly practicing, and polygamy is what Taylor
referred to as a "crime."
>Actually, he referred to "fornication & polygamy" as a crime.
Which they were. If they were not crimes, then William Law could not have
filed charges against Joseph Smith for "adultery and polygamy", Smith would not
have denied being guilty of the charges, and Taylor would not have had to lie
about polygamy in 1850.
>>NOWHERE in his speech did he state, or even hint, of a "correct" or
"approved" form of polygamous marriage, whether practiced in public or private.
>Nor did he have to in order to answer his accusers.
But he *DID* choose to answer his accusers, and in doing so, he told at least
eight lies, which I have pointed out above. His remarks were clearly intended
to give listeners the impression that the Mormons practiced no marriage systems
other than monogamy, and that was a lie.
>>His remark was intended to give the impression that neither he or his church
practiced polygamy in any form, by any term.
>His remarks were intended to convey the FACT that there was no such societies
as "Saints of the White Veil," "Saints of the Green Veil," or saints of any
other color of veil. In fact, that's pretty much how the snipped portion reads.
If Taylor had stopped there, you might have a ghost of an argument.
Your lifelong inculcation in Mormonism, along with your deep-seated dishonesty,
prevents you from perceiving Taylor's lies. Whatever Bennett wrote does not
forgive Taylor's blanket denials of any marriage systems other than monogamy.
Again I state that the only way Taylor's remarks could not be viewed as
deceitful is if he had admitted to, and described the "correct" form of his
church's polygamy practice, to counter what he asserted were "Bennett's lies."
His failure to admit to polygamy in any form, by any term, constituted
deception.
>>That is what we sane people call a "lie."
>What do you "sane people" call it when you must snip more than 50% of the
words in order to make it appear that Taylor was speaking "SPECIFICALLY,
UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND UNCATEGORICALLY" of polygamy?
Once again, the snipped portions do not cancel out Taylor's specific,
unequivocal, uncategorical denial of any marriage systems other than monogamy.
Your failure to understand this, while continuing to inject the red herring of
"Bennett's lies," demonstrates your incorrigible intellectual dishonesty. All
you are accomplishing in this thread is showcasing the convoluted reasoning and
mental gymnastics for which Mormon apologists are infamous.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> Guy Briggs is also in denial that Joseph Smith had sex with
>> his "plural wives."
Guy wrote:
> Never ONCE have I made that argument, and you and I have discussed
>this before if memory serves. What I HAVE written is that you have
>precious little evidence of Smith's sexual activities, and even less
>evidence that Smith's unbridled lust was the motivating factor for
>polygamy (as opposed to procreation as motivating factor).
>
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
You are merely re-stating what I wrote in different words. Your argument that
there is "precious little evidence of Smith's sexual activities" obviously
means that you wish to believe that Smith did not have sex with his "plural
wives."
However, I have documented the historical evidence for Smith's sexual
relationships with women other than Emma Hale Smith numerous times. That
evidence comes from some of his closest, most loyal disciples, including
several of the "plural wives" themselves.
Seeing as how that documented evidence comes from numerous sources spanning
decades of testimony and experiences, your assertion of "precious little
evidence" is soundly refuted by the documented history.
So your problem is not that there isn't any evidence, but that you choose to
reject the evidence that exists. And that means that you are in denial of the
facts, which is what I wrote earlier.
Once again, below is some of the historical evidence that Joseph Smith had sex
with at least some of his "plural wives". And Guy, if you choose to
disbelieve this documentation, then I recommend you read an article by a FAIR
apologist who pretty much concurs with the information, at
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf
"In the group of Smith's well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to
20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to
thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith's own peer group,
ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a
substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the
group aged fifty-one to sixty.
The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and
thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom
that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older,
unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important
part of the motivation for Smith's polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply
and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual
marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it.".....
"Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to
Smith's plural wives: 'I know he had six wives and I have known some of them
from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two
are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other
names.
"Melissa Lott Willes testified that she had been Smith's wife "in very
deed." Emily Partridge Young said she "roomed" with Joseph the night
following her marriage to him, and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with
him.
Other early witnesses also affirmed this. Benjamin Johnson wrote: "On the 15th
of May...the Prophet again came and at my house occupied the same room and bed
with my sister that the month previous he had occupied with the daughter of the
later Bishop Partridge as his wife." According to Joseph Bates Noble, Smith
told him he had spent a night with Louisa Beaman.
When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith 111
in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father's
wives, then "how was it that there was no issue from them." Cannon replied:
"All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous
and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of
my reply. 'I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her
death.' I in turn said, "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her
the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and
afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, 'I
thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.' "
Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had
had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating
that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine)
was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i. e., sexuality)
was an important theological element in Smith's Abrahamic-promise justification
for polygamy. (See D&C 132:30-32).
Since there is a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations
with his wives, one wonders why he did not have more polygamous children.
However, some of his children apparently grew up under other names, as Mary
Lightner suggested. Furthermore, he may not have had numerous posterity
because he was not able to visit his wives regularly, both because he was often
hiding from the law and because Emma, his first wife, watched him carefully.
In addition, polygamy was illegal....Finally, some of his wives were married to
other men in polyandrous relationships, so such wives would probably have had
children by their "first husbands", with whom they were cohabitating regularly,
not by Joseph. All of these factors would have combined to limit the number of
his children. However, it is clear that some of his plural wives did have
children by him if we can rely on the statements of Geroge A. Smith, Josephine
Fisher, and Elizabeth Lightner.....
In conclusion, though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which
there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for
this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later
Mormon polygamy). And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence
of sexual relations."
("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith", Todd Compton, pp.
11-15).
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 10/1/2003 7:33 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>
I wrote above that you and the other Mormons I names are in denial of those
items I listed. That fact that you all are in denial of the items is real.
>We went over the John Taylor debate thoroughly and the
>antis were unable to show that he lied, in refering to
>John Bennett's mischaracterizations of LDS life.
No, I and other poster have repeatedly pointed out Taylor's specific lies, and
your response above shows that you are still in denial.
>You yourself were unable to refute my defense of the
>legality of plural marriage.
To the contrary, I have refuted your idiotic opinions numerous times by
documenting the fact that polygamy (a.k.a. bigamy) was illegal in Illinois from
1833, that Joseph Smith was indicted in 1844 on charges of adultery and
polygamy, and that Brigham Young himself admitted in 1874, in his divorce case
with Ann Eliza Webb, that "plural marriage" was an "ecclesiastical affair," not
a legal relationship.
No Mormon "plural marriage," at any time, was ever a legal marriage. There has
never been a situation or time in the US where it has been legal to be married
to more than one person at a time.
Since I have documented all of this before, your response indicates that you
are still in denial.
>For instance, we're still
>waiting for you to explain, if it was illegal, why
>Congress had to pass laws against it.
Imbecile, the federal laws passed beginning in 1862 merely federalized existing
state and territorial anti-bigamy laws. Since marriage is a legal contract
administered by states or territories---and no state or territorial laws have
ever legalized bigamy, even 19th-century Utah territory---and no Mormon
"plural' relationship ever applied for, or were granted, legal marriage
licenses---then it is obvious that "plural marriage" was never legal at any
time.
I have explained this to you many times. Your refusal to accept the facts
shows that you are in denial.
>I've yet to see a real example of where Joseph Smith
>clearly denied practicing polygamy after he had begun
>to practice it, but maybe if you antis keep puffing long
>enough you can find one, or make one.
I have documented examples of Smith denying practicing polygamy numerous times.
For example, numerous Mormon historians have listed Fannie Alger as Smith's
first "plural wife." Smith's relationship with Fannie was from 1833-36. But
on May 1, 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question:
"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same
time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to
marry again."---May 1, 1838, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 119.
As I've shown many times, Smith's response followed the language of the
"Article on Marriage," which was the LDS church's accepted rules on marriage as
published in the "Doctrine and Covenants", 1835 edition:
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have
one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when
either is at liberty to marry again."
A few more examples of Smith's and some of fellow polygamists' denials of
polygamy, which I have already posted numerous times:
After John C. Bennett had split with Joseph Smith and exposed the Mormons'
secret polygamy practice, Smith had 12 leading Mormons swear to the following
affidavit:
"We know of NO OTHER RULE OR SYSTEM OF MARRIAGE
OTHER THAN THE ONE PUBLISHED FROM THE BOOK OF DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and we
give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's secret wife system is a
creature of his own make as we know of NO SUCH SOCIETY in this place nor never
did."
(Times and Seasons, vol. 111, October 21, 1842.)
On February 1, 1844 the following was published in the "Times and Seasons":
NOTICE: As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church
of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been
preaching polygamy, and other FALSE AND CORRUPT DOCTRINES, in the county of
Lapeer, state of Michigan."This is to notify him and the Church in general,
that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further
notified to appear at the special conference, on the 6th of April next, to
answer to these charges.
JOSEPH SMITH,
HYRUM SMITH,
Presidents of said Church."
(Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 423)
The following month Hyrum Smith wrote this in the Times and
Seasons (15th March 1844, vol. 5, p.474):
"...brother Richard Hewitt... states to me that some of your elders say, that a
man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that
doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches FALSE DOCTRINES,
FOR THERE IS NO SUCH DOCTRINE TAUGHT; neither is there ANY SUCH THING practised
here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such
doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High
Council, and lose his license and membership..."
And of course, when Joseph Smith had been indicted on charges of polygamy and
adultery in May 1844, he responded by asserting:
"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having
seven wives, when I can only find one. I am
the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them
all perjurers."
(Woody, please do not respond to this by repeating your moronic assertion that
Smith was responding to accusations made against him shortly after his marriage
to Emma Hale. The context makes it obvious that Smith was responding to the
charges filed against him just days earlier, in May of 1844.)
And after Joseph and Hyrum Smith's murders, the polygamous Mormons who ran the
church (Young, Taylor, Richards, etc.,) were still denying that they taught or
practiced polygamy:
"The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have
more than one wife alive at once." (Times and
Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715, November 15, 1844.)
Since I have already documented these statements numerous times, your response
indicates that you are still in denial.
>Funny how a man can father several children by his first
>wife, but be unable to beget any with all the many women
>the antis imagine he slept with. Could it be the antis
>are kind of frustrated sexually?
I have documented numerous times the historical evidence of which women Joseph
Smith had sex with, and which women he bore children with, and others which
there is evidence that he may have sired. That evidence comes from some of
Joseph Smith's closest friends and followers, including Mary Lightner's
compelling revelation in her speech to the 1905 graduating class of BYU that
she personally knew at least three of those children, and that they had grown
up "under other names," implying that they carried their mothers' husbands
surnames, but were the biological offspring of Joseph Smith.
Since I have documented that evidence numerous times, your response shows that
you are still in denial.
And I recommend you read an article by a FAIR apologist which concurs with much
of what I have written on this subject over the years, at
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf
>Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
>alone.
No, Young ordered *THE MORMONS* to leave the train alone. Young's plan, as
documented in a war council with 12 southern Indian chiefs 6 days before the
attack, was for only the Indians to attack the train.
>But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
>attack anyway.
No, it is reputable, legitimate, non-LDS-church-employed historians who are
publishing the evidence which shows that, including the late Juanita Brooks,
David Bigler, Will Bagley, and now Sally Denton in her new book "American
Massacre."
Since I've posted page after page of documentation which clearly shows that
Brigham Young planned and approved the attack, and others like it, your
response above shows that you are still in denial.
>If there were anything in the Book of Mormon to prove
>that the Lehites were the only ancestors of the modern
>native Americans, I'm sure the antis would be pouncing
>on it, but as it is we just have to be content with them
>stalking around the issue.
It is the Book of Mormon itself, as well as LDS leaders, which state that the
ONLY ancestors of the American Indians were the "Book of Mormon people."
As I've written numerous times, the LDS doctrine of the global flood alone,
wherein all humans on earth except for the eight aboard Noah's Ark, dictates
that the only people who could have been living in the Americas during "Book of
Mormon times" were "Book of Mormon people."
That you cannot comprehend that simple fact is an example of your abject
stupidity.
>And I have no doubt that Gordon B. Hinckley has told
>the truth to one and all.
That is because you are in denial of his documented lies.
>Of course, by subtle
>manipulation the antis can make it appear not so, but
>so what -- street magicians do more than that everyday.
There was no manipulation whatsoever to Hinckley's remarks. He told the same
lie to the Time magazine reporter that he told to the San Francisco Chronicle
reporter.
And Hinckley has told many more lies about items of Mormon history, which I've
also documented here on ARM. Your refusal to admit that Hinckley lied merely
means that you are still in denial.
>So, is that the essence of antimormonism? positing
>of imaginary facts? A real paradox, something 100%
>negative made from positing.
>
>Wood
Your opinion that these are "imaginary facts" is merely another example of you
being in denial.
Randy J.
Woody Brison
be sold?"), Randy Jordan pontificated:
> ...Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
> the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
I answered,
| Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
| alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
| attack anyway.
In message news:<a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
Duwayne Anderson asked,
- Woody, under what circumstances (if any) would you write
- the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
- Saints, and ask him if he wanted you to murder a busload
- of people?"
Let's suppose a scenario: Let's imagine that some radical
self-styled "Islamic" revolutionaries set up cells in the area
around Tiajuana. Let's suppose that their announced programme
is the overthrow of America and the death of every American.
Let's suppose that I was a civil or military commander in
charge of security in the area across the border from there.
Let's suppose that I became aware of a "busload of people",
i.e. terrorists heading our way, with guns waving and grenades
showing. Would I stop that bus? Sure. Would I kill them if
necessary? Sure. Would it be murder? Now there's a point
that few could answer.
It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war. But what
if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
If there was time.
I might seek out the Prophet for some advice, to clarify where
the line should be drawn between military duty and murder. If
it was an odd situation where I didn't know the answer. If
there was time.
If there wasn't time, I'd make a decision, and to hell with
you if you think you could do better when you weren't even
there -- and have not made certain critical decisions well
in your life anyway. Armchair amateur military critics will
often find a decision wrong no matter what it was.
In the case under question, the military authorities in
southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
leader of the place. A wagon train was passing thru which
included some individuals which the military leaders
understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
objective of going to California to raise an army and come
back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
a couple of people already. What should they do with this
party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone. He
told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible.
It seems to me, that rather than any objective evidence, your
need to self-justify your rejection of the Gospel is the
obvious reason why you try to implicate Brigham Young in the
killings. I would think, if you're going to reject the Gospel,
thus incurring some serious questions about your case on
Judgement Day, it would be wiser to have someone like him on
your side rather than repel his sympathies.
Wood
exmo
>
> It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war. But what
> if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
> difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
> see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
> sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
> If there was time.
MMM involved US citizens killing other US citizens. Where was the "war,"
even undeclared?
> I might seek out the Prophet for some advice, to clarify where
> the line should be drawn between military duty and murder. If
> it was an odd situation where I didn't know the answer. If
> there was time.
Gosh, I think killing the women and children _might_ just cross the line
between "military duty" and murder. IMHO.
Alan Faircloth
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote:
>On the previous thread ("Re: When will the first temple
>be sold?"), Randy Jordan pontificated:
>> ...Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
>> the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
>
>I answered,
>| Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
>| alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
>| attack anyway.
>
>In message news:<a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
>Duwayne Anderson asked,
>- Woody, under what circumstances (if any) would you write
>- the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
>- Saints, and ask him if he wanted you to murder a busload
>- of people?"
>
>Let's suppose a scenario: Let's imagine that some radical
>self-styled "Islamic" revolutionaries set up cells in the area
>around Tiajuana. Let's suppose that their announced programme
>is the overthrow of America and the death of every American.
>Let's suppose that I was a civil or military commander in
>charge of security in the area across the border from there.
>Let's suppose that I became aware of a "busload of people",
>i.e. terrorists heading our way, with guns waving and grenades
>showing.
Let's suppose you're paranoid.
Would I stop that bus? Sure. Would I kill them if
>necessary? Sure. Would it be murder?
In this "fantasy" it already is.
Now there's a point
>that few could answer.
>
>It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war.
Biblical reference please.
But what
>if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
>difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
>see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
>sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
>If there was time.
>
>I might seek out the Prophet for some advice, to clarify where
>the line should be drawn between military duty and murder. If
>it was an odd situation where I didn't know the answer. If
>there was time.
How 'bout consulting the Bible?
title: God
http://members.tripod.com/~foldey0/duplindex.html
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
TheJordan6
>In the case under question, the military authorities in
>southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
>President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
>leader of the place.
As I've documented dozens of times, Young intended for only the Indians to
attack the train. The Mormons were to hide out of sight, supervise the
Indians, and help divvy up the spoils. But the emigrants fought off the
initial attack and fortified themselves. That forced the "military
authorities" (who were also LDS stake presidents) to send the messenger to
Young for further instructions.
Since that letter was conveniently "lost," we don't know exactly what it said.
But Young's response reflected what had been discussed in the September 1
council in SLC wherein Young met with 12 southern chiefs:
"In regard to the emigrant trains
passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are
first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect
will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with
them."
The eminent late LDS historian Juanita Brooks commented on Young's directive:
"[Young's] answer to Haight is direct: 'In regard to the emigrant trains
passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are
first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them.'
"Yet, in almost the same breath, he suggests that should the Indians annoy the
emigrants or prey upon them, he would assume no responsibility---but the people
of the south must keep the good will of the natives: 'The Indians we expect
will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with
them.'
"This sounds as though he might not condemn an Indian massacre."
("Mountain Meadows Massacre", pp. 64-65.)
>A wagon train was passing thru which
>included some individuals which the military leaders
>understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
>Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
>objective of going to California to raise an army and come
>back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
>a couple of people already.
And all of these allegations have been shown by several historians to have been
invented by the Mormons to "justify" their massacring more than 120 men, women,
and children.
Tell us, O Wise Woody: Even if men in the Fancher party had done what you
allege above, what "sins" did all those women and children commit to warrant
atonement by the shedding of their blood at the hands of the Mormon priesthood?
>What should they do with this
>party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
>messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone.
.....but Young also expected the Indians to "do as they please."
>He
>told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
>order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible.
The idea that Young told the messenger, James Haslem, to "spare no horseflesh,"
was concocted and related in John D. Lee's trial in the 1870s.
In actuality, the historical evidence shows that Haslem took his sweet time
getting back to Mountain Meadows.
>It seems to me, that rather than any objective evidence, your
>need to self-justify your rejection of the Gospel is the
>obvious reason why you try to implicate Brigham Young in the
>killings.
Woody, let's see if the following material implicates Brigham Young in the
killings:
"This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' [Americans] were
considered enemies.
"As president of the Southern Indian Mission, [Jacob Hamblin] was responsible
for the conduct of Indian affairs; as military commander of the area, Haight
had sent these men to work with the natives in carrying out the war policies.
With Zion standing against the world, and with the Indians as allies, they were
prepared to prey upon every passing emigrant company as part of the
contribution to the war."
(Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)
"Huntington's mission to the Shoshonis exacerbated the violence that had
already set the northern road to California ablaze from City of Rocks to the
Humboldt River. By early September horrific accounts 'of the almost total
destruction of an immigrant train, by the Indians,' filled California's
newspapers. Indians had attacked a small train at Stony Point, a black man
named Scott reported, and killed five men and a child. A woman was 'shot in
several places, scalped, and left for dead.' Remarkably, she had survived, and
her head almost healed.
