For Helen and whomever
newguy
would indicate you are not completely happy with the teachings of Mormonism.
I would be curious what you think of the following which show that Brigham
Young taught that Christ was married and most likely a polygamist I neither
condemn nor accept the following, but was just curious as to your feelings.
newguy
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259 & 260
It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana
of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be
discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that
occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and
the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and
improper to say the best of it.
I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most
pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow
him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious
ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of
their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed tarred and
feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old Prophet
mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see His seed, prolong his
days, etc”?
--
.
Diana
"newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:u2ag6rd...@corp.supernews.com...
I don't know about Helen, but Brigham Young could speculate with the best of
'em. Sometimes he was right. Sometimes he wasn't. He himself made it quite
clear that he was human and wrong from time to time. ;-)
However, as to his opinion that Jesus may have been married.......that's
hardly news. Nor, though the idea may be controversial in eclesiastical
circles, is it considered heinous, heresy or incredibly radical. Jesus could
very well have been married, y'know. Nothing in the bible says He
wasn't...and the customs of the time dictating what a man could and could
not do indicated that He probably was. For instance, it was customary to
allow only married men to preach in the synagogues. Jesus preached in the
synagogues. Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time would
have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether there
were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His wife
and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
matter?
As to whether He was a polygamist. Well, there is no mention of one wife,
let alone more, but polygamy was allowed in that culture. He was the foster
son of a general contractor sort of person, not exactly dirt poor...but we
have no evidence either way.
Me...I think He was probably married. (shrug) So do many, MANY other
Christians who aren't LDS. ;-)
Helen
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...
I agree, he may have very well been married. It is
my personal opinion that back in that time women were of
little importance. Their spiritual and intellectual worth was
not valued by even the most enlightened men.
Those who wrote about Christ would have seen the fact that he was
married as an insignificant one.I am
of course just hazarding a guess here.I am sure that ther
are other members of the LDS faith who will disagree with me.
So my guess is that he may very well have been married.
We do not know for sure. As far as him being a polygamist,
I really don't know about that one , Brigham Young
was merely speculating. Prophets"opinions "are not necessarily correct.
We have no evidence to support that he was married nor as to
whether he was a polygamist or not. I guess there are those in
the LDS faith whom would like to believe that he was the latter
as it could justify their own aspirations.
Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
being married and all.
Helen
Mids
impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they are
pregnant.
Mids
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
helen wrote:I agree, he may have very well been married. It is
Diana
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip to>
> Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
> Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> being married and all.
Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus had siblings....
Diana
"Mids" <mido...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20011223061445...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> Helen, I would venture to think sometimes that in the LDS religion, the
> impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they
are
> pregnant.
>
> Mids
I've been LDS for 52 years, and have never felt 'of little importance' as a
woman. To those who think that we are, why? Because we do not hold the
priesthood? So what?
That there is a cultural problem with women in the US is true, but that is
true throughout the society. On the other hand, Mormon women were not only
the first women in the United States to gain the right to vote, but were
also actively incouraged to become physicians, etc. during a time when
everybody ELSE denied women the right to do so.
So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I was
even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion of my
marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were given
any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and do
something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.
Mids
of...I see no other women doing anything. I could give a rat's a** if they do
or don't, I know what *I* do and that is what is important.
////////* * * * */////////
Mids
~~Be good to others~~
R. L. Measures
mido...@aol.comnospam (Mids) wrote:
€ being good to mormonites means avoiding unauthorized history.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...
>
I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were scripture.
>
> However, as to his opinion that Jesus may have been married.......that's
> hardly news. Nor, though the idea may be controversial in eclesiastical
> circles, is it considered heinous, heresy or incredibly radical. Jesus
could
> very well have been married, y'know. Nothing in the bible says He
> wasn't...and the customs of the time dictating what a man could and could
> not do indicated that He probably was. For instance, it was customary to
> allow only married men to preach in the synagogues. Jesus preached in the
> synagogues. Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
would
> have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
polygamist.
>
> There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether there
> were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
wife
> and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
> matter?
It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
School classes.
>
> As to whether He was a polygamist. Well, there is no mention of one wife,
> let alone more, but polygamy was allowed in that culture. He was the
foster
> son of a general contractor sort of person, not exactly dirt poor...but we
> have no evidence either way.
>
> Me...I think He was probably married. (shrug) So do many, MANY other
> Christians who aren't LDS. ;-)
Thank you for your opinions. newguy
>
>
newguy
--
.
