Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

When will the first temple be sold?

34 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 28, 2003, 9:18:46 PM9/28/03
to
Mormonism's growth rate is slowing a lot. Activity rates are really low.
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

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 3:00:35 AM9/29/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

> 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

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 5:14:39 AM9/29/03
to

"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

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:25:14 AM9/29/03
to
Andrew R wrote:

LOL

- Scott

TheJordan6

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:15:03 PM9/29/03
to
>From: Scott Marquardt not...@notdoot.com
>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

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 10:55:21 PM9/29/03
to
Well, I reject your first several premises. The convert and activity rate is
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

unread,
Sep 29, 2003, 11:50:20 PM9/29/03
to
Stormin Mormon wrote:

>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!

http://snurl.com/2if4

Read the whole bloomin' report before you claim that all is well in Zion.

- Scott

Bubba

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:12:05 AM9/30/03
to
What is your source for numbers?

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message

news:4duhnvk3qfpvqhl31...@4ax.com...

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:21:30 AM9/30/03
to
Look at bottom of post.

Goner

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 12:24:40 AM9/30/03
to
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 22:12:05 -0600, Bubba wrote
(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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 2:35:07 AM9/30/03
to
ancient_lights_and_perf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 4:35:26 AM9/30/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 4:37:25 AM9/30/03
to
Scott Marquardt wrote:

> Look at bottom of post.

Reading is truly fundamental, is it not, Scott?

Scott Marquardt

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 8:41:32 AM9/30/03
to
John Lemings wrote:
>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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 11:47:18 AM9/30/03
to

>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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 1:02:17 PM9/30/03
to
>From: Scott Marquardt not...@notdoot.com
>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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 1:10:47 PM9/30/03
to
>From: "Tyler Waite" twa...@iindiana.edu
>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

unread,
Sep 30, 2003, 2:19:24 PM9/30/03
to

Lucky for them that, as a church, they don't have to pay property tax on
all those temple lots.

garydw

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 7:54:56 AM10/1/03
to

"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

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 3:03:22 PM10/1/03
to
It really doesn't surprise me and I'm active. Somewhat.
Dave

"Scott Marquardt" <not...@notdoot.com> wrote in message
news:0euinv406pf5810vn...@4ax.com...

Woody Brison

unread,
Oct 1, 2003, 8:33:34 PM10/1/03
to
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20030930130217...@mb-m16.aol.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.

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 12:33:03 AM10/2/03
to
Woody Brison <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote:

Yo Woody, my main man! Long time no hear! how's the viola coming?

Drop me a line!

Goner

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 1:02:26 AM10/2/03
to
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:33:34 -0600, Woody Brison wrote
(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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:10:14 AM10/2/03
to
Hey, Randy, you can add another to that list:

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 12:29:48 PM10/2/03
to
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?

<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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 2:27:08 PM10/2/03
to

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 4:54:22 PM10/2/03
to
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:32:30 PM10/2/03
to
net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in message news:<64c46056.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:34:59 PM10/2/03
to
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote in message news:<f36171a3.03100...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Brigham Young's order was that the wagon train be left
> alone. But, antimormonism posits that he ordered the
> attack anyway.
<snip>

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

unread,
Oct 2, 2003, 8:45:52 PM10/2/03
to
When we reach perfection and have no need for temples.
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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 11:51:27 AM10/3/03
to

Riiiiiight. <slowing backing away>

TheJordan6

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 5:07:17 PM10/3/03
to
>From: net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs)
>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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 5:22:03 PM10/3/03
to
Randy wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 6:14:06 PM10/3/03
to
>From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison)
>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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 6:20:07 PM10/3/03
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 6:41:59 PM10/3/03
to
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?

> 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 7:09:40 PM10/3/03
to

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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 9:33:25 PM10/3/03
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 3, 2003, 10:10:04 PM10/3/03
to
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. 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

unread,
Oct 4, 2003, 11:45:56 AM10/4/03
to