Emigrants had no doubt as to who was behind these assaults. On reaching
California, overlanders recounted 'many sad evidences of outrage and murder'
that they swore implicated the Saints. For three hundred miles emigrants had
to run 'the gauntlet of Indian attacks and Mormon treachery,' Richeson Abbott
complained. His party was ambushed at City of Rocks, and he was 'satisfied the
attack was led by Mormons, as he had heard them cursing in regular Mormon
slang, and calling out to them to get out of the country, as they had no
business there.' The Saints boasted they would kill them all.
Panicked reports claimed hundreds of emigrants had been killed. For the press
in California, it was 'an undoubted fact that the Mormons were at the head of
most of [the] outrages, and instigated the Indians to commit the murders.'
Louis Fine said white men supposed to be Mormons led an Indian attack on Samuel
Beller and B. Redman of Arkansas near City of Rocks. For the next three
hundred miles they were fired on or attacked almost every day. The emigrants
'all appeared to have more fear of the Mormons than of the Indians.' Their
general feeling was that 'the Mormons led the Indians in their attacks and
murders.'
Angus McLeod of Arkansas left Salt Lake on September 4 with Louis Fine's train.
He was attacked fifty miles from town by ten or twelve men mounted on newly
shod horses. McLeod believed they were white men or Mormons. His party was
assaulted again near City of Rocks, where forty or fifty Indians killed Oliver
Bailey and drove off some seventy head of cattle. At Salt Lake, a man named
Pierce heard 'vague declarations of a threatening character' that 'next year
the overland emigrants must look out'; and it was intimated that the last
trains this year might be destroyed.'
A woman with the eastbound Mormon wagons evacuating Carson Valley warned, 'The
last trains of this year would not get through, for they were to be cut off.' "
("Blood of the Prophets," Will Bagley, p. 93.)
"A member
of the Dukes train, S. B. Honea, stated 'that he passed through Great Salt Lake
City on August 17, that he saw everywhere preparations for war, that the
company were harassed by Indians all the way, that in southern Utah they hired
Mormon guides and interpreters to the sum of $1,810, and then were robbed on
the Muddy [River] of 375 head of cattle.' [George B.] Davis described the
Indians who stole the cattle as having among them some with light, fine hair
and blue eyes, and light streaks where they had not used sufficient paint. He
gave the number of cattle taken as 326 head.....On October 17, the first
members of the Duke train of emigrants arrived half-starved at San Bernardino
with the Mormon theft of their cattle to add to the tale of the massacre."
(Brooks, pp. 125, 126, 146.)
"It was from the lips of Charley Fancher, soon after his arrival from the
vicinity of the tragedy, that I heard the first story of the massacre. In his
childish way he said that "some of the Indians, after the slaughter, went to
the little creek, and that after washing their faces they were white men."
(Josiah Gibbs, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre.")
The tactic of using "Lamanites" as "the battle-ax of the Lord" to assist
Mormons in robbing non-Mormons and exacting "vengeance" upon apostates or
church opponents is found in the writings and sermons of Mormons themselves.
The minutes of the Southern Indian Mission for May 14, 1854, records:
"Bro. Lewis reviewed the principles of the previous speakers, all good and for
good. All the scenes Bro. Lott has recounted I shared in, my brother Benjamin
was killed in Missouri, and I am alive to avenge his blood when the Lord will.
The second time I heard a Mormon preach, he declared holding up a Book of
Mormon that this was a record of the red men, and of God's dealings with their
fathers, and we should one day carry this work to the Indians, and we are now
living among them, and to teach them of this work. We must treat them like
children, by degrees, to quit their savage customs. Shall we have no
opportunities? We shall. No conquest without a struggle, no victory without a
fight. Be diligent, faithful and patient, and the Lord will reward you when
you have been proved. Ephraim is the battle-axe of the Lord. May we not have
been sent to learn how to use this axe, with skill?"
On February 20, 1854, Cedar City Stake Patriarch Elisha Groves spoke the
following words in a patriarchal blessing to Mormon militia colonel William
Dame:
"Thou shalt be called to act at the head of a portion of thy brethren and of
the Lamanites in the redemption of Zion and the avenging of the blood of the
prophets upon them that dwell on the earth. The angel of vengeance will be
with thee, shall nerve and strengthen thee."
And 3.5 years later, on September 7, 1857, William Dame was doing exactly what
his patriarchal blessing foretold: Dame was the military leader in charge at
the Mountain Meadows Massacre, wherein he led his fellow Mormons and
"Lamanites" in exacting "vengeance" upon some 100 American citizens whom the
Mormons asserted were among the murderers of "prophets" Joseph and Hyrum Smith
and Parley P. Pratt.
"Brigham Young had unleashed the battle-ax of the Lord against emigrants
passing through Utah, Bishop Elias Hicks Blackburn explained to his
congregation that afternoon. He quoted Brother Brigham: 'the enemy is in our
hands if we will do right.' Near Box Elder twenty-five Shosonis had stampeded
six hundred cattle and horses, leaving an emigrant company on foot. ['Brigham
Young has] held the Indians back for 10 years past but shall do it no longer!'
the bishop thundered. 'As soon as this word went out they have commenced upon
our enemies!' "
(Utah Stake minutes, 30 August 1857, quoted in "Blood of the Prophets," pp.
112-113.)
On September 12, 1857---the day after the MMM---Brigham Young wrote to his
agent in Philadelphia, Jeter Clinton:
"The check rein has broken, and cousin Lemuel is out at large, in fact he has
already been collecting some of his annuities. Day after day I am visited by
their chiefs to know if they may strike while the iron is hot.....the war cry
will resound from the Rio Colorado to the head waters of the Missouri---from
the Black Hills to the Sierra Nevada---travel will be stopped across the
continent---the deserts of Utah become a battle ground for freedom. It is
peace and [Mormons'] rights---or the knife and tomahawk---let Uncle Sam
choose." (Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives, 839-40.)
Mormons sometimes used the term "cousin Lemuel" for the "Lamanites", whom they
taught were their "cousins" in the "house of Israel." That term also appeared
in the minutes of meetings of the Cedar City stake on September 13, 1857:
"At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch Elisha H. Groves
spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites being the
battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness to the gospel. 2 p.m. meeting
opened by singing, prayer by I. C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit of the
times, and of cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their fathers.
Singing, benediction by P. K. Smith." [Philip Klingensmith.]
Patriarch Elisha Groves was the same man I quoted above, who "blessed" Parowan
Stake President William Dame in 1854 to lead Mormons allied with Indians in
avenging the "blood of the prophets."
I. C. Haight was the Cedar City Stake President who gave orders in the MMM.
Bishop Philip Klingensmith also participated in the MMM.
The church meeting recorded above took place two days after those pious
gentlemen, in cahoots with Indians, helped to murder 120+ American citizens at
Mountain Meadows. Note how those men spoke approvingly of "cousin Lemuel's"
assistance in recent events, just as Brigham Young had written of "cousin
Lemuel" being "out at large.....collecting some of his annuities," in a letter
written the day before that church meeting in Cedar City.
"Continue the conciliatory policy towards the Indians.....for they must learn
that they have got to help us or the United States will kill us both."
(Brigham Young letter to southern Utah Indian mission president Jacob Hamblin,
August 4, 1857---five weeks before the initial attack on the Fancher train.)
"If the government dare to force the issue, I shall not hold the Indians by the
wrist any longer. If the issue comes, you may tell the government to stop all
emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."
(Brigham Young letter to U. S. Army Captain Stewart van Vliet, September 7,
1857---the very day of the initial attack on the Fancher train.)
"Recently I was given access to an electrostatic copy of the daily journal of
Brigham Young. Under date of September 1, 1857, the entry reads: 'Kanosh the
Pavaunt chief with several of his band visited me gave me some council and
presents. A spirit seems to be takeing possession of the Indians to assist
Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans.'
"This seems very significant. The 'Journal History of the Church' under this
same date tells of the visit of Jacob Hamblin and twelve Indian chiefs from the
south. President Young talked with them all, but it seems that Kanosh was
given private audience. He was the chief who had killed Captain John W.
Gunnison and several of his men as they were camped on the Sevier River on
October 28, 1853. Whether or not Kanosh and his band were at the Mountain
Meadows we do not know, but we can now be certain that the Mormon war strategy
was to use the natives as 'the battle-ax of the Lord,' as some of the early
missionaries had stated." ("Mountain Meadows Massacre," Juanita Brooks,
p.xiii.)
"Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham
Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick Huntington, at Great
Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the
Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the
Piedes;Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert bands
along the Santa Clara and Virgin Rivers. Little was known of what they talked
about until recently when it came to light that Huntington (apparently speaking
for Young) told the chiefs that he 'gave them all the cattle that had gone to
Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].' The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he
said. But 'you have told us not to steal,' the Indians replied. 'So I have,'
Huntington said, but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us
they will kill you.' The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They
belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." ("Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon
Theocracy in the American West," David Bigler, 1998, pp. 167-168.)
Four years after the MMM, Brigham Young visited southern Utah and spoke to
local Mormons there, many of whom had helped to massacre the Fancher party:
[Young said that] "the company that
was used up at the Mountain Meadows were the Fathers, Mothers, Bros., sisters
& connections of those that murdered the Prophets; they merited their fate, &
the
only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the women & children, but
that under the circumstances this could not be avoided." (John D. Lee diary,
May 30, 1861.)
Woody, do you see anything in the above material that implicates Brigham Young
in the MMM?
(I hope that readers noted that Woody did not cite a single historical quote in
his entire reply here. Every word he wrote was his own opinion.)
>I would think, if you're going to reject the Gospel,
>thus incurring some serious questions about your case on
>Judgement Day, it would be wiser to have someone like him on
>your side rather than repel his sympathies.
>
>Wood
Are you talking about Brigham Young here? 'Cuz I would hate to think that a
lying, scheming, murderer like him would be in a position to "judge" me or you,
Woody.
Randy J.
Woody Brison
> Woody Brison wrote:
> >
> > It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war. But what
> > if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
> > difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
> > see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
> > sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
> > If there was time.
>
> MMM involved US citizens killing other US citizens. Where was the "war,"
> even undeclared?
Where? In the West, where the U.S. Army was sent with
full military equipment including them gun things. By
order of the President of the United States, from which
the LDS had been expelled at gunpoint. It was in all
the papers, can you really say you were ignorant of it?
> > I might seek out the Prophet for some advice, to clarify where
> > the line should be drawn between military duty and murder. If
> > it was an odd situation where I didn't know the answer. If
> > there was time.
>
> Gosh, I think killing the women and children _might_ just cross the line
> between "military duty" and murder. IMHO.
I agree. But there were strong additional factors,
which I notice you deleted.
The question is, did Brigham Young order it? No, he
didn't, he tried to stop it.
Wood
Clovis Lark
What might we conclude, Woody, were you to write your stake prez asking if
you should not beat your wife tonight?
> Wood
Clovis Lark
> Woody Brison wrote:
>>In the case under question, the military authorities in
>>southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
>>President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
>>leader of the place.
I've just responded to Woody, asking him what one might conclude were he
to write his stake prez asking him if he should NOT to beat his wife.
exmo
>
> exmo <ex...@freeatlast.com> wrote in message news:<3F7DFB...@freeatlast.com>...
> > Woody Brison wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war. But what
> > > if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
> > > difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
> > > see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
> > > sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
> > > If there was time.
> >
> > MMM involved US citizens killing other US citizens. Where was the "war,"
> > even undeclared?
>
> Where? In the West, where the U.S. Army was sent with
> full military equipment including them gun things. By
> order of the President of the United States, from which
> the LDS had been expelled at gunpoint.
Are you saying the victims of the massacre were actually part of the
Army?
Duwayne Anderson
> be sold?"), Randy Jordan pontificated:
> > ...Brigham Young planned and approved the attack on
> > the Baker-Fancher emigrant train.
>
> I answered,
> | Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
> | alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
> | attack anyway.
>
> In message news:<a42139e3.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson asked,
> - Woody, under what circumstances (if any) would you write
> - the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
> - Saints, and ask him if he wanted you to murder a busload
> - of people?"
>
> Let's suppose a scenario: Let's imagine that some radical
> self-styled "Islamic" revolutionaries set up cells in the area
> around Tiajuana.
Are you suggesting the Mormons are like Islamic revolutionaries? Or,
are you lying to the extent that you are saying the Francher group
were like Islamic revolutionaries?
Do you justify murder by lying about the victims?
> Let's suppose that their announced programme
> is the overthrow of America and the death of every American.
Oh. Are you talking about Smith?
> Let's suppose that I was a civil or military commander in
> charge of security in the area across the border from there.
Like Smith? Head of the local army?
> Let's suppose that I became aware of a "busload of people",
> i.e. terrorists heading our way, with guns waving and grenades
> showing.
Are you suggesting the Francher train was a busload of terrorists?
How about the little children the Mormons murdered? Were they
terrorists, too?
> Would I stop that bus? Sure. Would I kill them if
> necessary? Sure. Would it be murder? Now there's a point
> that few could answer.
Would you write the president of the church to get his permission
first?
> It is not murder to kill as part of duty in war.
The Francher train consisted of US people. Were the Mormons at war
with the US? If so, should we not look to the Mormons as the
terrorists here?
> But what
> if there's no war declared or in full progress? What if it's
> difficult to ascertain their intentions or capabilities? You
> see, some of these questions could be fairly difficult. So
> sure, I might well try to consult higher military authority.
> If there was time.
So you are suggesting the Mormons were at war with the US and they
felt they had the moral right to murder Americas passing through
"Mormon" country? Even the little kids?
> I might seek out the Prophet for some advice, to clarify where
> the line should be drawn between military duty and murder. If
> it was an odd situation where I didn't know the answer. If
> there was time.
So you would do it only if the Mormons were at war with terrorists.
Yet, if the Mormons were at war with the US, they were the terrorists.
> If there wasn't time, I'd make a decision, and to hell with
> you if you think you could do better when you weren't even
> there -- and have not made certain critical decisions well
> in your life anyway. Armchair amateur military critics will
> often find a decision wrong no matter what it was.
It sounds like you are agreeing with the decision by the Mormons to
murder the Francher train.
> In the case under question, the military authorities in
> southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
> President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
> leader of the place.
Yes, yes. We all know how Mormons mix politics and religion.
> A wagon train was passing thru which
> included some individuals which the military leaders
> understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
> Joseph Smith.
Who? Names, please. You seem to have given up all pretending at this
point, admitting the Mormons did the murders. It seems to be a game
of yours, now, in trying to defend the murders.
> They were understood to have the stated
> objective of going to California to raise an army and come
> back and wreak mayhem in the area.
How about the kids the Mormons murdered? Were they part of the plan?
You really intend to turn this act of murder by Mormons into some sort
of defense?
> They had wantonly killed
> a couple of people already.
Who? What proof? Does Mormon justice mean that when a person in a
wagon train does something like that, everyone dies? Including kids?
> What should they do with this
> party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
> messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone.
Really? The temple ceremony of the time included an oath to avenge
the prophet. Who was responsible for the temple ceremony, if not the
president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Brigham
Young?
> He
> told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
> order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible.
So Young was just a pirate, and not gulty of murder? Is this your
plea?
> It seems to me, that rather than any objective evidence, your
> need to self-justify your rejection of the Gospel is the
> obvious reason why you try to implicate Brigham Young in the
> killings.
I ask you again -- who was responsible for the temple oath binding
Mormons to avenge the prophet Joseph Smith?
> I would think, if you're going to reject the Gospel,
> thus incurring some serious questions about your case on
> Judgement Day, it would be wiser to have someone like him on
> your side rather than repel his sympathies.
I reject your gospel of lies and murder with gusto.
Duwayne Anderson
Woody, go to the following link:
http://www.helpingmormons.org/Vengeance.htm
There you will see discussed an oath of vengeance that was instituted
by Brigham Young. Quoting from that site:
"Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, Brigham Young introduced an oath
in the endowment which required members to swear vengeance "upon this
nation." It became the subject of a United States Senate
Investigation."
"Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from
Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have
Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this
treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The complete record of this
episode was published in: U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st
Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections
of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the
Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold
his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1906)"
"Several former Mormons revealed the content of this oath. The wording
was as follows: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you
will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood
of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to
your children and to your children's children unto the third and
fourth generation."
Given Young's introduction of that oath, do you think that might have
been the reason that Mormons in Southern Utah wrote to Young to see if
he wanted them to murder -- as they did -- the people of the Francher
train? I mean, Young had already put them under oath to "avenge the
blod of the prophets upon [the US], and to teach the same to [their
children]..."
Those are the words of a crazy murderous cult, don't you think? And
treason, too. Which might help explain why the US was sending an army
to Utah, to quell the treason that was in place.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
The oath remained a part of the temple rituals until February 15,
1927.
Woody Brison
Woody Brison
> Woody, go to the following link:
> http://www.helpingmormons.org/Vengeance.htm
Nothing on that page indicates that Brigham Young ordered
the killing, or contradicts the order he sent, ordering that
the wagon train be left alone.
> There you will see discussed an oath of vengeance that was instituted
> by Brigham Young. Quoting from that site:
>
> "Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, Brigham Young introduced an oath
> in the endowment which required members to swear vengeance "upon this
> nation." It became the subject of a United States Senate
> Investigation."
>
> "Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from
> Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have
> Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this
> treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The complete record of this
> episode was published in: U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st
> Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections
> of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the
> Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold
> his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing
> Office, 1906)"
>
> "Several former Mormons revealed the content of this oath. The wording
> was as follows: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you
> will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood
> of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to
> your children and to your children's children unto the third and
> fourth generation."
Note the wording of the oath, genius: That they would
not cease to pray TO GOD that HE would avenge their
blood.
It does not say they should pray that THEY could avenge
that blood.
It has been part of the scriptures forever that "Vengeance
is mine, and I will repay" (Mormon 3:15, 8:20, Romans 12:19;
all these quoted earlier (Old Testament) scripture (which
we do not have today). It is clearly part of the religion
that the saints are not to take vengeance, but leave it up
to the Lord.
The oath as given there says that they should never cease
to PRAY.
It has been part of the scriptures forever that men should
not cease to pray.
> Given Young's introduction of that oath, do you think that might have
> been the reason that Mormons in Southern Utah wrote to Young to see if
> he wanted them to murder -- as they did -- the people of the Francher
> train?
No. There is nothing in the oath about any Saint murdering
anybody.
This presumes of course that your webpage there is accurate,
which is a matter of conjecture.
>... I mean, Young had already put them under oath to "avenge the
> blod of the prophets upon [the US], and to teach the same to [their
> children]..."
You are misquoting it.
You love to be chastized, obviously, that is the only reason
why you must do these things. Well, you are to be greatly
chastized for misquoting the sense of the quotation.
Shame, shame, shame on you!
Does that make you happy?
> Those are the words of a crazy murderous cult, don't you think?
No. I think your output is the output of a crazy
person, but I hope that you don't manage to start
any cult and I certainly hope you don't murder anybody.
>... And
> treason, too.
It's not treason to pray, not even to pray that God will
thump on the nation. If it's a good thing that needs to
happen then it's not treason to pray for it. If it's a
bad thing that should not happen, then God won't do it.