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
Prophets are correct when they are speaking of something we believe. When
they are speaking of something we do not believe or cannot accept; then
there teachings are merely speculations and opinions.
> We have no evidence to support that he was married nor as to
> whether he was a polygamist or not. I guess there are those in
> the LDS faith whom would like to believe that he was the latter
> as it could justify their own aspirations.
If it was the custom of the time, why should He not have been a polygamist?
Either it was a custom or it was not. In Sunday School class today, the
lesson was on families and Temples. The claim was made that there are three
degrees in the Celestial Kingdom. The very highest degree requires that one
be married. This concludes that Christ had to be married. Is this a LDS
concept? I asked the question and was told it was a LDS concept.
> Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
> Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> being married and all.
I agree. Why would anyone think that. Is sex such a terrible thing?
newguy
> Helen
>
>
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c25efdf$1...@news.antelecom.net...
Yes Diana, "I am woman hear me roar." For whatever it is worth, I do not
feel that women are second class citizens. newguy
>
>
>
>
Diana
<snip>
> Yes Diana, "I am woman hear me roar." For whatever it is worth, I do not
> feel that women are second class citizens. newguy
(Grin) I'm quite certain that you don't, newguy. I was taking aim at those
people who insist that Mormons DO think this.
Diana
>
>
<snip>
> I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were scripture.
Yes, he did...with the caveat that he needed to be able to go over
everything he said, pray about it and correct it if it was
incorrect......which he never had the chance to do with anything in the
Journal of Discourses. There is also the small matter of having to have
anything considered scripture actually canonized....
<snip to>
>> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
> would
> > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
>
> I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
> polygamist.
Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and only
circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There is
NOTHING to say that He was not.
> > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
there
> > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
> wife
> > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
> > matter?
>
> It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> School classes.
That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the other.
It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but His
teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c26...@news.antelecom.net...
>
> "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> news:u2cngl6...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> <snip>
> > I think Brigham also made the statement that his teachings were
scripture.
>
> Yes, he did...with the caveat that he needed to be able to go over
> everything he said, pray about it and correct it if it was
> incorrect......which he never had the chance to do with anything in the
> Journal of Discourses. There is also the small matter of having to have
> anything considered scripture actually canonized....
The church used the Journal of Discourses in some of their lesson books.
>
> <snip to>
> >> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time
> > would
> > > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
> >
> > I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably a
> > polygamist.
>
> Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and only
> circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There
is
> NOTHING to say that He was not.
According to what I hear from the LDS church, if He was not married then He
could not enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
> > > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
> there
> > > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His
> > wife
> > > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does
it
> > > matter?
> >
> > It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> > School classes.
>
> That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the
other.
> It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but
His
> teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.
Not if the church uses Him as an example and then asked that we try to be
like Him. newguy
>
>
>
>
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c266eef$1...@news.antelecom.net...
I know, I know; I just wanted to make sure you knew I was one them old goats
that believe that, given the same opportunities, we are all 1st class
citizens. ;-))) newguy
>
>
Diana
....
>
> The church used the Journal of Discourses in some of their lesson books.
Yep. Sure did. However, I have also seen quotes from "Mere Christianity" in
'em. '-) the Journal of Discourses has a great deal of valuable information
in 'em, and a great deal of truth.......and a great deal of speculation and
outright rhapsodizing. The thing about the Journal of Discourses is (and
this is important) that they were speeches transcribed by listeners and
published in England without the speakers ever having a chance to go over
them.
So...scripture they ain't, and should be considered secondary, if not
tertiary and definitely not primary, sources of doctrine.
> > <snip to>
> > >> Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> > > > made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His
time
> > > would
> > > > have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
> > >
> > > I would have no problem believeing that Jesus was married and probably
a
> > > polygamist.
> >
> > Me either, but frankly, there is no concrete evidence either way, and
only
> > circumstantial (though rather strong) evidence to say that He was. There
> is
> > NOTHING to say that He was not.
>
> According to what I hear from the LDS church, if He was not married then
He
> could not enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
This is true. However, that doesn't mean that he had to marry HERE. We
simply don't know. However, as I have said, it is my personal belief that He
did. I will not, however, lose my faith if it turns out that He was not.
> > > > There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether
> > there
> > > > were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about
His
> > > wife
> > > > and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know.
Does
> it
> > > > matter?
> > >
> > > It matters enough for teachings of this sort to be missing from Sunday
> > > School classes.