It cannot be treason to pray. That nation which tries
to outlaw prayer will suffer the same penalty which was
visited upon Babylon.
>... Which might help explain why the US was sending an army
> to Utah, to quell the treason that was in place.
Absolutely not. They were sent to quell an imaginary
uprising, which fiction was clubbed together by political
forces.
Your 1903 hearings had no effect on events in the 1850's,
whether or not you believe they did.
Wood
Woody Brison
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
> >In the case under question, the military authorities in
> >southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
> >President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
> >leader of the place.
>
> As I've documented dozens of times, Young intended for only the Indians to
> attack the train.
Documentation, for you, means you found something somewhere
which said something. President Young had no desire that
the Indians should attack the wagons, or that they should
attack anybody, or that anybody should attack anybody. He
was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, the prince of peace.
>... The Mormons were to hide out of sight, supervise the
> Indians, and help divvy up the spoils.
This is your construction I gather... worth zero in terms of
evidence.
>... But the emigrants fought off the
> initial attack and fortified themselves. That forced the "military
> authorities" (who were also LDS stake presidents) to send the messenger to
> Young for further instructions.
Is there something wrong with towns forming local militia?
If so, every town in America at that time was guilty of it.
> Since that letter was conveniently "lost," we don't know exactly what it said.
Oh, you know what it said. You don't need any facts. You
just know it said what you wish. Your buddy Duwayne says it
said they asked if they should murder the emigrants, so you
will have to decide if this is convenient for your case and
agree, or else make up something else for it to have said.
> But Young's response reflected what had been discussed in the September 1
> council in SLC wherein Young met with 12 southern chiefs:
>
> "In regard to the emigrant trains
> passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are
> first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect
> will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with
> them."
This shows that Brigham Young ordered the wagon trains left
alone. And that he didn't want trouble with the Indians.
He wanted peace and friendly relations.
> The eminent late LDS historian Juanita Brooks commented on Young's directive:
>
> "[Young's] answer to Haight is direct: 'In regard to the emigrant trains
> passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are
> first told to keep away. You must not meddle with them.'
> "Yet, in almost the same breath, he suggests that should the Indians annoy the
> emigrants or prey upon them, he would assume no responsibility---but the people
> of the south must keep the good will of the natives: 'The Indians we expect
> will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with
> them.'
How would Brigham Young control the Indians? See, like I said,
for you, "documentation" consists of finding something somewhere
which said something, doesn't necessarily say what you are trying
to push; doesn't even have to be relevant, or even on the same
subject. If you deny this, I can fish up examples from past
posts by you.
> "This sounds as though he might not condemn an Indian massacre."
> ("Mountain Meadows Massacre", pp. 64-65.)
What it sounds like is that the people who are under
President and Governor Young's command, are being ordered to not
bother the wagon train. If the wagon train attacks them, then
of course they can defend, but only after a warning, which is
consistent with DC 98:23-48. It specifically says that he has
no control over the Indians; they will do as they please.
There is NOTHING in the quotation to show that Brigham Young
would be glad if somebody was killed, or would sanction it.
> >A wagon train was passing thru which
> >included some individuals which the military leaders
> >understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
> >Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
> >objective of going to California to raise an army and come
> >back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
> >a couple of people already.
>
> And all of these allegations have been shown by several historians to have been
> invented by the Mormons to "justify" their massacring more than 120 men, women,
> and children.
I don't think so. It was part of the information that the
LDS in southern Utah had to go on.
More recent scholarship might have been unable to VERIFY that
such rumors existed. Quite different from showing that they did
not exist.
I'm fairly sure that those rumors were not "invented by the
Mormons to "justify" their massacring more than 120 men, women,
and children." The reason for this is, I can recognize
blather when I see it.
The Mormons are Christians. They are not bloodthirsty
murderers. This most basic, elementary fact eliminates most
of this rubbish, but let's wade thru a little more, for fun.
> Tell us, O Wise Woody: Even if men in the Fancher party had done what you
> allege above, what "sins" did all those women and children commit to warrant
> atonement by the shedding of their blood at the hands of the Mormon priesthood?
I'm not aware of any, nor did I say there was any good reason
for killing them. You seem to have invented that in your
unreasoning bigotry and hate frenzy.
> >What should they do with this
> >party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
> >messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone.
>
> .....but Young also expected the Indians to "do as they please."
I'd say so. Anyone who has learned the restored Gospel knows
that men have their free agency.
> >He
> >told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
> >order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible.
>
> The idea that Young told the messenger, James Haslem, to "spare no horseflesh,"
> was concocted and related in John D. Lee's trial in the 1870s.
Under oath, by any chance?
> In actuality, the historical evidence shows that Haslem took his sweet time
> getting back to Mountain Meadows.
I'll bet it does not. Know why? because you say so. You're
another one of these weathervanes, if you say it, I'd guess it's
probably false.
> >It seems to me, that rather than any objective evidence, your
> >need to self-justify your rejection of the Gospel is the
> >obvious reason why you try to implicate Brigham Young in the
> >killings.
>
> Woody, let's see if the following material implicates Brigham Young in the
> killings:
>
> "This policy of robbing the passing emigrant was clearly a part of the general
> war tactics, since, for the time being, all 'Mericats' [Americans] were
> considered enemies.
I don't see any evidence here to support the word "clearly".
Since Americans had expelled the LDS from the United States,
and since everyone had endorsed this from the courts to the
governors to the elected legislature to the press to the
president to the mobs, it is not a long stretch that the
LDS might rightly have been wary of every Mericat. Any
armed group would have to be an object of observation and
caution. Any other policy would have been irresponsible on
the part of the LDS scouts and leaders.
It's hard to imagine however that the LDS would ROB passing
wagon trains, unless they were part of the hostile U.S. Army
under wartime conditions. It's been part of the LDS scriptures
forever, "Thou shalt not steal".
> "As president of the Southern Indian Mission, [Jacob Hamblin] was responsible
> for the conduct of Indian affairs; as military commander of the area, Haight
> had sent these men to work with the natives in carrying out the war policies.
I assume you (or Brooks, hard to say which) is attempting
to equate "clearly a part of the general war tactics" with
"the war policies", but I'll bet that is concocted not real.
There is nothing here to show it's real.
> With Zion standing against the world, and with the Indians as allies, they were
> prepared to prey upon every passing emigrant company as part of the
> contribution to the war."
> (Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 122, 131.)
Nothing so far about anyone killing anyone, but prepared means
what? Any one who had guns and horses could be said to have
been "prepared" to do this.
> "Huntington's mission to the Shoshonis exacerbated the violence that had
> already set the northern road to California ablaze from City of Rocks to the
> Humboldt River.
Can't we just imagine the road set ablaze? Until we reflect
that sand/dust roads do not burn. What is this, but mush,
fanciful rhetoric intended to inflate the reality in the mind
of the reader? And pretty stupid, flowery rhetoric, too.
>... By early September horrific accounts 'of the almost total
> destruction of an immigrant train, by the Indians,' filled California's
> newspapers. Indians had attacked a small train at Stony Point, a black man
> named Scott reported, and killed five men and a child. A woman was 'shot in
> several places, scalped, and left for dead.' Remarkably, she had survived, and
> her head almost healed.
> Emigrants had no doubt as to who was behind these assaults. On reaching
> California, overlanders recounted 'many sad evidences of outrage and murder'
> that they swore implicated the Saints.
This is pretty lame. Oaths are good, coming from honest
people in attested affidavits; coming from unknowns,
recorded haphazardly, they are useless, and many of the
emigrants were vagabonds without honor, going West in the
hope of easy pickings, because hard work, farming, honest
life was not their thing, and they would Swear to anything
and everything, and did. Of course, such people could
swear to many EVIDENCES of outrage and murder. What would
that consist of, exactly? We aren't told, but we might
guess that maybe since the desert is empty of people that
proves that all people who had been present there at some
previous time were dead (even tho their numbers might be
zero) and that the Mormons were SURELY implicated, but as
far as actual names of people murdered, or bodies, or
anything tangible at all, we draw a blank here.
I doubt very much however that the thinking was unanimous.
Many people had dealings with the LDS and knew they were
good, honest people, always ready to share with a traveler.
I think that instead of "Emigrants had no doubt as to who
was behind these assaults", it would be more accurate to
say, "Some of the emigrants were emphatic that the Mormons
were behind them." And that still would give us zero
evidence that they were, or that, as you called for us to
check, Brigham Young was implicated in any killings.
What you've got here is pure hearsay about entirely different
events.
>... For three hundred miles emigrants had
> to run 'the gauntlet of Indian attacks and Mormon treachery,' Richeson Abbott
> complained.
That's crap. Indian attacks were not uncommon, but the
Mormons were trying to teach the Indians not to do that.
>... His party was ambushed at City of Rocks, and he was 'satisfied the
> attack was led by Mormons, as he had heard them cursing in regular Mormon
> slang, and calling out to them to get out of the country, as they had no
> business there.'
Woops, Abbott has blown your case. Mormons don't cuss. This
testimony is fabricated.
>... The Saints boasted they would kill them all.
Again, entirely contrary to Saints behavior, well known in
all the world. The Saints don't boast, and they don't kill
people for no reason. This is the kind of thing that
Missourians and midwestern pioneers generally said, but
it was not typical for LDS. It's invented, by a typical
midwesterner, trying to fabricate Mormon atrocities.
> Panicked reports claimed hundreds of emigrants had been killed.
What is this, the Moron massacre? Are you SERIOUS in offering
this rubbish as EVIDENCE that Brigham Young was implicated in
killing somebody?
How do we usually evaluate "panicked reports"?
This is starting to make me laugh. Hundreds of emigrants
killed. Lemme know when you can list their names.
>... For the press
> in California, it was 'an undoubted fact that the Mormons were at the head of
> most of [the] outrages, and instigated the Indians to commit the murders.'
Ha ha ha, this is getting wierd.
FOR THE PRESS it was an undoubted fact, i.e. the press
didn't doubt it. So what?
Doesn't quite have that solid ring to it like a real fact
with details and so forth. Yet it's added right in there
as evidence.
> Louis Fine said white men supposed to be Mormons led an Indian attack on Samuel
> Beller and B. Redman of Arkansas near City of Rocks.
SUPPOSED -- do you honestly believe this piffle, or are you
just throwing it out hoping no one will notice it?
>... For the next three
> hundred miles they were fired on or attacked almost every day. The emigrants
> 'all appeared to have more fear of the Mormons than of the Indians.'
Yup. You can always tell what people are afraid of, just by
looking at their faces.
Still not the slightest iotee of an indication of Brigham Young
was implicated in the murder of ANYONE.
>... Their
> general feeling was that 'the Mormons led the Indians in their attacks and
> murders.'
GENERAL FEELINGS are not evidence. Good GRIEF this rubbish is
hilarious.
> Angus McLeod of Arkansas left Salt Lake on September 4 with Louis Fine's train.
> He was attacked fifty miles from town by ten or twelve men mounted on newly
> shod horses.
I'm wondering how a person can tell, looking at some men
galloping at them with guns blazing, that the horses are
Newly Shod? But assuming it can be, how does that implicate
Brigham Young in anything? Are we about to be told that
Brigham was a blacksmith or something?
>... McLeod believed they were white men or Mormons.
Ho, he believed they were white men or Mormons -- not sure.
Not sure if they were white or not. Just believed they
were white. And was somehow able to discern their religion.
We've already been told that the "Emigrants had no doubt as
to who was behind these assaults." It rather looks like,
instead of the blame being deduced from the identity of the
attackers, the identity of the attackers is being deduced
from the preassigned blame.
>... His party was
> assaulted again near City of Rocks, where forty or fifty Indians killed Oliver
> Bailey and drove off some seventy head of cattle.
Forty or fifty INDIANS? I thought there was supposed to be
something here to IMPLICATE BRIGHAM YOUNG. When are we going
to find that in all this mass of bubbles?
>... At Salt Lake, a man named
> Pierce heard 'vague declarations of a threatening character' that 'next year
> the overland emigrants must look out'; and it was intimated that the last
> trains this year might be destroyed.'
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! Vague declarations???!!!! Randy,
are you really SERIOUS about this rubbish???? Can it
be that you are actually aware that your credibility
with honest people is zero, so you throw discretion
to the wind?
> A woman with the eastbound Mormon wagons evacuating Carson Valley warned, 'The
> last trains of this year would not get through, for they were to be cut off.' "
> ("Blood of the Prophets," Will Bagley, p. 93.)
A woman with a wagon train. Boy, I'll bet this would win
some kind of an award for most hilarious attempt at being
evidence were it presented in a courtroom.
But, for Randy, this is the stuff of life. Gossip.
Was the woman talking about wagon trains going west, or
evacuating Carson valley, going east? (which her wagon
was doing...)
Will Bagley has clearly demonstrated an agenda against the LDS,
and has shown that he doesn't interpret evidence well. I'd
devalue anything published by him, and the above does nothing
to dispell that disposition.
> "A member
> of the Dukes train, S. B. Honea, stated 'that he passed through Great Salt Lake
> City on August 17, that he saw everywhere preparations for war,
What's the surprise there? The Army of the United States, which
had expelled them at gunpoint, was headed their way, with orders
to put down an uprising which they, being residents, knew to be
ENTIRELY NONEXISTENT. Preparations for defense would be what
we would call a virtuous reaction. It is ZERO in the way of
evidence implicating Brigham Young of anything bad at all.
>...that the
> company were harassed by Indians all the way,
Yawn... the Indians harassed people, how does this implicate
Brigham Young, whose policies were aimed at getting the Indians
things they needed, like education and the four basic food
groups, so they would NOT harrass wagon trains?
And we've only gotten thru a minor fraction of this foo
foo.
Tell you what, Randy. You read over the rest of this
rubbish, gossip, obvious concocted "evidence", and pick
ONE OR TWO items which you think are just the BESTEST,
MOST SOLID items which you think will implicate Brigham
Young of murder, and I'll look at them.
Until then, amigo, I consider that the rest of this is
going to be another ten shovelfuls of the same as above.
If there were actually any real evidence, why would you
dilute it with the above whimsical fantasies? You would
not. So, I feel entirely justified in relegating it to
where ever stuff goes when I hit the delete key, unread.
If it took you a lot of time to type in, then great! Just
think, that many butterflies still with wings on because
you spent the time doing that.
Duwayne Anderson
> >A wagon train was passing thru which
> >included some individuals which the military leaders
> >understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
> >Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
> >objective of going to California to raise an army and come
> >back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
> >a couple of people already.
>
> And all of these allegations have been shown by several historians to have been
> invented by the Mormons to "justify" their massacring more than 120 men, women,
> and children.
Denials by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding
the murder at Mountain Meadows reminds me of the sort of clumsy
excuses small children use. Basically, the LDS Church argues
"We didn't do it -- but if we did, we had a damn good reason."
Of course they wouldn't swear. They wouldn't say "damn" good reason.
They'd take offense at using a four-letter word, but they'll make
excuses til the cows come home, about why it was legit for them to
murder a wagon train full of men, women, and children.
Woody's abhorrent attempt to paint the emigrants as somehow deserving
of their own murders is a prime example of what devotion to the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can/does to a person's morals and
ethics.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Do Mormons do god's will?
> It does not say they should pray that THEY could avenge
> that blood.
Do Mormons do god's will?
> It has been part of the scriptures forever that "Vengeance
> is mine, and I will repay" (Mormon 3:15, 8:20, Romans 12:19;
> all these quoted earlier (Old Testament) scripture (which
> we do not have today).
Yes. We all know about the evil god you worship. Do Mormons do god's
will?
> It is clearly part of the religion
> that the saints are not to take vengeance, but leave it up
> to the Lord.
Then why did you try to defend the murders at MMM by making excuses?
> The oath as given there says that they should never cease
> to PRAY.
For god to avenge their enemies. Tell us, Woody? Do you pray for
that?
> It has been part of the scriptures forever that men should
> not cease to pray.
>
> > Given Young's introduction of that oath, do you think that might have
> > been the reason that Mormons in Southern Utah wrote to Young to see if
> > he wanted them to murder -- as they did -- the people of the Francher
> > train?
>
> No. There is nothing in the oath about any Saint murdering
> anybody.
How about the bloody oaths in the temple, where the temple patrons
pretended to slit their throats and cut open their bowels?
> This presumes of course that your webpage there is accurate,
> which is a matter of conjecture.
Should we, instead, trust LDS apologists such as yourself who lie
about LDS doctrine (see above example and my quote from the D&C).
> >... I mean, Young had already put them under oath to "avenge the
> > blod of the prophets upon [the US], and to teach the same to [their
> > children]..."
>
> You are misquoting it.
I quoted it correctly. You even used the quote I provided.
> You love to be chastized, obviously, that is the only reason
> why you must do these things. Well, you are to be greatly
> chastized for misquoting the sense of the quotation.
So let's see if I've got this right. It's okay for you to pray that
god will kill your neighbor, but you shouldn't do it yourself. Is
that it?
> Shame, shame, shame on you!
Tell us more about your violent cult, Woody.
> Does that make you happy?
>
> > Those are the words of a crazy murderous cult, don't you think?
>
> No.
So if someone prays continually for their god to kill their neighbor
you don't think that is crazy or violent?
I didn't think so. After all, that would implicate your church.
Right?
> I think your output is the output of a crazy
> person, but I hope that you don't manage to start
> any cult and I certainly hope you don't murder anybody.
But I'm not the person who belongs to a cult that prays for god for
vengeance.
> >... And
> > treason, too.
>
> It's not treason to pray, not even to pray that God will
> thump on the nation.
And there you have it, folks. Woody either doesn't believe in his
god, or he doesn't know the definition of treason. Treason is doing
harm to your country -- so if you are commanded to pray to your evil
god to harm the country, then you are either treasonous in your heart,
or you don't think your evil god really has the power.
Which is it, Woody?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > "Several former Mormons revealed the content of this oath. The wording
> > was as follows: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you
> > will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood
> > of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to
> > your children and to your children's children unto the third and
> > fourth generation."
>
> Note the wording of the oath, genius: That they would
> not cease to pray TO GOD that HE would avenge their
> blood.
When Mormons pray to have a new temple, do they wait for god to build
it, or do they do it themselves?
When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they wait for god to build it,
or do they build it themselves?
When Mormons pray for the prophet's health, do they wait for god to
cure him, or does the church take him to the hospital?
When Mormons pray for god to avenge them on the United States, do they
wait for god to do it, or do they (as in the other cases) feel okay
about helping their god get the job done.
By the way, Woody. May we assume that you pray for god to avenge the
Mormons against the United States of America? May we assume that you
were jumping up and down in joy on 9-11, because you saw the terrorist
acts as your god avenging the prophet? Do you think those terrorists
were working for your god, or somehow doing your god's work by killing
Americans, just as the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows?
DWJ
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> May we assume that you
> were jumping up and down in joy on 9-11, because you saw the terrorist
> acts as your god avenging the prophet? Do you think those terrorists
> were working for your god, or somehow doing your god's work by killing
> Americans, just as the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows?
>
heard.
Duwayne Anderson
> > Woody Brison wrote:
> >
> > >In the case under question, the military authorities in
> > >southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
> > >President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
> > >leader of the place.
> >
> > As I've documented dozens of times, Young intended for only the Indians to
> > attack the train.
>
> Documentation, for you, means you found something somewhere
> which said something.
While documentation for Woody means pulling it out his butt.
Look, Woody. You've already buried yourself. You have tried to argue
that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
women and children. You can't argue out one side of your mouth,
denying that it happened, and then argue out the other side of your
mouth -- trying to argue that the Mormons were morally justified in
murdering those folks. It just makes you look bipolar.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
But firmly rooted in LDS history/doctrine.
Go to the following link:
http://www.helpingmormons.org/Vengeance.htm
There you will see discussed an oath of vengeance that was instituted
by Brigham Young. Quoting from that site:
"Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, Brigham Young introduced an oath
in the endowment which required members to swear vengeance "upon this
nation." It became the subject of a United States Senate
investigation."
"Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from
Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have
Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this
treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The complete record of this
episode was published in: U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st
Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections
of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the
Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold
his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1906)"
"Several former Mormons revealed the content of this oath. The wording
was as follows: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you
will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood
of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to
your children and to your children's children unto the third and
fourth generation."
Given the fact that Mormons have been told to "...never cease to pray
to Almighty God to avenge the blodd of the prophets upon the [United
States]..." it certainly begs the question as to whether or not Woody
was "jumping up and down in joy on 9-11, because [he] saw the
terrorist acts as your god avenging the prophet."
But it's lots easier to take the question out of context, and call it
"asinine" than deal with it. After all, what's Woody to say? He's
already on record making excuses for the murders. And trying to
defend the command to pray for vengeance by excusing it as a request
for god to do the blood letting.
DWJ
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> "DWJ" <dar...@nospam.meltedcrayon.com> wrote in message
news:<3f82c...@127.0.0.1>...
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > > May we assume that you
> > > were jumping up and down in joy on 9-11, because you saw the terrorist
> > > acts as your god avenging the prophet? Do you think those terrorists
> > > were working for your god, or somehow doing your god's work by killing
> > > Americans, just as the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows?
> > >
> > This is the most asinine (you choose which definition) comment I have
ever
> > heard.
>
> But firmly rooted in LDS history/doctrine.
>
are alleging that LDS doctrine perpetuated the attacks?
Woody Brison
> > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20031003213325...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
> > > attack the train.
> >
> > Documentation, for you, means you found something somewhere
> > which said something.
>
> While documentation for Woody means pulling it out his butt.
Duwayne, be on notice that over half of your rubbish is
easily discernable as rubbish, so I'm not going to spend
time pointing it out for people.
> Look, Woody. You've already buried yourself. You have tried to argue
> that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
> women and children.
False. I've never said or hinted at that. Read back
over the thread and figure it out. Or, do whatever.
I am not responsible for your false representations
of my output.
Woody Brison
>
> > Note the wording of the oath, genius: That they would
> > not cease to pray TO GOD that HE would avenge their
> > blood.
>
> it, or do they do it themselves?
We build it.
> When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they wait for god to build it,
> or do they build it themselves?
We build it. That is the program.
> When Mormons pray for the prophet's health, do they wait for god to
> cure him, or does the church take him to the hospital?
I would assume he uses common-sense remedies, then if
those don't work, gets a blessing, and only in an extreme
case calls the doctor. That is the recommended order.
Sometimes the blessing will say to call the doctor; the
Lord gave us modern medicine as part of the general
increase of light leading to the 2nd coming.
> When Mormons pray for god to avenge them on the United States, do they
> wait for god to do it, or do they (as in the other cases) feel okay
> about helping their god get the job done.
They were commanded to pray for God to do it, so you
are up against a wall here trying to show they did
something else.
Beastly bore being an antimormon, I'd surmise?
<snip discourteous, baseless rant>
Duwayne Anderson
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
> >
> > > Note the wording of the oath, genius: That they would
> > > not cease to pray TO GOD that HE would avenge their
> > > blood.
> >
> > When Mormons pray to have a new temple, do they wait for god to build
> > it, or do they do it themselves?
>
> We build it.
True. So just because Mormons pray to god for something does not mean
they don't go about doing it themselves.
>
> > When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they wait for god to build it,
> > or do they build it themselves?
>
> We build it. That is the program.
True. So just because Mormons pray to god for something does not mean
they don't go about doing it themselves.
> > When Mormons pray for the prophet's health, do they wait for god to
> > cure him, or does the church take him to the hospital?
>
> I would assume he uses common-sense remedies, then if
> those don't work, gets a blessing, and only in an extreme
> case calls the doctor.
True. So just because Mormons pray to god for something does not mean
they don't go about doing it themselves.
> That is the recommended order.
> Sometimes the blessing will say to call the doctor; the
> Lord gave us modern medicine as part of the general
> increase of light leading to the 2nd coming.
True. So just because Mormons pray to god for something does not mean
they don't go about doing it themselves.
> > When Mormons pray for god to avenge them on the United States, do they
> > wait for god to do it, or do they (as in the other cases) feel okay
> > about helping their god get the job done.
>
> They were commanded to pray for God to do it,
Notice how Woody jumps horses in mid stream. As with all the other
examples, Woody, just because Mormons pray to god for something does
not mean they don't go about doing it themselves.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > "DWJ" <dar...@nospam.meltedcrayon.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f82c...@127.0.0.1>...
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > May we assume that you
> > > > were jumping up and down in joy on 9-11, because you saw the terrorist
> > > > acts as your god avenging the prophet? Do you think those terrorists
> > > > were working for your god, or somehow doing your god's work by killing
> > > > Americans, just as the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows?
> > > >
> > > This is the most asinine (you choose which definition) comment I have
> ever
> > > heard.
> >
> > But firmly rooted in LDS history/doctrine.
> >
> So you are alleging that the LDS are responsible for the 9-11 attacks?
Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
United States. Given Woody's claim, the obvious question (which Woody
hasn't answered) is whether or not he thinks the terrorists of 9-11
were part of god's vengeance, and whether or not Woody was happy that
there might have been some sort of vengeance, with the loss of
American lives.
> You
> are alleging that LDS doctrine perpetuated the attacks?
I'm asking Woody a question based on his argument. Should be clear
enough, for anyone who knows how to read.
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > > thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20031003213325...@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
> > > > As I've documented dozens of times, Young intended for only the Indians to
> > > > attack the train.
> > >
> > > Documentation, for you, means you found something somewhere
> > > which said something.
> >
> > While documentation for Woody means pulling it out his butt.
>
> Duwayne, be on notice that over half of your rubbish is
> easily discernable as rubbish, so I'm not going to spend
> time pointing it out for people.
Much of my posting consists of quotes from LDS scriptures and LDS
prophets. I assume that's the "rubbish" you speak of.
By the way, Woody, are you ever going to comment on the manner in
which your fellow Saint misrepresented the Book of Mormon regarding
its mention of swine? Do you need me to post the "rubbish" verses
from the Book of Mormon that describe swine in ancient America?
> > Look, Woody. You've already buried yourself. You have tried to argue
> > that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
> > women and children.
>
> False. I've never said or hinted at that.
Here's what you said, Woody:
"In the case under question, the military authorities in
southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
leader of the place. A wagon train was passing thru which
included some individuals which the military leaders
understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
objective of going to California to raise an army and come
back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
a couple of people already. What should they do with this
party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone. He
told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible."
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> The Mormons are Christians. They are not bloodthirsty
> murderers.
Christians (and I've yet to meet one) follow the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus taught his followers the following:
Matt. 5: 44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
But this is what the Mormons taught:
"Following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, Brigham Young introduced an oath
in the endowment which required members to swear vengeance "upon this
nation." It became the subject of a United States Senate
Investigation."
"Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from
Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in the United States Senate to have
Hon. Smoot removed from office, on the grounds that he had taken this
treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. The complete record of this
episode was published in: U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st
Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections
of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the
Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold
his Seat. 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1906)"
"Several former Mormons revealed the content of this oath. The wording
was as follows: "You and each of you do covenant and promise that you
will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood
of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to
your children and to your children's children unto the third and
fourth generation."
Woody even admitted that Mormons pray to their god for vengeance:
"They were commanded to pray for God to do it, so you
are up against a wall here trying to show they did
something else." [Woody Brison, apologist for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints --
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=f36171a3.0310071446.1d7dd31c%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dduwayne%2Bgroup:alt.religion.mormon.*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dalt.religion.mormon.*%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd]
Woody Brison
> wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
> > They were commanded to pray for God to do it,
>
> Notice how Woody jumps horses in mid stream. As with all the other
> examples, Woody, just because Mormons pray to god for something does
> not mean they don't go about doing it themselves.
No, YOU are jumping horses in midstream. The oath
you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not to do
anything else whatsoever. The doing of something
else is entirely your construction, totally illogical.
Here's a illustration: the instructions on your
horse say to get on with your legs hanging down on
each side. So, can we deduce from this that YOU
get on with your body underneath and your legs going
UP on each side?
What POSSIBLE logical construction induces you to
conclude that where someone is urged to do something,
they must REALLY have done something else?
And judging by the way you repeat the same sentence
over and over, I'd say that my surmise about
antimormonism being a bore was accurate.
I challenge you to not answer this, Duwayne. I dare
you to let it drop. I double dare you not to yield
to the temptation, that you MUST HAVE the last word.
Normal people, when they lose a point in an argument,
shrug it off and go on with life. You, however MUST
HAVE the last word.
Double Dog dare you. You can't do it.
Woody Brison
> > > Look, Woody. You've already buried yourself. You have tried to argue
> > > that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
> > > women and children.
> >
> > False. I've never said or hinted at that.
>
> Here's what you said, Woody:
>
> "In the case under question, the military authorities in
> southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
> President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
> leader of the place. A wagon train was passing thru which
> included some individuals which the military leaders
> understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
> Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
> objective of going to California to raise an army and come
> back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
> a couple of people already. What should they do with this
> party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
> messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone. He
> told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
> order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible."
The quotation fails to show what you are claiming, that
I "have tried to argue that the Mormons were at war, so
they were justified in murdering women and children."
I have never argued that they were justified in killing
women and children. It's one huge clue that they were
NOT justified, and they knew it; they had to kill
witnesses, because they knew their deeds were wrong.
Even innocent witnesses. I have no thought that these
people did any right thing.
Some justification could be argued because there was
a wartime situation and the guys in the wagons were
saying they were going to California to raise an army
and come back and ravage the area. A military mind
could think in terms of preventing that. But what
would be the result if it happened? Women and children
might get killed. So to prevent it you kill women
and children? By such simple lines one can know their
thinking is off base.
Good Mormons should have known that if an army came
from California, they could have handled them without
much trouble.
But, it wasn't likely that any such army was likely;
folks in California were in California because they
didn't care about the rest of the country and their
problems. Ever notice how much California got
involved in the Civil War?
The problem here however is not whether the massacre
was justified. It wasn't, in my opinion -- like most
other people. The question is whether Brigham Young
ordered it. He didn't.
Your claim that I have argued that these people were
justified in killing women and children is totally
imaginary. As I've said before, I believe you are
insane. Not as in "nuts", "bonkers", but in certifiable,
pathological, should be institutionalized. In a padded
cell and a strait jacket. With extra buttons.
Duwayne Anderson
>
> > > > Look, Woody. You've already buried yourself. You have tried to argue
> > > > that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
> > > > women and children.
> > >
> > > False. I've never said or hinted at that.
> >
> > Here's what you said, Woody:
> >
> > "In the case under question, the military authorities in
> > southern Utah or Deseret tried to consult with Governor Young/
> > President Young, who was both the military and prophetic
> > leader of the place. A wagon train was passing thru which
> > included some individuals which the military leaders
> > understood to be claiming to be some of the murderers of
> > Joseph Smith. They were understood to have the stated
> > objective of going to California to raise an army and come
> > back and wreak mayhem in the area. They had wantonly killed
> > a couple of people already. What should they do with this
> > party? Governor Young got the message, and he sent the
> > messenger back with orders to leave the wagon train alone. He
> > told the guy to kill horses if necessary but to get that
> > order down there in time, but it wasn't physically possible."
>
> The quotation fails to show what you are claiming, that
> I "have tried to argue that the Mormons were at war, so
> they were justified in murdering women and children."
Well, since women and children were murdered by Mormons, and since
that is the subject of the discussion, what was your point in trying
to argue that the Mormons were at war?
Just blowing smoke again?
> I have never argued that they were justified in killing
> women and children.
Then why bring up the issue of the Mormons being at war in the first
place.
> It's one huge clue that they were
> NOT justified, and they knew it; they had to kill
> witnesses, because they knew their deeds were wrong.
> Even innocent witnesses. I have no thought that these
> people did any right thing.
Yet they somehow felt Young might have wanted them to do the murders
-- else why bother to ask Young if they should murder those folks.
Remember, you brought up the issue of the Mormons being at war when I
asked you under what circumstances you would feel obligated to write
the president of the church, asking if you should murder a bunch of
people.
You replied with your comments about the Mormons being at war.
> Some justification could be argued because there was
> a wartime situation and the guys in the wagons were
> saying they were going to California to raise an army
> and come back and ravage the area.
See --- there you go again. Arguing out both sides of your mouth.
One minute you are denying that you are making any justification, and
the next minute you are.
Which is it, Woody?
> A military mind
> could think in terms of preventing that. But what
> would be the result if it happened? Women and children
> might get killed. So to prevent it you kill women
> and children? By such simple lines one can know their
> thinking is off base.
So if the "thinking is off base," my question remains. Under what
circumstances would YOU write to the president of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, asking if YOU should murder a bunch of
people.
> Good Mormons should have known that if an army came
> from California, they could have handled them without
> much trouble.
You mean, the "good" Mormons would have just prayed to their evil god
to do the murders? Like they promised in the temple oath?
> But, it wasn't likely that any such army was likely;
> folks in California were in California because they
> didn't care about the rest of the country and their
> problems. Ever notice how much California got
> involved in the Civil War?
>
> The problem here however is not whether the massacre
> was justified. It wasn't, in my opinion -- like most
> other people. The question is whether Brigham Young
> ordered it. He didn't.
Actually, the question was mine -- under what circumstances would YOU
write the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-dy Saints,
asking if YOU should murder a bunch of people.
> Your claim that I have argued that these people were
> justified in killing women and children is totally
> imaginary. As I've said before, I believe you are
> insane.
Well, coming from you, Woody, I'll take that as a compliment.
Now, since you apparently didn't answer the question the first time
around, let me repeat it for you one more time:
Under what circumstances would YOU write the president of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-dy Saints, asking if YOU should murder a
bunch of people.
Duwayne Anderson
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
>
> > > They were commanded to pray for God to do it,
> >
> > Notice how Woody jumps horses in mid stream. As with all the other
> > examples, Woody, just because Mormons pray to god for something does
> > not mean they don't go about doing it themselves.
>
> No, YOU are jumping horses in midstream.
When Woody Brison was asked: "When Mormons pray to have a new temple,
do they wait for god to build it, or do they do it themselves?"
Woody replied: "We build it."
When Woody Brison was asked: "When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do
they wait for god to build it, or do they build it themselves?"
Woody replied: "We build it. That is the program."
Then, when Woody Brison was asked: "When Mormons pray for god to
avenge them on the United States, do they wait for god to do it, or do
they (as in the other cases) feel okay about helping their god get the
job done."
Woody Brison changed his tune and said: "They were commanded to pray
for God to do it, so you are up against a wall here trying to show
they did something else."
Looks like consistency isn't your best feature, Woody. By the way, I
trust you saw the Biblical verse that I pointed you to -- the one
where Jesus says to pray FOR your enemies -- not to pray against them.
It seems pretty clear that whatever evil god you worship, it's not
the man who's teachings are found in the N.T.
> The oath
> you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not to do
> anything else whatsoever.
When Mormons pray for a new temple, do they build it themselves, or do
they wait for god to do it?
You already answered, Woody. They build it themselves.
> The doing of something
> else is entirely your construction, totally illogical.
When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they build it themselves, or do
they wait for god to do it?
You already answered, Woody. They build it themselves.
> Here's a illustration: the instructions on your
> horse say to get on with your legs hanging down on
> each side. So, can we deduce from this that YOU
> get on with your body underneath and your legs going
> UP on each side?
>
> What POSSIBLE logical construction induces you to
> conclude that where someone is urged to do something,
> they must REALLY have done something else?
Looks like Woody failed his logic test. The fact that Mormons did the
murders does NOT mean they did not ALSO pray to god for vengeance. In
a similar manner, Mormons pray to god for new temples, and then they
build them themselves.
> And judging by the way you repeat the same sentence
> over and over, I'd say that my surmise about
> antimormonism being a bore was accurate.
Looks like Woody's losing it (again).
> I challenge you to not answer this, Duwayne. I dare
> you to let it drop. I double dare you not to yield
> to the temptation, that you MUST HAVE the last word.
> Normal people, when they lose a point in an argument,
> shrug it off and go on with life. You, however MUST
> HAVE the last word.
>
> Double Dog dare you. You can't do it.
This is Woody at his worst (best?). When he's found he's lost the
argument in spades, he double-dog dares me not to reply to his
illogical posts.
Woody Brison
> When Woody Brison was asked: "When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do
> they wait for god to build it, or do they build it themselves?"
>
> Woody replied: "We build it. That is the program."
>
> Then, when Woody Brison was asked: "When Mormons pray for god to
> avenge them on the United States, do they wait for god to do it, or do
> they (as in the other cases) feel okay about helping their god get the
> job done."
>
> Woody Brison changed his tune and said: "They were commanded to pray
> for God to do it, so you are up against a wall here trying to show
> they did something else."
>
> Looks like consistency isn't your best feature, Woody.
That is the essence of your argument: we have several
different situations, and you are idiotically trying to
assert that because a condition exists in situation A
and B, therefore it must exist in situation C. You have
not presented any other supporting argument to this
whatsoever. That's the whole of your claim: all situations
in the universe are alike.
If you would care to refer us to a book on logic where
this type of logical construction is endorsed, please
do so.
You also have the entire internet you can search to see
of any websites exhibit it.
Fifty bucks says Duwayne will actually go out and search
the net for it!!!
>... By the way, I
> trust you saw the Biblical verse that I pointed you to -- the one
> where Jesus says to pray FOR your enemies -- not to pray against them.
Ah yes, good to see that you opened your scriptures --
but that was almost two years ago. I trust that was not
the most recent occasion?
> It seems pretty clear that whatever evil god you worship, it's not
> the man who's teachings are found in the N.T.
It's easy to say that the Lord is strictly a man of peace,
but it takes a little more effort to learn exactly what he
was like.
Ex. 15:3
Matt. 10:34
Luke 22:36-38
The Lord's teachings on war are found in the scriptures,
for instance DC 134:11, but that passage is consistent
with all the scriptures. It is a common misconception
that the God of the Old Testament, who ordered Joshua to
annihilate whole cities, men, women, children, and animals,
somehow changed his personality for the New Testament. He
does not change, the rules are constant. There are certain
situations where righteous people may and even must go to
war.
The Bible does not give the complete docrine, but it is
found in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants,
and knowing what these say, we can easily go back and see
that the Old and New Testaments exhibit this same doctrine.
You may easily overcome this argument by ignoring it. But,
this is a weakness, for those friendly to me will look up
these scriptures and become wiser. You will not only lose
this argument but many more in future.
> > The oath
> > you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not to do
> > anything else whatsoever.
>
> When Mormons pray for a new temple, do they build it themselves, or do
> they wait for god to do it?
The oath you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not
to do anything else whatsoever.
See, I too can copy and paste.
> When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they build it themselves, or do
> they wait for god to do it?
The oath you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not
to do anything else whatsoever.
> > I challenge you to not answer this, Duwayne. I dare
> > you to let it drop. I double dare you not to yield
> > to the temptation, that you MUST HAVE the last word.
> > Normal people, when they lose a point in an argument,
> > shrug it off and go on with life. You, however MUST
> > HAVE the last word.
> >
> > Double Dog dare you. You can't do it.
>
> This is Woody at his worst (best?). When he's found he's lost the
> argument in spades, he double-dog dares me not to reply to his
> illogical posts.
This is not the first time you've demonstrated that you
are obsessed with having the last word. But I simply
cannot argue with you about losing the argument. You
simply cannot lose that one. You can posit that you've
won it, no matter what. And you do, until you are purple
in the face, but I decline to follow you.
Woody Brison
> Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> United States.
No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
your inability to get anything right.
How can anyone expect to find value in your output when
it's always goofy like this?
Consider the black widow spider. Many spiders make
beautiful radial webs. The black widow makes this
wretched little tangle of strands. She must have bitten
some prophet! and gotten cursed. Can't get anything
straight, hasn't got the brains for it anymore. Sort of
like the antimormon religion. We rarely see one who can
phrase a tenet correctly.
We "Mormons" do not pray to God (note the capitalization)
to avenge us against the United States. If that was even
real, it was two centuries back. Past tense.
>... Given Woody's claim,
Which is not the case,
>... the obvious question (which Woody
> hasn't answered) is whether or not he thinks the terrorists of 9-11
> were part of god's vengeance, and whether or not Woody was happy that
> there might have been some sort of vengeance, with the loss of
> American lives.
The notion that I would be happy at 9-11 is ENTIRELY
your wretched construction, and is absurd like most
of the rest of your output.
> > You
> > are alleging that LDS doctrine perpetuated the attacks?
>
> I'm asking Woody a question based on his argument. Should be clear
> enough, for anyone who knows how to read.
Another skill you ought to acquire.
Woody Brison
> > The quotation fails to show what you are claiming, that
> > I "have tried to argue that the Mormons were at war, so
> > they were justified in murdering women and children."
>
> Well, since women and children were murdered by Mormons, and since
> that is the subject of the discussion, what was your point in trying
> to argue that the Mormons were at war?
Because it explains in part why the massacre may have
occured. Military leaders were on alert because the U.S.
was coming to pound them (again) and they were very,
very tired of it. Just like I'm getting tired of your
Zeezrom-like attempts to confutilate every single last
little detail. Most of this is not hard to understand.
A computer could do it. But you seem to approach it
more like a Turing machine -- one that only goes one
direction at that, and ran out of tape a long time ago.
By the way, you did not comment on the fact that your
quotation did not say what you claimed, as I pointed
out. Why is that?
>...
> Yet they somehow felt Young might have wanted them to do the murders
> -- else why bother to ask Young if they should murder those folks.
There is only one piece of evidence, as far as I
know, that they asked BY if they should murder them,
and that piece of evidence is your unfounded assertion
that this is what they asked him.
Since you weren't there, its worth as evidence is ZERO.
Do you need a definition of zero?
> Remember, you brought up the issue of the Mormons being at war when I
> asked you under what circumstances you would feel obligated to write
> the president of the church, asking if you should murder a bunch of
> people.
It was a stupid question. Maybe I was stupid to even
take any notice of you...
> > Good Mormons should have known that if an army came
> > from California, they could have handled them without
> > much trouble.
>
> You mean, the "good" Mormons would have just prayed to their evil god
> to do the murders? Like they promised in the temple oath?
No, the Mormons had various experience in dealing with
hostile mobs and armies. Many of them had been in the
Nauvoo Legion, and had war broken out before most of
them left Illinois for the West, it would have gone
hard with their opponents. They knew this. They had
skirmishes with mobs over the course of a dozen years
and more previous to this. They knew that mobs don't
have much military punch. They are good at burning
barns and dragging women out of their homes in the
middle of the night and stuff like that, but when it
comes to an infantry battle, mobs are rather worthless.
An army coming over the desert from California would
have been almost exhausted when they arrived, and would
need time to recover. The men would be exhausted, the
animals, and the provisions. They would have been pretty
easy to find and defeat.
> > But, it wasn't likely that any such army was likely;
> > folks in California were in California because they
> > didn't care about the rest of the country and their
> > problems. Ever notice how much California got
> > involved in the Civil War?
> >
> > The problem here however is not whether the massacre
> > was justified. It wasn't, in my opinion -- like most
> > other people. The question is whether Brigham Young
> > ordered it. He didn't.
>
> Actually, the question was mine -- under what circumstances would YOU
> write the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-dy Saints,
> asking if YOU should murder a bunch of people.
I answered it, Mr. Turing, so I'm not going to answer it
again. The fact that you keep asking it lends additional
credibility to the Cheaper Alternative Theory:
"Most of the regulars on ARM are mentally incapacitated
sons of families who let them cruze the internet because
it keeps them localized and quiet for substantial hours
of every day. At about 20 bucks a month, it's far less
expensive than the next alternative." -- Woody Brison
> > Your claim that I have argued that these people were
> > justified in killing women and children is totally
> > imaginary. As I've said before, I believe you are
> > insane.
>
> Well, coming from you, Woody, I'll take that as a compliment.
Right. Most people would not, but you go ahead.
Timpanogos
argue
> > > that the Mormons were at war, so they were justified in murdering
> > > women and children.
> >
The human race is capable of great atrocities. Not that this is any excuse
for the MMM - but every American stands in a similar situation to every
Mormon from that standpoint of the fathers having done horrible things.
I recently returned from a trip to Japan with my wife and daughter - we were
able to spend a day in Hiroshima - wow, you want to talk women and children!
all in the name of war.
So how do you handle this as an American? Justify it - it saved many
life's? Condemn and lay blame on "those that did it", or simply hang your
head in shame of that dark/evil side of all of humanity and vow to learn
from the experience.
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
> > Looks like consistency isn't your best feature, Woody.
>
> That is the essence of your argument:
Actually, Woody, my main argument is that Mormons -- being commanded
by their leaders to pray for vengeance against the United States --
acted in a very un-Christian manner.
> we have several
> different situations, and you are idiotically trying to
> assert that because a condition exists in situation A
> and B, therefore it must exist in situation C.
Actually, we have several similar situations -- all related to each
other in the manner in which Mormons pray for something, and then go
out and do it themselves. They pray for temples, then build them
themselves. They pray for meeting houses, then build them themselves.
Then we have them praying for vengeance, and you seem to think they
sit on their butts, not bothering to get the vengeance themselves.
> You have
> not presented any other supporting argument to this
> whatsoever.
Just a pattern of behavior. Meanwhile, you are all denials.
> That's the whole of your claim: all situations
> in the universe are alike.
Aw, c'mon, Woody. What's the point of lying like this? I never said
that.
> If you would care to refer us to a book on logic where
> this type of logical construction is endorsed, please
> do so.
It's called inductive logic. You should study it sometime. A
conclusion is based on similar behavior/observations in other cases.
As I pointed out (and as you agreed) whem Mormons pray to god to do
something, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't go out and do it
themselves. Case in point, when Mormons pray to god for a temple,
they build it themselves. Ditto for chaples, etc.
So your argument that they only *prayed* for vengeance, but never
actually tried to exercise it, is inconsistent with their behavior in
other circumstances.
> You also have the entire internet you can search to see
> of any websites exhibit it.
Most people learn about inductive logic as kids, Woody. Has Mormonism
scrambled your head so badly you forgot all about it?
> Fifty bucks says Duwayne will actually go out and search
> the net for it!!!
Want the address where to send the $50.00?
> >... By the way, I
> > trust you saw the Biblical verse that I pointed you to -- the one
> > where Jesus says to pray FOR your enemies -- not to pray against them.
>
> Ah yes, good to see that you opened your scriptures --
> but that was almost two years ago. I trust that was not
> the most recent occasion?
Actually, Woody, you should know it was far more recent than that.
After all, it was only a month or so ago that I corrected you about
"glass" in the Book of Mormon. Remmber the verses I quoted for you,
after you lied about the Book of Mormon not placing "glass" in an
ancient-American setting?
Sure you do.
And it was just a few weeks ago that I corrected Charles Dowis when he
lied by saying the Book of Mormon doesn't put swine in an
ancient-American setting. Remember that? You should. I (and others)
asked you whether you agreed with the manner in which Charles Dowis
misrepresented the Book of Mormon. I even quoted the Book of Mormon
for you. Do you remember? Sure you do. Did you ever find the moral
courage to disagree with one of your fellow apologists, after he got
caught lying about the Book of Mormon?
Oh, and let's not forget your little trick a few weeks back of
pretending the Bible doesn't describe writing on gold plates.
Remember how you made that false claim, and remember how I provided
the quote for you?
Seems to me, Woody, you'd have lots less egg on your face if you'd
bother reading those scriptures of yours once in a while.
> > It seems pretty clear that whatever evil god you worship, it's not
> > the man who's teachings are found in the N.T.
>
> It's easy to say that the Lord is strictly a man of peace,
> but it takes a little more effort to learn exactly what he
> was like.
Oh, your god is a basket case, for sure. Jehovah is one of the most
evil gods around -- even to the point of commanding his followers to
murder little children and women. Which is what the Mormons did at
Mountain Meadows.
<snip>
> > When Mormons pray for a new temple, do they build it themselves, or do
> > they wait for god to do it?
>
> The oath you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not
> to do anything else whatsoever.
But Mormons DO do stuff besides what they pray for. They ACT on those
prayers, as the example of temple building illustrates.
> See, I too can copy and paste.
Yeah, but saying stupid things over and over again doesn't help your
case.
>
> > When Mormons pray for a new chapel, do they build it themselves, or do
> > they wait for god to do it?
>
> The oath you have cited calls for the LDS to pray, not
> to do anything else whatsoever.
But Mormons DO do stuff besides what they pray for. They ACT on those
prayers, as the example of chapel building illustrates.
> > > I challenge you to not answer this, Duwayne. I dare
> > > you to let it drop. I double dare you not to yield
> > > to the temptation, that you MUST HAVE the last word.
> > > Normal people, when they lose a point in an argument,
> > > shrug it off and go on with life. You, however MUST
> > > HAVE the last word.
> > >
> > > Double Dog dare you. You can't do it.
> >
> > This is Woody at his worst (best?). When he's found he's lost the
> > argument in spades, he double-dog dares me not to reply to his
> > illogical posts.
>
> This is not the first time you've demonstrated that you
> are obsessed with having the last word.
Seems like the obsession is yours, Woody. Problem is, you don't seem
to understand that having the last word doesn't count, when the last
word is a bone-headed stupid argument, like the one you are offering.
<snip to end>
Timpanogos
> actually tried to exercise it, is inconsistent with their behavior in
> other circumstances.
>
Duwayne,
You are using this pray for then do example (temples, churches etc) In the
example of temples and churches (and other things) indeed there is a solid,
consistent action that follows. However, in the case of the oath of
vengeance - I don't believe there is an history of action following this.
You are suggesting that the MMM was the "action" result of this prayer. I
think that is a big jump - but lets see if there are other examples, because
surely this group of prayers and oath takers are going to have to vigilantly
go after the vengeance right?
Please give other examples of endowed members obviously fulfilling this
vengeance against the USofA.
There are even nastier stories about atrocities against fallen - high
standing members - (Blood Atonement) - but I'm not aware of any attacks
against the US government that meets this vengeance oath.
Even when men were sent out to slow down Johnson's army - they did not
attack humans - only supplies, animals etc.
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
The problem lies in the denials and lies that the LDS Church uses to
cover up and deny their sordid past. Mormons steadfastly refuse to
accept any responsibility. They lie about their history, blame the
Indians, and refuse to repent or come to grips with the horrible crime
the committed.
While American is certainly guilty of crimes against humanity (the
slaughter of Native Americans, for example) there is FAR less denial
among Americans than with the LDS Church, which (to my knowledge) has
never repented of anything.
Duwayne Anderson
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote ...
>
> > > The quotation fails to show what you are claiming, that
> > > I "have tried to argue that the Mormons were at war, so
> > > they were justified in murdering women and children."
> >
> > Well, since women and children were murdered by Mormons, and since
> > that is the subject of the discussion, what was your point in trying
> > to argue that the Mormons were at war?
>
> Because it explains in part why the massacre may have
> occured.
And that's exactly the sort of justification that I was talking about.
As long as you are lookign for explanations for the massacre, look to
Brigham Young, and the oath he had Mormons take to the effect that
they would pray for vengeance.
> Military leaders were on alert because the U.S.
> was coming to pound them (again) and they were very,
> very tired of it.
The Mormons were in rebellion. They were terrorists. The fact they
were taking oaths to pray continually for god to take vengeance
against the US illustrates the extent of their treason.
> Just like I'm getting tired of your
> Zeezrom-like attempts to confutilate every single last
> little detail.
Oh, dear. Are you coming to murder me next?
> Most of this is not hard to understand.
True. It's very easy to understand. The LDS leadership had whipped
the Mormons up to a frenzied state.
> A computer could do it. But you seem to approach it
> more like a Turing machine -- one that only goes one
> direction at that, and ran out of tape a long time ago.
Guy, if you knew anything at all, you'd know that all computers are
mathematically equivalent to a Turing machine. That is, there is no
mathematical computation that a digital computer can make that cannot
be made by a Turing machine.
<snip>
> >...
> > Yet they somehow felt Young might have wanted them to do the murders
> > -- else why bother to ask Young if they should murder those folks.
>
> There is only one piece of evidence, as far as I
> know, that they asked BY if they should murder them,
> and that piece of evidence is your unfounded assertion
> that this is what they asked him.
And still, honest people are left wondering what sort of a sick
organization has members who think they should write the prophet,
asking permission to murder someone.
<snip>
> > Remember, you brought up the issue of the Mormons being at war when I
> > asked you under what circumstances you would feel obligated to write
> > the president of the church, asking if you should murder a bunch of
> > people.
>
> It was a stupid question.
Says the guy with his foot in his mouth.
> Maybe I was stupid to even
> take any notice of you...
You'd think you'd learn your lesson.
> > > Good Mormons should have known that if an army came
> > > from California, they could have handled them without
> > > much trouble.
> >
> > You mean, the "good" Mormons would have just prayed to their evil god
> > to do the murders? Like they promised in the temple oath?
>
> No, the Mormons had various experience in dealing with
> hostile mobs and armies.
Oh, this is rich. The Mormons murder a whole wagon train of innocent
people, including women and children, and Woody trys to paint THEM as
the victims.
Goner
(in message <bm4q1m$gcn$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>):
>> So your argument that they only *prayed* for vengeance, but never
>> actually tried to exercise it, is inconsistent with their behavior in
>> other circumstances.
>>
>
> Duwayne,
>
> You are using this pray for then do example (temples, churches etc) In the
> example of temples and churches (and other things) indeed there is a solid,
> consistent action that follows. However, in the case of the oath of
> vengeance - I don't believe there is an history of action following this.
> You are suggesting that the MMM was the "action" result of this prayer. I
> think that is a big jump - but lets see if there are other examples, because
> surely this group of prayers and oath takers are going to have to vigilantly
> go after the vengeance right?
"About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of
Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant.... Bro.
Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man
who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed.
Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this
man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as
he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, "Just as I have
always looked upon it逆hat it was a d掬 cold-blooded murder." The cloud
immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket
knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man
given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately
struck him to the heart."
("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," Dec. 6, 1889, pages 205-206; original
journals located in Special Collections Dept. of Brigham Young University)
--
Best,
Dangerous1
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
"The more mystery is encouraged, the more
deceit can impose upon the human mind."
Lemuel K. Washburn
Duwayne Anderson
>
> > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > United States.
>
> No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
> your inability to get anything right.
Here's what Woody Brison said:
"They were commanded to pray for God to do it ..."
> How can anyone expect to find value in your output when
> it's always goofy like this?
Woody, what's the point in lying about what you said, when it's right
there in the public record.
When presented with the oath to pray for vengeance agains the US, you
admitted that "They were commanded to pray for god to do it..."
<snip>
> We "Mormons" do not pray to God (note the capitalization)
> to avenge us against the United States.
Woody Brison said: "They were commanded to pray for God to do it ..."
> If that was even
> real,
You said it was. Woody Brison said: "They were commanded to pray for
God to do it ..."
> it was two centuries back. Past tense.
So Mormons were terrorists two centuries back, but they have changed
the doctrine since then?
Okay, Woody. Thanks for making that clear.
<snip>
> >... the obvious question (which Woody
> > hasn't answered) is whether or not he thinks the terrorists of 9-11
> > were part of god's vengeance, and whether or not Woody was happy that
> > there might have been some sort of vengeance, with the loss of
> > American lives.
>
> The notion that I would be happy at 9-11 is ENTIRELY
> your wretched construction, and is absurd like most
> of the rest of your output.
Why? Given the fact that Mormons have, in the past, prayed for god's
vengeance against the US, why is the suggestion "wretched?" Seems to
me the terrorists of 9-11 were probably praying for the same thing as
your Mormon ancestors.
> > > You
> > > are alleging that LDS doctrine perpetuated the attacks?
> >
> > I'm asking Woody a question based on his argument. Should be clear
> > enough, for anyone who knows how to read.
>
> Another skill you ought to acquire.
And let's read Woody one more time. Woody Brison said: "They were
commanded to pray for God to do it ..."
Such is the nature of the violent past of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon).
Timpanogos
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> cover up and deny their sordid past. Mormons steadfastly refuse to
> accept any responsibility. They lie about their history, blame the
> Indians, and refuse to repent or come to grips with the horrible crime
> the committed.
Well, I'm a Mormon, not a very good one, but born in the Covenant, name
still on rolls, not ex'ed and I don't refuse to accept any responsibility
for it. I assume there are thousands, maybe millions like me who
acknowledge the murderous nature of the event and truly regret that it ever
happened, and do not take the stance of justification but hang our heads in
shame for the matter. Does that count for anything?
And it seems they performed blood atonement on one of the perpetuators (hung
the guy) for the act, seems like an acknowledgement of guilt and the calling
for some responsibility even at the time.
What do you want, more blood?
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
> Most of this is not hard to understand.
> A computer could do it. But you seem to approach it
> more like a Turing machine -- one that only goes one
> direction at that, and ran out of tape a long time ago.
A Turing machine can perform any calculation that can be performed by
a digital computer. In fact, the concept of a Turing machine was
developed as part of an effort to examine a function's computability.
Here's a good Internet site for you to read up on:
http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/cover/turing.html
Quoting from that site:
"In the 1930's (before the advent of the digital computer) several
mathematicians began to think about what it means to be able to
compute a function. Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently
arrived at equivalent conclusions. As we might phrase their common
definition now:
A function is computable if it can be computed by a Turing machine."
"A Turing machine is a very simple machine, but, logically speaking,
has all the power of any digital computer."
So your attempted insult by reference to the Turing machine only
served to illustrate that (once again) you don't know what the hell
you are talking about.
Duwayne Anderson
> > So your argument that they only *prayed* for vengeance, but never
> > actually tried to exercise it, is inconsistent with their behavior in
> > other circumstances.
> >
>
> Duwayne,
>
> You are using this pray for then do example (temples, churches etc) In the
> example of temples and churches (and other things) indeed there is a solid,
> consistent action that follows.
Indeed. In fact, I can't think of a single prayer that is NOT
followed up with action.
> However, in the case of the oath of
> vengeance - I don't believe there is an history of action following this.
How about the Mormons who murdered an entire wagon train, and then
used excuses about how the people in the wagon train were among the
murderers of the prophet Joseph Smith (not true, by the way, but still
used as an excuse by the LDS).
> You are suggesting that the MMM was the "action" result of this prayer.
I'm suggesting that Young shared responsibility for having his
followers take such a sick and violent oath. It's much the same
situation as the religious leaders of Islam who whip up the mob
mentality.
That's what Young's oath of vengeance was -- a tool for whipping up
the anger and violence of Mormons. So what we have is a case of Young
fanning the flames of violence, and then begging no responsibility for
the violence that resulted.
> I
> think that is a big jump
Naw. The big jump was claiming there's no history, and then acting
like the history that does exist (MMM) is my responsibility to prove,
not yours.
> - but lets see if there are other examples, because
> surely this group of prayers and oath takers are going to have to vigilantly
> go after the vengeance right?
How about looking into your history books, and trying to figure out
why the US Army was on its way to Utah in the first place?
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > The problem lies in the denials and lies that the LDS Church uses to
> > cover up and deny their sordid past. Mormons steadfastly refuse to
> > accept any responsibility. They lie about their history, blame the
> > Indians, and refuse to repent or come to grips with the horrible crime
> > the committed.
>
> Well, I'm a Mormon, not a very good one, but born in the Covenant, name
> still on rolls, not ex'ed and I don't refuse to accept any responsibility
> for it. I assume there are thousands, maybe millions like me who
> acknowledge the murderous nature of the event and truly regret that it ever
> happened, and do not take the stance of justification but hang our heads in
> shame for the matter. Does that count for anything?
Good for you. But I'd not characterize you as a "not a very good one"
Mormon. If more Mormons were like you, the church would be a much
better organization. Indeed, that's the real problem here. The LDS
Church won't repent. They lie about their history, lie about the
Indians doing it, and never, ever repent of anything.
Arrogant is the best word to describe the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
> And it seems they performed blood atonement on one of the perpetuators (hung
> the guy) for the act, seems like an acknowledgement of guilt and the calling
> for some responsibility even at the time.
>
> What do you want, more blood?
Have I ever called for blood?
Timpanogos
I'm not trying to justify the oath - I'm just trying to make the point that
you have connected this oath with a partial cause of the MMM.
First of all, It's my understanding that the oath was against the US
government, not individuals. This was based on a state government (Boggs)
causing great personal losses, which were presented to the Federal
government (Nauvoo period) for legal redress - which was refused.
Now you are saying that a very small number of members who, may or may not
have taken that oath, prove that it was the oath that was the root of the
problem. You also state that since Mormons show this pattern of prayer,
always followed by action, that this oath must have been taken to action on
some grand scale. This just is not the case.
All I'm suggesting is that no one every really acted on this oath (against
the US)
And yes, I have a pretty good feel for why Johnson's Army was coming out.
Mormons had seen the same treatment in Kirtland, Independence, Far West,
Nauvoo - and now here they come after us out here in the wilderness. And
what was the response of this oath of vengeance people in response to this?
They loaded every house in SLC with hay, and everyone moved to a fort in
Provo - This vengeful people was ready to burn THEIR whole city to the
ground rather than once again have others overtake the spoils of their hard
labors through incredible religious persecution. They took no physical
action against the US troops that were being sent to once again stomp them
into the dirt.
Kind of an amazing people that would continue to turn the other cheek -
again and again and again.
As a rule, not a blood seeking, murderous people - fulfill that vengance
oath group.
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
> Duwayne
>
> I'm not trying to justify the oath - I'm just trying to make the point that
> you have connected this oath with a partial cause of the MMM.
Understood. And I'm not offering it as proof. I do think it fits in
with a general atmospher of violence -- certainly the basic aspects of
the oath ARE violent. And I personally hold leaders responsible for
the atmosphere of violence that they establish.
Brigham Young didn't *have* to have a vengeance oath in the temple.
But he did. And with that oath he taught his people vengeance and
hatred for the United States. So he stands responsible for the
personal hatred among Mormons that led to the murder of over 100
innocent people.
> First of all, It's my understanding that the oath was against the US
> government, not individuals.
You know, that is hardly an excuse. Terrorists make the same excuses.
They say they have a bone to pick with the government, and that the
innocent victims just got in the way.
> This was based on a state government (Boggs)
> causing great personal losses, which were presented to the Federal
> government (Nauvoo period) for legal redress - which was refused.
The issue with Boggs is far more complicated than you think. I
suggest a history lesson on the matter. While Boggs' extermination
order was totally uncacceptable, so were the LDS actions leading up to
it.
And all that's beside the point. The Palestinians have suffered real
injustices at the hands of the Israelites, but that hardly justifies
killing innocent people.
>
> Now you are saying that a very small number of members who, may or may not
> have taken that oath,
There is no question they took the oath. A Stake President was
involved, and he'd been to the temple. So had Lee.
> prove that it was the oath that was the root of the
> problem.
I've never used the word "prove." It's a strawman argument, since
nothing can be proven. But the climate in which Brigham Young taught
hatred and violence certainly was a contributing factor. Yet Woody
Brison and other LDS apologists deny any accountability by Brigham
Young at all.
> You also state that since Mormons show this pattern of prayer,
> always followed by action, that this oath must have been taken to action on
> some grand scale. This just is not the case.
Actually, it is. It's called Inductive logic. It's not a 100% proof,
but it certainly puts the monkey on your back if you are claiming the
oath was NOT a motivator, in spite of the examples I posted showing
that just because Mormons pray to god does not mean they don't take
personal action.
> All I'm suggesting is that no one every really acted on this oath (against
> the US)
You have no evidence at all to support that, and must deny a great
deal of evidence to assert it.
> And yes, I have a pretty good feel for why Johnson's Army was coming out.
Because of illegal activity among the LDS population.
> Mormons had seen the same treatment in Kirtland, Independence, Far West,
> Nauvoo - and now here they come after us out here in the wilderness.
Don't you find it odd that the only one who had problems was Brigham
Young? The RLDS stayed in Ill. with no problems. It was Young and
his violent doctrines that caused the problems.
> And
> what was the response of this oath of vengeance people in response to this?
> They loaded every house in SLC with hay, and everyone moved to a fort in
> Provo - This vengeful people was ready to burn THEIR whole city to the
> ground rather than once again have others overtake the spoils of their hard
> labors through incredible religious persecution.
Actually, this goes to show their hatred of the US. They'd rather see
it burn.
> They took no physical
> action against the US troops that were being sent to once again stomp them
> into the dirt.
Not true. Young sent Saints to destroy US property. But you confuse
non-violent behavior with Young realizing he was out gunned.
And after all is said and done, the oath is still there. And it is
still an oath of violence and hatred.
> Kind of an amazing people that would continue to turn the other cheek -
> again and again and again.
What's amzaing how you turn justice on its head by converting over 100
murders of innocent women and children into turning the other cheek.
Timpanogos
I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated case,
with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
I still maintain that the large majority of the saints at that time where
non-violent and did not provoke violence against anybody. Johnson's army
was not sent because BY was a violent leader - they were sent over polygamy.
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
> Duwayne
>
> I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
> incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
Look, Timp, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion here,
you are going to have to stop putting words into my mouth.
On the subject of violence in LDS history, there are MANY instances
and doctrines that establish that fact. There are the Danites, there
are the bloody temple oaths, there are the oaths of vengeance, there
is the doctrine of blood atonement, and there are many sermons by
Brigham Young espousing violence (such as killing mixed-racial
couples).
Violent LDS theology is a fact.
The point about bringing up the oath of vengeance had to do with
Woody's claim that Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM. MY
point is that any leader who teaches a theology of violence -- of
which the oath of vengeance is just ONE part -- is responsible for the
acts of violence of his followers. Even if he does not give them a
specific instruction in a specific case.
In exactly the same way, a parent who teaches promiscuity and allows
their children to behave in promiscuous ways is responsible for their
pre-marriage pregnancy, even if they didn't say "go have intercourse
tonight."
Leaders shoulder that responsibility, and Brigham Young taught a
theology of violence and vengeance, and the oath of vengeance is
simply one component in Young's legacy of violence.
> Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated case,
> with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
Please get your head out of denial, stop using strawman arguments, and
deal with the issues here.
An honest assessment of the issues does NOT involve denying the stuff
you don't like, and then asking for one additional example after
another. You've already been given another example of the violence in
early Mormonism. Here. I'll post it for you again:
How many examples of LDS violence do you need, before you pull your
head out of denial?
> I still maintain that the large majority of the saints at that time where
> non-violent and did not provoke violence against anybody. Johnson's army
> was not sent because BY was a violent leader - they were sent over polygamy.
For an example of the sort of violence taught by Brigham Young, see
the link at
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol4p215_221brighambloodatonement.htm
Here's what Brigham Young had to say about death for interracial
marriages:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so." (Journal of Discources 10:110)
Here is another site that does a good job of documenting early
violence by the LDS, and their violent doctrines.
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/blood.htm
One of the best circumstantial evidences of LDS violence is the fact
that, with Brigham Young gone, the RLDS lived in peace with their
neighbors. Of course, the RLDS didn't hold to Young's violent
doctrines, and they didn't practice plural marriage (which was
illegal).
Timpanogos
> "Timpanogos" <timpanogos...@rockclimbing.com> wrote in message
news:<bm7t3h$m6l$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> > Duwayne
> >
> > I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
> > incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
>
> Look, Timp, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion here,
> you are going to have to stop putting words into my mouth.
>
Well, apparently I'm not intelligent enought to discuss this with you?
> On the subject of violence in LDS history, there are MANY instances
> and doctrines that establish that fact. There are the Danites, there
> are the bloody temple oaths, there are the oaths of vengeance, there
> is the doctrine of blood atonement, and there are many sermons by
> Brigham Young espousing violence (such as killing mixed-racial
> couples).
>
> Violent LDS theology is a fact
Some violent LDS history is a fact
.
>
> The point about bringing up the oath of vengeance had to do with
> Woody's claim that Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM. MY
> point is that any leader who teaches a theology of violence -- of
> which the oath of vengeance is just ONE part -- is responsible for the
> acts of violence of his followers. Even if he does not give them a
> specific instruction in a specific case.
>
ok, I singled out a singular part of the issue and addressed that - the
oath - as this is the part that would have applied to the general populace
of the church - not isolated individuals - my point trying to be that the
large majority of the saints were not violent. I did not intent to make the
point that leaders bore no responsibility in the violent acts that did
happen.
Example - In my younger years I wondered how the world could hate Americans?
We are a good, solid, God fearing people. Are Americans, as a whole,
violent? Back to the Hiroshima example I spoke of before. Is Duwayne a
child killing, murderous, A-Bomb dropping, violent loser? He must be, he's
an American. And so the blood of all those Japanese children are on
Duwayne's hands - For supporting proof - he's swore allegiance to the cause,
he's a patriot.
Sure ugly things happened, on both sides of the fence - but like I asked you
before - what do you want more blood, simply to acknowledge that nasty
things happened, to denounce the organization and walk away from it? What
is the purpose of continually beating the guilty children about the head
with the matter?
This is like me continually thrashing you for the bombing of children in
Japan. Hey you belong to one of the nastiest organizations ever seen on the
face of this earth - USofA - do you despise it? Why don't you leave it? Are
you stupid, violent, immoral? Just what is wrong with you?
> In exactly the same way, a parent who teaches promiscuity and allows
> their children to behave in promiscuous ways is responsible for their
> pre-marriage pregnancy, even if they didn't say "go have intercourse
> tonight."
>
This is what I'm trying to say - the large majority of the people were
better than this - even given the example from leaders - they personally
avoided the "pre-marriage pregnancy".
> Leaders shoulder that responsibility, and Brigham Young taught a
> theology of violence and vengeance, and the oath of vengeance is
> simply one component in Young's legacy of violence.
>
not arguing this point
> > Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated
case,
> > with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
>
> Please get your head out of denial, stop using strawman arguments, and
> deal with the issues here.
>
Duwayne - there you go again with personal attacks. I have not denied MMM,
or anything else. I was opposed to a fairly blanket statement that you
made - Mormons Pray, Mormons Do, Mormons swore and oath of vengance, hence
Mormons Kill. All I suggested is that not ALL Mormons kill - in fact only a
small percentage of members (from the very get-go) were actually involved in
violence. - This is where I went astray, putting words in your mouth by
focusing on this accusation. I did not take issue with other aspects of
this debate.
There is another thread here that comes to mind - the nasty Mormon on his
way to conference last weekend - he lost it and attacked a protester on the
street (grabbed garments from him - dragging him to the ground). There were
some responses there that noticed the actual composure and self control of
the huge majority of the members. But the violent leadership of the
churches history and example surely give license for this mans violent
outburst.
Given a large group of people, whom had given up all, to build and then lose
all - some, 3 times or more - showed incredible composure for not wildly
retaliating.
> An honest assessment of the issues does NOT involve denying the stuff
> you don't like, and then asking for one additional example after
> another. You've already been given another example of the violence in
> early Mormonism. Here. I'll post it for you again:
>
> "About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting
> of
> Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant....
> Bro.
> Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met
> a man
> who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths
> killed.
> Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked
> how this
> man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible
> feeling as
> he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, "Just as
> I have
> always looked upon it > cloud
> immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open
> pocket
> knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this
> man
> given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have
> immediately
> struck him to the heart."
>
> ("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," Dec. 6, 1889, pages 205-206;
> original
> journals located in Special Collections Dept. of Brigham Young
> University)
>
Once again, the oath was towards the United States of America (i.e. the
Government) - this is an individual account - that has nothing to do with
the actual oath. This is where I brought up the Johnson's army example -
i.e. the government. Don't get me wrong, I'm read and do not deny many ugly
stories - I still maintain - they were the "one man out of the crowd headed
to conference, not the whole of the group)
> How many examples of LDS violence do you need, before you pull your
> head out of denial?
>
wow, not sure why I continue - more personal attacks?
> > I still maintain that the large majority of the saints at that time
where
> > non-violent and did not provoke violence against anybody. Johnson's
army
> > was not sent because BY was a violent leader - they were sent over
polygamy.
>
You have not addressed the statement I made here. You claimed that
Johnson's army was sent because of the violent nature of BY and his people.
I suggest that this was not the case, but that they were sent because of
polygamy. Giving me more examples of violence (which I do not deny) does
not address the point that this is NOT why the army was sent out.
> For an example of the sort of violence taught by Brigham Young, see
> the link at
>
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/jofdvol4p215_221brighambloodatonement.htm
>
> Here's what Brigham Young had to say about death for interracial
> marriages:
>
> "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
> white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
> of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
> will always be so." (Journal of Discources 10:110)
>
> Here is another site that does a good job of documenting early
> violence by the LDS, and their violent doctrines.
>
> http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/blood.htm
>
> One of the best circumstantial evidences of LDS violence is the fact
> that, with Brigham Young gone, the RLDS lived in peace with their
> neighbors. Of course, the RLDS didn't hold to Young's violent
> doctrines, and they didn't practice plural marriage (which was
> illegal).
It's a split topic - so not sure I want to pursue this here - but do realize
that Political strength, via very large and rapid, lets say, infestation of
Mormons into existing communities was the catalyst to violent behaivors (on
both sides). The RLDS did not maintain any growth, in fact barely existed
in what was left after the majority left Nauvoo. One the hand, thousands
continued to pore into SLC from around the world.
Point being, the RLDS no longer poised any threat, political or otherwise -
so I'm not sure that this is much of an arguement. However, your last point
on plural marriage is true, and exactly why Johnson's army pursued them
west.
Chad
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Look, Timp, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion here,
> > you are going to have to stop putting words into my mouth.
> >
>
> Well, apparently I'm not intelligent enought to discuss this with you?
See? That's exactly what I was talking about. I didn't say anything
about your intelligence (though, with the present conversation, I'm
beginning to wonder). I said you need to stop putting words into my
mouth.
It's no wonder, with such capacity for imagination, that you can't
deal with the issues here.
> > On the subject of violence in LDS history, there are MANY instances
> > and doctrines that establish that fact. There are the Danites, there
> > are the bloody temple oaths, there are the oaths of vengeance, there
> > is the doctrine of blood atonement, and there are many sermons by
> > Brigham Young espousing violence (such as killing mixed-racial
> > couples).
> >
> > Violent LDS theology is a fact
>
> Some violent LDS history is a fact
Very good. And that's my point -- Brigham Young, by virtue of his
establishment of a religion with violent doctrines bears the
responsibility when his followers act out in violent ways.
> > The point about bringing up the oath of vengeance had to do with
> > Woody's claim that Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM. MY
> > point is that any leader who teaches a theology of violence -- of
> > which the oath of vengeance is just ONE part -- is responsible for the
> > acts of violence of his followers. Even if he does not give them a
> > specific instruction in a specific case.
> >
>
> ok, I singled out a singular part of the issue and addressed that - the
> oath - as this is the part that would have applied to the general populace
> of the church - not isolated individuals - my point trying to be that the
> large majority of the saints were not violent.
The issue here is Brigham Young's responsibility for the violence at
MMM. The fact he taught violent doctrines makes him responsible.
> I did not intent to make the
> point that leaders bore no responsibility in the violent acts that did
> happen.
Good. Then we are in agreement on that matter.
> Example - In my younger years I wondered how the world could hate Americans?
> We are a good, solid, God fearing people. Are Americans, as a whole,
> violent? Back to the Hiroshima example I spoke of before. Is Duwayne a
> child killing, murderous, A-Bomb dropping, violent loser? He must be, he's
> an American.
Now you are adopting a strawman argument. I've not accused all
Mormons of being violent -- that's your persecution complex in
overdrive. I've accused Brigham Young of teaching violent doctrines
and thus being responsible for the MMM.
<snip rest of strawman>>
> Sure ugly things happened, on both sides of the fence - but like I asked you
> before - what do you want more blood,
And I reply as before -- I've never asked for blood. What I'd like to
see is for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to do the
right thing, admit their responsibility in the murder of over 100
innocent people, and follow the steps to repentance.
But, of course, we both know they will never do that. Meanwhile, they
have hords of apologists out there helping them cover and deny their
sins in this matter.
> simply to acknowledge that nasty
> things happened, to denounce the organization and walk away from it?
How, exactly, does one retain a testimony that the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is god's only true church when it's
prophets lie about church doctrine, and teach doctrines of hate and
violence?
> What
> is the purpose of continually beating the guilty children about the head
> with the matter?
I'm returning post for post. I could as easily ask YOU what is the
purpose of continually DEFENDING and standing up for such a corrupt
oranization?
> This is like me continually thrashing you for the bombing of children in
> Japan.
Not at all. Americans don't deny what happened. The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints does.
> Hey you belong to one of the nastiest organizations ever seen on the
> face of this earth - USofA - do you despise it? Why don't you leave it? Are
> you stupid, violent, immoral? Just what is wrong with you?
Okay. You've played this card for the last time. Folks, Chad here is
lying. I've NEVER made a blanket statement about Mormons like this.
Chad, you need to stop lying about what I've said, and deal with the
issues here. The issue is the specific violent doctrines taught by
Brigham Young, and his responsibility for the MMM.
<snip to end>
Woody Brison
But that's the whole exact point: when the operation was under
President Young's direct orders, the Mormons effected their
policiy without hurting anyone.
When it was way off down in southern Utah, happening without
BY's orders and out of control, it turned ugly. From this, I
would tend to conclude the operation in the south, the massacre,
was not under his control or by his orders. The antimormons
conclude exactly the opposite of this. I guess that's why they
are called antimormons; like antimatter, everything works
opposite for them, including logic.
Woody Brison
> >
> > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > United States.
> >
> > No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
> > your inability to get anything right.
> Woody, what's the point in lying about what you said, when it's right
> there in the public record.
Yes, so it is. Your statement:
> > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > United States.
I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Look what you are saying:
PRAY: PRESENT TENSE. We do not now pray for God to avenge us
against the United States. I don't know if we ever did. You
cited a website that said we did; I don't know if that website
is correct or not; but your claim, that I said WE NOW ARE
PRAYING for vengeance, is flat false, just all the rest of your
blather.
My analogy, that you are like a Turing machine, is thus
reinforced. I explained to you about the past tense/present
tense thing. Yet here we are a week or two later and you are
still laboring to acquire the sense of what I said. You are
indeed like a Turing machine. But it is not true that a
Turing machine can do anything a computer can do. That is
also flat false. A Turing machine could theoretically do it,
but in reality, there is not time enough in the universe for
a Turing machine to do some of the tasks I regularly set for
my Pentium. Again the analogy holds: by the time you figure
out this little past/present difficulty about the prayer, the
world will have ended and your salvation will be lost.
You need to get a grip somehow, but I don't know what you need
to do to get it. Go to a shrink, is what I think you need to
do; I don't think anything on the internet can help you.
Spending beaucoup hours on the internet, day in day out seems
to be what's put you in this condition, from what I can judge.
So I don't think MORE TIME ON THE INTERNET is going to cure
you.
Woody Brison
> >
> > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > United States.
> >
> > No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
> > your inability to get anything right.
> Woody, what's the point in lying about what you said, when it's right
> there in the public record.
Yes, so it is. Your statement:
> > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > United States.
I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Look what you are saying:
Timpanogos
It is unfortunate that you seem incapable of having a simple
point/counterpoint discussion without personal attacks. I tried to point
this out to you in my last post, where you have resorted to personal attacks
on me 3 times. In response, you have gotten even nastier with more attacks
and ended by accusing me of being a liar. Wow what can I say?
Ok, let me address exactly were you have called me a liar.
> > Hey you belong to one of the nastiest organizations ever seen on the
> > face of this earth - USofA - do you despise it? Why don't you leave it?
Are
> > you stupid, violent, immoral? Just what is wrong with you?
>
> Okay. You've played this card for the last time. Folks, Chad here is
> lying. I've NEVER made a blanket statement about Mormons like this.
>
> Chad, you need to stop lying about what I've said, and deal with the
> issues here. The issue is the specific violent doctrines taught by
> Brigham Young, and his responsibility for the MMM.
>
The paragraph that you have responded to here had nothing to do with the
"blanket statement". You have clipped that from your last post. I'll put
it back in here for your reference:
>>Duwayne - there you go again with personal attacks. I have not denied
MMM,
>>or anything else. I was opposed to a fairly blanket statement that you
>>made - Mormons Pray, Mormons Do, Mormons swore and oath of vengance, hence
>>Mormons Kill. All I suggested is that not ALL Mormons kill - in fact only
a
>>small percentage of members (from the very get-go) were actually involved
in
>>violence. - This is where I went astray, putting words in your mouth by
>>focusing on this accusation. I did not take issue with other aspects of
>>this debate.
The following are quotes from you in this same thread - and what I've
referred to as your "fairly blanket statement"
"The Mormons were in rebellion. They were terrorists. The fact they
were taking oaths to pray continually for god to take vengeance
against the US illustrates the extent of their treason.
Actually, we have several similar situations -- all related to each
other in the manner in which Mormons pray for something, and then go
out and do it themselves. They pray for temples, then build them
themselves. They pray for meeting houses, then build them themselves.
Then we have them praying for vengeance, and you seem to think they
sit on their butts, not bothering to get the vengeance themselves.
It's called inductive logic. You should study it sometime. A
conclusion is based on similar behavior/observations in other cases.
As I pointed out (and as you agreed) whem Mormons pray to god to do
something, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't go out and do it
themselves. Case in point, when Mormons pray to god for a temple,
they build it themselves. Ditto for chaples, etc.
So your argument that they only *prayed* for vengeance, but never
actually tried to exercise it, is inconsistent with their behavior in
other circumstances.
Indeed. In fact, I can't think of a single prayer that is NOT
followed up with action.
How about looking into your history books, and trying to figure out
why the US Army was on its way to Utah in the first place?
"
Duwayne,
You have good logic, seem educated and have plenty of background
information. I don't mind sharing some ideas, heck that's the whole idea of
this right? It is to me. I've been on enough religious internet sites to
know there are those that have no intention of point/counterpoint discussion
but only hate and hard feelings. These people never want to share concepts,
only tear down others. I hope you don't fall into this category.
I don't appreciate nor deserve the personal attacks
Chad
Woody Brison
> "Timpanogos" <timpanogos...@rockclimbing.com> wrote in message news:<bm7t3h$m6l$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> > Duwayne
> >
> > I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
> > incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
>
> Look, Timp, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion here,
> you are going to have to stop putting words into my mouth.
Yeah! He's got enough of them in there, you don't want to
give him more!
> On the subject of violence in LDS history, there are MANY instances
> and doctrines that establish that fact. There are the Danites,
The Danites are not an instance that "establishes that fact",
whatever fact you imagine exists. The Danites were organized
by one misguided individual, who claimed that he was operating
under the direction of Joseph Smith in order to get men to
join. He was lying, and when Joseph Smith found out about it
he disbanded the "Danites" and the organizer, Avard, was
excommunicated. That was the extent of the Danites' actions:
some meetings. No violence perpetrated, and none contemplated
by the leaders of the church, and the man who advocated it
expelled. I don't know how the Church could disavow violence
more thoroughly. The "Danites" do NOT show that the Church of
Jesus Christ is a violent organization. For some years, it
was a favorite theme with demogogues, The Danites Will Get You,
but it was imaginary.
>...there
> are the bloody temple oaths,
Where participants in the ceremony promised they would be
WILLING TO SUFFER violence. No actual violence.
>...there are the oaths of vengeance,
As a note, read this:
Doctrine and Covenants Section 101:85-92 Thus will I liken
the children of Zion. 86 Let them importune at the feet of
the judge; 87 And if he heed them not, let them importune at
the feet of the governor; 88 And if the governor heed them
not, let them importune at the feet of the president; 89 And
if the president heed them not, then will the Lord arise and
come forth out of his hiding place, and in his fury vex the
nation; 90 And in his hot displeasure, and in his fierce
anger, in his time, will cut off those wicked, unfaithful,
and unjust stewards, and appoint them their portion among
hypocrites, and unbelievers; 91 Even in outer darkness, where
there is weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth. 92 PRAY
YE, therefore, THAT THEIR EARS MAY BE OPENED unto your cries,
that I may be merciful unto them, THAT THESE THINGS MAY NOT
COME UPON THEM.
When we look at antimormon websites, we are assured most solemnly
that the Mormons were commanded to pray for vengeance. When we
look at documented publication by the Mormons themselves, at the
revelations they got from God, they were commanded to pray that
the United States would wake up so that vengeance would NOT be
taken. Violence is indeed promised, to be DONE BY THE LORD and
not by the Latter-day Saints at all.
when the nation convulsed with Civil War, and unprecedented
tragedy and woe associated with it, the LDS were out in Deseret.
They did not cause it and did not have anything to do with it.
>... there
> is the doctrine of blood atonement,
Which again exhibits no actual events of violence. The LDS do
not live the doctrine; it has never been lived from the time of
Adam. There have to be fundamental laws and conditions in place
that are not now obtainable. But let the LDS even talk about it,
study it -- and they are "violent". Altho the doctrine is only
about punishment of criminals.
It is an example of Rev. 12:10: "the accuser of our brethren is
cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."
Lucifer operates that way, and his servants operate the same
way. If we broke our eggs on a certain end we would be accused
of that.
>... and there are many sermons by
> Brigham Young espousing violence (such as killing mixed-racial
> couples).
But AGAIN, no actual examples of anyone getting killed, and
the sense of his sermons shows that he was saying, the penalty
WOULD BE, not anything present tense; President Young did not
"speak and his words became Territorial Law". They had a
Legislature that made the laws and they did not make that law.
They did not contemplate making any such law.
> Violent LDS theology is a fact.
In the antichrist's wretched system of teachings that is.
We could examine the teachings of the scriptures and find
"violent teachings" -- the Law of Moses for example. And we
do not find Jesus abolishing the Law of Moses without first
taking the entire punishment upon himself. We don't find
John the Baptist advising anyone to quit the army; just to
do their duty and take their wages honestly. VIOLENT,
VIOLENT John the Baptist. Just look at the violence in his
sermons! Altho when we actually look, he says "Do violence
to no man". And you will find that President Young was the
same, if you actually read them and not just the few
isolated quotations by the antis.
> The point about bringing up the oath of vengeance had to do with
> Woody's claim that Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM. MY
> point is that any leader who teaches a theology of violence -- of
> which the oath of vengeance is just ONE part -- is responsible for the
> acts of violence of his followers. Even if he does not give them a
> specific instruction in a specific case.
You have shown no theology of violence. It's an imaginary
theology of violence, an imaginary tower of imaginary
constructions on your part. Don't be too surprised if no
one buys it.
> In exactly the same way, a parent who teaches promiscuity and allows
> their children to behave in promiscuous ways is responsible for their
> pre-marriage pregnancy, even if they didn't say "go have intercourse
> tonight."
>
> Leaders shoulder that responsibility, and Brigham Young taught a
> theology of violence and vengeance, and the oath of vengeance is
> simply one component in Young's legacy of violence.
>
> > Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated case,
> > with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
>
> Please get your head out of denial, stop using strawman arguments, and
> deal with the issues here.
Antimormons often accuse the LDS of doing what they do, which
we do not do. When you're out of ammunition you make up some.
And where to find handy accusations? Just look around your
kitchen, your den, your bedrooms... and accuse the LDS of it.
Woody Brison
> "Timpanogos" <timpanogos...@rockclimbing.com> wrote in message news:<bm7t3h$m6l$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> > Duwayne
> >
> > I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
> > incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
>
> Look, Timp, if we are going to have an intelligent discussion here,
> you are going to have to stop putting words into my mouth.
Yeah! He's got enough of them in there, you don't want to
give him more!
> On the subject of violence in LDS history, there are MANY instances
> and doctrines that establish that fact. There are the Danites,
The Danites are not an instance that "establishes that fact",
whatever fact you imagine exists. The Danites were organized
by one misguided individual, who claimed that he was operating
under the direction of Joseph Smith in order to get men to
join. He was lying, and when Joseph Smith found out about it
he disbanded the "Danites" and the organizer, Avard, was
excommunicated. That was the extent of the Danites' actions:
some meetings. No violence perpetrated, and none contemplated
by the leaders of the church, and the man who advocated it
expelled. I don't know how the Church could disavow violence
more thoroughly. The "Danites" do NOT show that the Church of
Jesus Christ is a violent organization. For some years, it
was a favorite theme with demogogues, The Danites Will Get You,
but it was imaginary.
>...there
> are the bloody temple oaths,
Where participants in the ceremony promised they would be
>... there
> is the doctrine of blood atonement,
Which again exhibits no actual events of violence. The LDS do
not live the doctrine; it has never been lived from the time of
Adam. There have to be fundamental laws and conditions in place
that are not now obtainable. But let the LDS even talk about it,
study it -- and they are "violent". Altho the doctrine is only
about punishment of criminals.
It is an example of Rev. 12:10: "the accuser of our brethren is
cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."
Lucifer operates that way, and his servants operate the same
way. If we broke our eggs on a certain end we would be accused
of that.
>... and there are many sermons by
> Brigham Young espousing violence (such as killing mixed-racial
> couples).
But AGAIN, no actual examples of anyone getting killed, and
the sense of his sermons shows that he was saying, the penalty
WOULD BE, not anything present tense; President Young did not
"speak and his words became Territorial Law". They had a
Legislature that made the laws and they did not make that law.
They did not contemplate making any such law.
> Violent LDS theology is a fact.
In the antichrist's wretched system of teachings that is.
We could examine the teachings of the scriptures and find
"violent teachings" -- the Law of Moses for example. And we
do not find Jesus abolishing the Law of Moses without first
taking the entire punishment upon himself. We don't find
John the Baptist advising anyone to quit the army; just to
do their duty and take their wages honestly. VIOLENT,
VIOLENT John the Baptist. Just look at the violence in his
sermons! Altho when we actually look, he says "Do violence
to no man". And you will find that President Young was the
same, if you actually read them and not just the few
isolated quotations by the antis.
> The point about bringing up the oath of vengeance had to do with
> Woody's claim that Brigham Young was not responsible for the MMM. MY
> point is that any leader who teaches a theology of violence -- of
> which the oath of vengeance is just ONE part -- is responsible for the
> acts of violence of his followers. Even if he does not give them a
> specific instruction in a specific case.
You have shown no theology of violence. It's an imaginary
theology of violence, an imaginary tower of imaginary
constructions on your part. Don't be too surprised if no
one buys it.
> In exactly the same way, a parent who teaches promiscuity and allows
> their children to behave in promiscuous ways is responsible for their
> pre-marriage pregnancy, even if they didn't say "go have intercourse
> tonight."
>
> Leaders shoulder that responsibility, and Brigham Young taught a
> theology of violence and vengeance, and the oath of vengeance is
> simply one component in Young's legacy of violence.
>
> > Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated case,
> > with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
>
> Please get your head out of denial, stop using strawman arguments, and
> deal with the issues here.
Antimormons often accuse the LDS of doing what they do, which
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> When we look at antimormon websites, we are assured most solemnly
> that the Mormons were commanded to pray for vengeance.
When asked this question: ">When Mormons pray for god to avenge them
on the United States, do they wait for god to do it, or do they (as in
the other cases) feel okay about helping their god get the job done."
Woody Brison (apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints) replied: "They were commanded to pray for God to do it..."
So Woody's already on record admitting the the Mormons prayed to god
for vengeance against the United States.
<snip>
> >... there
> > is the doctrine of blood atonement,
>
> Which again exhibits no actual events of violence. The LDS do
> not live the doctrine; it has never been lived from the time of
> Adam.
What bunk. This was a doctrine that was actively preached by Brigham
Young -- an all you can do is deny that Mormons never live it?
You are in a world of denial, Woody. Here we have the second-worst
case of domesitc terroris in US history, courtesy of members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- and all you can do is
deny that the doctrines of violence taught by the Church had anything
to do with it.
By their works ye shall know them.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> Duwayne,
>
> It is unfortunate that you seem incapable of having a simple
> point/counterpoint discussion without personal attacks.
What's unfortunate is that you feel obligated to lie about my position
and misrepresent it. I'm speaking specifically about your arguments
related to painting all Mormons as violent, when my argument is
specifically about Brigham Young, his theology of violence, and its
contributing factor to MMM.
> I tried to point
> this out to you in my last post, where you have resorted to personal attacks
> on me 3 times.
More lies won't help you. I've used NO personal "attacks." I've
simply pointed out when you have lied about my position. And THAT is
your problem. Only you can change it.
<snip>
> The following are quotes from you in this same thread - and what I've
> referred to as your "fairly blanket statement"
>
> "The Mormons were in rebellion. They were terrorists.
Note that I did NOT say ALL Mormons, and there is little exaggeration
is stating that the Mormons who murdered over 100 innocent people WERE
terrorists.
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
> > >
> > > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > > United States.
> > >
> > > No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
> > > your inability to get anything right.
> >...
> > Woody, what's the point in lying about what you said, when it's right
> > there in the public record.
>
> Yes, so it is. Your statement:
> > > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > > United States.
>
> I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Look what you are saying:
> PRAY: PRESENT TENSE. We do not now pray for God to avenge us
> against the United States.
Point taken. Mormons (supposedly) have stopped praying to god for
vengeance against the United States.
> I don't know if we ever did.
You admitted it October 7. Here's what you said: "They were commanded
to pray for God to do it..."
And, of course, the bloody oaths, blood atonement, and "death on the
spot" for interracial couples are also well known.
So, yes, Brigham Young taught a theology of violence. And to that
extent (and probably others) he has responsibility for the MMM.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Timpanogos
news:a42139e3.03101...@posting.google.com...
news:<bmc2ci$ou1$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>...
> > Duwayne,
> >
> > It is unfortunate that you seem incapable of having a simple
> > point/counterpoint discussion without personal attacks.
>
> What's unfortunate is that you feel obligated to lie about my position
> and misrepresent it. I'm speaking specifically about your arguments
> related to painting all Mormons as violent, when my argument is
> specifically about Brigham Young, his theology of violence, and its
> contributing factor to MMM.
>
Well Duwayne, if I misunderstood and missrepresented, I was not alone. You
just posted an answer here to Woodie that reflects that he also was speaking
to your blanket statements in regards to the oath. The following is what I'm
referring to:
>> Woodie wrote
>> I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. Look what you are saying:
>> PRAY: PRESENT TENSE. We do not now pray for God to avenge us
>> against the United States.
> Duwayne answered
>Point taken. Mormons (supposedly) have stopped praying to god for
>vengeance against the United States.
Now even here, after you acknowlede that Woodie was talking present tense,
and that you were saying "Pray" present tense - about the general populas of
Mormons - You express your doubt that his might not be true "(supposedly)"
So what is it Duwanyne, does your "inductive logic" of - pray, do, oath,
kill -apply only to those men involved in the murders at MMM, or to broaden
the scope, only those that did acts of phsyical violence during the entire
history of the church, or to "Mormons" (the general blanket term you use
through out your arguement in a present tense)? This is all I have tried to
address this whole time.
Since you have cast doubt on Woodie's statement (supposedly), let's assume
Woodie is also a liar and the current endowment includes the oath of
vengance, and many if not all "Mormons" pray for this daily, as they have
for the last 150 years (or so). Please give me examples in the last 100
years that sustain your inductive logic. That's all I'm asking, well ok, an
end to personal attacks in your posts would also be nice (not holding my
breath on this one).
Chad
the scope of your comments, I was not alone
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
> > >
> > > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > > United States.
> > >
> > > No, I do not claim that. You've demonstrated once again
> > > your inability to get anything right.
> >...
> > Woody, what's the point in lying about what you said, when it's right
> > there in the public record.
>
> Yes, so it is. Your statement:
> > > > Woody claims that Mormons just pray to god to avenge them against the
> > > > United States.
>
> I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS.
When I said: "When Mormons pray for god to avenge them on the United
States, do they wait for god to do it, or do they (as in the other
cases) feel okay about helping their god get the job done."
You (Woody Brison) replied:
"They were commanded to pray for God to do it,..."
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> You have good logic, seem educated and have plenty of background
> information. I don't mind sharing some ideas, heck that's the whole idea of
> this right? It is to me. I've been on enough religious internet sites to
> know there are those that have no intention of point/counterpoint discussion
> but only hate and hard feelings. These people never want to share concepts,
> only tear down others. I hope you don't fall into this category.
And I certainly hope YOU don't fall into that category, either.
Certainly, I hope that you don't continue to misrepresent my position.
You may find the following information interesting:
"Before long, though, one of their number, a man named Nelson Slater,
decided to summarize their experiences and to present that summary in
the form of a petition to Congress, calling for Federal intervention
into the Utah Territory. And Slater did just this, after obtaining
more than two hundred signatures from those of his fellow emigrants
who had not yet traveled too far to be reached. ů. [According to
Slater's petition] Threats and violent speech against the emigrants
were common features of life in Salt Lake City ů "Brigham Young, and
many of the Mormons," Slater wrote, "are in the frequent habit of
using threatening language toward the emigrants. They often talk of
cutting off people's heads, cutting their throats, and the like."
[William Wise, "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," pp. 102-103.]
Of course, we can easily guess where this language about slitting
throats comes from, can't we? After all, there were oaths involving
the symbolic slitting of throats in LDS temples, as recently as just a
few years ago. Indeed, those same bloody oaths were in the temple
when I went through.
Here is a link to the Internet that documents Brigham Young's violent
doctrine of Blood Atonement.
Here is more violent doctrine from Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so." (Journal of Discources 10:110)
Again, I'm not saying ALL Mormons were violent. I repeat. I'm not
saying that ALL Mormons were violent. Accusations that I'm making
such statements are false.
Rahter, I am pointing to violent doctrines taught by Brigham Young,
and making the argument that, by teaching these violent doctrines,
Young shares responsibility for the murders at mountain meadows.
Certainly his doctrines of violence and hatred motivated some Mormons.
They may have even motivated a LOT of Mormons, but I don't think they
motiveated ALL Mormons. Yet, the effect was the same for the 140
innocent people that were murdered by members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints at Mountain Meadows.
Timpanogos
> Again, I'm not saying ALL Mormons were violent. I repeat. I'm not
> saying that ALL Mormons were violent. Accusations that I'm making
> such statements are false.
>
Apparently I miss-read the context of your statements, understanding them to
encompass a lot larger body than what you intended. I sorry that his got
you so upset.
Chad
.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Duwayne answered
> >Point taken. Mormons (supposedly) have stopped praying to god for
> >vengeance against the United States.
>
> Now even here, after you acknowlede that Woodie was talking present tense,
> and that you were saying "Pray" present tense - about the general populas of
> Mormons - You express your doubt that his might not be true "(supposedly)"
My ability to realize a mistake is well known on ARM. Unlike Woody
(and possibly yourself) who sticks to his story come hell or high
water.
Why don't you ask Woody if the Book of Mormon mentions swine.
Yes, I admit that Mormons don't swear to pray continually for
vengeance against the United States (well, some might still do it).
But the point is, Mormons at the time of the MMM DID do that. So,
let's try to stick to the issue here. You asked for additional
information, and I've included it below:
And I certainly hope YOU don't fall into that category, either.
Certainly, I hope that you don't continue to misrepresent my position.
You may find the following information interesting:
"Before long, though, one of their number, a man named Nelson Slater,
decided to summarize their experiences and to present that summary in
the form of a petition to Congress, calling for Federal intervention
into the Utah Territory. And Slater did just this, after obtaining
more than two hundred signatures from those of his fellow emigrants
who had not yet traveled too far to be reached. ů. [According to
Slater's petition] Threats and violent speech against the emigrants
were common features of life in Salt Lake City ů "Brigham Young, and
many of the Mormons," Slater wrote, "are in the frequent habit of
using threatening language toward the emigrants. They often talk of
cutting off people's heads, cutting their throats, and the like."
[William Wise, "Massacre at Mountain Meadows," pp. 102-103.]
Of course, we can easily guess where this language about slitting
throats comes from, can't we? After all, there were oaths involving
the symbolic slitting of throats in LDS temples, as recently as just a
few years ago. Indeed, those same bloody oaths were in the temple
when I went through.
Here is a link to the Internet that documents Brigham Young's violent
doctrine of Blood Atonement.
Here is more violent doctrine from Brigham Young:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the
white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This
will always be so." (Journal of Discources 10:110)
Again, I'm not saying ALL Mormons were violent. I repeat. I'm not
saying that ALL Mormons were violent. Accusations that I'm making
such statements are false.
> So what is it Duwanyne, does your "inductive logic" of - pray, do, oath,
> kill -apply only to those men involved in the murders at MMM, or to broaden
> the scope, only those that did acts of phsyical violence during the entire
> history of the church, or to "Mormons" (the general blanket term you use
> through out your arguement in a present tense)? This is all I have tried to
> address this whole time.
I am pointing to violent doctrines taught by Brigham Young,
and making the argument that, by teaching these violent doctrines,
Young shares responsibility for the murders at mountain meadows.
Certainly his doctrines of violence and hatred motivated some Mormons.
They may have even motivated a LOT of Mormons, but I don't think they
motiveated ALL Mormons. Yet, the effect was the same for the 140
innocent people that were murdered by members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints at Mountain Meadows.
TheJordan6
>Date: 10/10/2003 2:28 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bm719g$ac1$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>
>
>Duwayne
>
>
>
>I'm not trying to justify the oath - I'm just trying to make the point that
>you have connected this oath with a partial cause of the MMM.
Bot the "oath of vengeance" and the "oath of obedience" factored heavily into
the MMM. In the "oath of obedience," Mormons swore an oath to obey the orders
of Brigham Young over that of U.S. government officials.
>First of all, It's my understanding that the oath was against the US
>government, not individuals.
The "oath of vengeance" was primarily aimed at those who murdered Mormon
"prophets," thus, that would be individuals.
One Mormon "prophet", Parley P. Pratt, was murdered in Arkansas mere weeks
before the Fancher emigrant train, most of whom were from Arkansas, were
murdered by Mormons.
Read carefully historian Will Bagley's comments at
http://www.salamandersociety.org/snapshots/bagley/
>This was based on a state government (Boggs)
>causing great personal losses,
The "oath of vengeance" was enacted by Brigham Young after Joseph and Hyrum
Smith's murders in 1844. The 1838 eviction from Missouri had nothing to do
with it. However, the original Danite initiation oath, instituted in 1838, did
call for the "utter destruction of apostates and enemies of the church."
>which were presented to the Federal
>government (Nauvoo period) for legal redress - which was refused.
The reason the federal government refused the Mormons redress for the Missouri
conflict was because a congressional investigation concluded that the Mormons
were entirely responsible for the conflict.
>Now you are saying that a very small number of members who, may or may not
>have taken that oath, prove that it was the oath that was the root of the
>problem.
The "oath of vengeance" and the "oath of obedience" was administered in the
temple endowment ceremony, so every endowed Mormon swore to them. Read John D.
Lee's remarks about how the MMM was the direct product of the Mormons' "sacred"
oaths at
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/brondel/archive/lee1.htm
>You also state that since Mormons show this pattern of prayer,
>always followed by action, that this oath must have been taken to action on
>some grand scale. This just is not the case.
The Mormon culture of violence and vengeance was instituted by Joseph Smith and
Sidney Rigdon in Missouri in 1838. From then until at least Brigham Young's
death in 1877, there were dozens of incidents of violence committed by Mormons
acting on the principles or direct orders of church leaders. The MMM was just
one of those many incidents.
>All I'm suggesting is that no one every really acted on this oath (against
>the US)
The very "Utah War" itself was a direct acting out of both the "oath of
vengeance" and the "oath of obedience."
>And yes, I have a pretty good feel for why Johnson's Army was coming out.
If you're like 99.9% of all other Mormons, you'd be wrong.
>Mormons had seen the same treatment in Kirtland, Independence, Far West,
>Nauvoo - and now here they come after us out here in the wilderness.
All of the treatment that the Mormons received in those areas you name were
caused by crimes and offenses of Mormons. The reasons President James Buchanan
sent 2500 Army troops to Utah were that Brigham Young abused his office as
territorial governor by making the region his own theocratic dictatorship;
Young and his subordinates refused to recognize the authority of federal
officials sent to oveesee the territory; the Mormons harassed, threatened,
and/or attacked many of those officials, causing them to flee Utah for their
lives; Brigham Young announced that Utah Territory was "seceding" from the
Union, and forming their own independent "kingdom"; and the Mormons, under
Young's orders and approval, formed alliances with Indian tribes to attack and
rob American citizens (including the MMM).
Buchanan appointed a new governor, and sent the troops as an escort to SLC to
depose Young, install the new governor in office, and quell the Mormon
rebellion. Young had his "sworn to obedience" troops attack the Army's
supplies and stock to prevent them from entering SLC.
When the army finally entered the following spring, Young and 60 other Mormon
leaders were charged with treason against the U.S. Federal officials agreed
to not prosecute them upon obtaining their word to end their rebellion and for
Young to give up the governorship.
>And
>what was the response of this oath of vengeance people in response to this?
>They loaded every house in SLC with hay, and everyone moved to a fort in
>Provo - This vengeful people was ready to burn THEIR whole city to the
>ground rather than once again have others overtake the spoils of their hard
>labors through incredible religious persecution.
Young's actions in having the Mormons prepare to burn their own property was an
act of religious fanaticism akin to David Koresh's insanity at Waco.
The Mormons were only "persecuted" because they continually refused to obey
laws and live peaceably with their neighbors.
>They took no physical
>action against the US troops that were being sent to once again stomp them
>into the dirt.
Young was smart enough to tell his men not to kill any Army troops, because he
knew full well that such an act would bring many more soldiers upon them.
However, the fact that the Mormons didn't kill any of Johnson's army does not
mean that they didn't kill anyone else either.
>Kind of an amazing people that would continue to turn the other cheek -
>again and again and again.
Nice story, except that it isn't true. 19th-century Mormons retaliated against
their enemies time and time again. The "Zion's Camp" expedition in 1833, led
by Joseph Smith, was a paramilitary force that marched into Missouri with the
intent of fighting. They only failed to fight because Missouri officials
informed Joseph Smith that if his troops crossed into Jackson County, they
would be treated as a hostile force.
>As a rule, not a blood seeking, murderous people - fulfill that vengance
>oath group.
>Chad
But 19th-century Mormons fit that description perfectly---they were a
blood-seeking, murderous people. The dozens of incidents of institutional
violence from at least the early 1830s to at least 1877 clearly demonstrate
that.
Even Brigham Young's remarks upon viewing the memorial that soldiers had
erected to the MMM victims bear that out:
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, and I have taken a little."
If you don't believe that, then you are either ignorant of the facts, or like
Woody Brison, you are in denial.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 10/10/2003 10:23 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bm7t3h$m6l$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com>
>
>Duwayne
>
>I must be missing something, we are not connecting here - you take one
>incident (MMM) and say that it proves a violent and murderous people.
>Please give me other examples of this murderous oath - one isolated case,
>with a small study group (guilty ones) does not prove your case.
You first need to understand that the oaths were sworn in the secret endowment
ceremony---thus, few Mormons would reveal that their acts of violence were the
product of those oaths. However, one need only study the history and context
of numerous violent incidents to see how the oaths factored in. Those
incidents are far too many to recite in a post, but I would recommend beginning
your education with the following:
"The 1838 Mormon War In Missouri," by Stephen LeSueur
"Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," by Harold Schindler
"Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West," by David Bigler
"The Mountain Meadows Massacre," by Juanita Brooks
"Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre," by
Will Bagley
John D. Lee's "Confessions," on-line at
http://antimormon.8m.com/leeindex.html
"Brigham's Destroying Angel," by Bill Hickman, on-line at
http://antimormon.8m.com/hickmanindex.html
>I still maintain that the large majority of the saints at that time were
>non-violent and did not provoke violence against anybody.
I do agree that a majority of rank-and-file Mormons were not generally violent;
but most of them were kept in the dark about church leaders' secret violent
acts and orders, much like most of them were kept in the dark about polygamy,
until 1852.
The original band of "Danites" who had taken secret oaths to obey Joseph
Smith's orders in June 1838 numbered between 400 and 800 by the time of their
surrender to Missouri officials in October 1838. So there were at least that
many Mormon men who had sworn to aid in the "utter destruction of apostates",
or whomever else Smith declared was a church "enemy."
Many of the original Missouri "Danites" later became policemen in Nauvoo, or
Joseph Smith's bodyguards. Some of the most loyal and willing to obey Smith's
orders were Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, Hosea Stout, Howard Egan, and John
D. Lee. Lee himself wrote:
"Brigham Young knew very well that I was not a man who would willingly take
life, and therefore I was not ordered to do his bloody work. I never took
part in any killing that was desired or ordered by the Church, except the part
I took in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was well known by all the members
of the Church as one that stood high in the confidence of Brigham Young, and
that I was close-mouthed and reliable. By this means I was usually informed of
the facts in every case where violence was used in the section of country where
I resided. I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo by the Danites. It was
then the rule that all the enemies of Joseph Smith should be killed, and I know
of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and
his Apostles while the Church was there. It has always been a well understood
doctrine of the Church that it was right and praiseworthy to kill every person
who spoke evil of the Prophet. This doctrine had been strictly lived up to in
Utah, until the Gentiles arrived in such great numbers that it became unsafe to
follow the practice, but the doctrine is still believed, and no year passes
without one or more of those who have spoken evil of Brigham Young being
killed, in a secret manner."
>Johnson's army
>was not sent because BY was a violent leader - they were sent over polygamy.
>
>Chad
Apparently, you're another victim of Mormon spin-doctoring. Church leaders and
apologists don't want you to know the weighter reasons Johnson's Army was sent;
so they brainwash you by telling you it was a minor issue like polygamy. And
nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the real reasons President
Buchanan sent the army to Utah:
"President B. Young in his sermon declared that the thread was cut between us
and the U. S. and that the Almighty recognized us as a free and independent
people and that no officer appointed by the government should come and rule
over us from this time forth." (Diary of Hosea Stout, September 6, 1857.)
"It was now established, on sufficient evidence, that the Mormons refused
obedience to gentile law, that federal officials had been virtually driven from
Utah, that one, at least, of the federal judges had been threatened with
violence while his court was in session, and that the records of the court had
been destroyed or concealed. With the advice of his cabinet, therefore, and
yielding perhaps not unwillingly to the outcry of the republican party,
President Buchanan determined that Brigham should be superseded as governor,
and that a force should be sent to the territory, ostensibly as a posse
comitatus, to sustain the authority of his successor." (History of Utah,
Hubert Bancroft, p. 495.)
"Difficulties arose when the first appointments were made by President Fillmore
to federal offices in the territory. Scarcely had these appointees taken their
oath of office when three of them: Chief Justice Brandenberry, Associate
Justice Brocchus and the Territorial Secretary, Broughton D. Harris, refused to
stay longer in the Territory and returned to the Eastern States. There they
spread the report that first, they had been compelled to leave Utah because of
the lawless and seditious acts of Governor Young; second, that Governor Young
was wasting federal funds allotted to the Territory; third, that the Saints
were immoral, and were practicing polygamy." ("The Restored Church," Deseret
Book, 1974, William
R. Berrett, p. 321.)
"Judge Stiles forwarded an affidavit affirming much of Drummond's charges.
These charges were further substantiated by a letter to President Buchanan,
written by Mr. W. F. Magraw.....'In relation to the present social and
political condition of the territory of Utah.....There is no disguising the
fact that there is no vestige of law and order, no protection for life or
property; the civil laws of the territory are overshadowed and neutralized by a
so-styled ecclesiastical organization [the "Council of Fifty"], as despotic,
dangerous, and damnable, as
has ever been known to exist in any country, and which is ruining, not only
those who do not subscribe to their religious code, but is driving the Mormon
community to desperation." (Berrett, p. 322-23.)
As Berrett alluded to, in 1851, Utah Supreme Court Justice Broughton D. Harris
fled Utah Territory because of the unlawful and dangerous activities the
Mormons were engaging in: "Joining him in flight were Chief Justice
Brandebury, Associate Justice Brocchus, and U. S. Indian Agent Henry Day. They
were the first of at least sixteen federal officers who would abandon their
posts in Utah out of fright, frustration, or both, over the next dozen years.
In addition to Harris, Brandebury, Broccus, and Day in 1851, they included
Indian Agent Stephen B. Rose, also 1851; Secretary Benjamin G. Ferris and
Indian Agent Jacob Holeman, 1853; Surveyor General David H. Burr, Indian Agent
Garland Hurt, and Associate Justices George P. Stiles and W. W. Drummond, 1857;
Chief Justice Delano R. Eckles, 1858; Governor John W. Dawson, 1861; associate
justices H. R. Crosby and R. P. Flenniken and Indian Agent Henry Martin, 1862.
Three others, Chief Justice Lazarus Reid, Associate Justice Lenodias Shaver,
and Indian Agent Edward A. Bedell, died in office during this period......
"They said they found Mormon leaders to be disloyal to the national government
and in complete control of the 'opinions, the actions, the property, and even
the lives' of the people.
'Their conduct shows that they either disregard, or cannot appreciate, the
blessings of the present form of government established for them by the United
States,' they told President Fillmore.' "
("Forgotten Kingdom," David A. Bigler, pp. 59-60.)
"Justice Stiles reported that he was intimidated in his own court, and his
official records were stolen and burned. Justice Drummond also returned to
Washington, D. C., and in a long letter accompanying his grievances, among them
the charge that the court records had been destroyed with the knowledge and
approval of Brigham Young, and that the officers of the government were
constantly insulted and harassed. He insisted that affairs in Utah were in a
treasonable and disgraceful state. Mormon protestations that affairs had been
misrepresented had been ignored; proof that the records were safe did not
change the fact that they had been taken without sanction from the office of
the judge." (Juanita Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 13.)
"A purposeful mob on December 29 [1856] broke into the law offices of
Associate Supreme Court Justice George P. Stiles and looted the federal
appointee's papers and library. The raiders pretended to dump his books and
court records into a nearby privy and set them on fire. An outspoken defender
of the primacy of the district courts, Stiles was so upset by the apparent
burning of government property and so fearful for his own safety that he soon
after fled the territory." (Bigler, p. 130.)
"To justify his decision to send an American army to Utah, President James
Buchanan later submitted to Congress nearly five dozen letters and reports
written over a six-year period, alleging treason, disloyalty, or other serious
offenses. Pointing up the importance of Indian relations in Utah's early
years, forty-six of the number came from the Office of Indian Affairs, six
written by Garland Hurt.
"Especially inflammatory was the list of charges leveled in the fiery
resignation on March 30, 1857, of Associate Justice William Drummond. Among
other things, Drumond said there were men 'set apart' by the Mormon church [the
"Danites"] to 'take both the lives and property' of dissenters, that American
citizens were illegally imprisoned, and that Brigham Young told grand juries
'whom to indict and whom not.' " (Bigler, p. 143.)
Chad, are you feeling more educated now?
Randy J.