> >
> > That's because there isn't anything in the scriptures one way or the
> other.
> > It isn't His possible, or even probable, marriage that concerns us, but
> His
> > teachings, His life, His death and His resurrection.
>
> Not if the church uses Him as an example and then asked that we try to be
> like Him. newguy
Newguy, HE asked us to be perfect even as His Father in Heaven is perfect.
(Grin) considering the impossibility of this one, don't you think that we
have enough on our plates to worry about who He married or if He did? It's
enough to know that WE are commanded to marry, if we can. ;-) Of course,
since I do happen to lean toward the idea that He was indeed married, how
can I disagree with your argument?
Helen
To some catholics it is..it is perceived as a sin. H/W I know many catholics
who are
not this way....
>
newguy
--
.
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c26b9ba$0$16784$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> news:u2cnv5n...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > --
> > .
> > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
> > > news:3c25...@news.antelecom.net...
> > > >
> > > > "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:u2ag6rd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > If it was the custom of the time, why should He not have been a
> polygamist?
> > Either it was a custom or it was not. In Sunday School class today, the
> > lesson was on families and Temples. The claim was made that there are
> three
> > degrees in the Celestial Kingdom. The very highest degree requires that
> one
> > be married. This concludes that Christ had to be married. Is this a
LDS
> > concept? I asked the question and was told it was a LDS concept.
> >
> > > Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is
that
> > > Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> > > did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> > > being married and all.
> >
> > I agree. Why would anyone think that. Is sex such a terrible thing?
> > newguy
> >
> > > Helen
> > >
> > >
>
>
> To some catholics it is..it is perceived as a sin. H/W I know many
catholics
> who are
> not this way....
I know a couple of Catholic Priests in our neighborhood that were not this
way either........ They go to trial in about 6 months, something about a
few boys....... newguy
> >
>
>
Helen
Fool Speck
To give Catholics their due, I have to say I read some statistics one
time that showed Catholics generally have a very playful attitude
towards sex. And I was a bit amused when I heard a priest
ecstatically citing these statistics. But this is only anecdotal as I
cannot cite these stats for you.
Steve Lowther
newguy
--
.
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01122...@posting.google.com...
Playful as opposed to ......? newguy
Fool Speck
Unplayful? Prudish? Mechanical? Inhibited? ... steve lowther
Lee Paulson
> "Mids" <mido...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20011223061445...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> > Helen, I would venture to think sometimes that in the LDS religion, the
> > impression is that women still ARE of very little importance, unless they
> are
> > pregnant.
> >
> > Mids
>
> I've been LDS for 52 years, and have never felt 'of little importance' as a
> woman. To those who think that we are, why? Because we do not hold the
> priesthood? So what?
>
> That there is a cultural problem with women in the US is true, but that is
> true throughout the society. On the other hand, Mormon women were not only
> the first women in the United States to gain the right to vote, but were
> also actively incouraged to become physicians, etc. during a time when
> everybody ELSE denied women the right to do so.
>
Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
> So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I was
> even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion of my
> marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were given
> any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and do
> something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
> letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
> somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.
Indeed, that is not a concept to be restricted to LDS women. However,
I think it's not the role in society that people are referring to, but
specifically the role of women within the church. And of course, the
LDS church is not the only church people claim oppress women.
Lee
Diana
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
for the women involved, personally...but I digress..
......and I didn't say that Mormon women were the first physicians. I said
they were encouraged to become so when women elsewhere in the nation were
discouraged from doing so. Brigham Young personally sent women back East to
medical school to study medicine. However, I thank you for your factlet.
> > So stop with the "Mormon women are oppressed" bit. We aren't. I'm not. I
was
> > even the principle wage earner for my family for a significant portion
of my
> > marriage, and HE stayed home with the kids. We certainly never were
given
> > any grief over that. So, if YOU feel "oppressed", get off your butt and
do
> > something about it. Go to school. Get a job.......or better yet, stop
> > letting people tell you that what you do, because you are a woman, is
> > somehow less admirable or useful or valuable than anything a man can do.
>
>
> Indeed, that is not a concept to be restricted to LDS women. However,
> I think it's not the role in society that people are referring to, but
> specifically the role of women within the church. And of course, the
> LDS church is not the only church people claim oppress women.
They can claim all they want to.....and when they do I will rebut it.
Diana
James Hughes
Your statement that BY sent women back east to medical school, can you back
that up? Take a read in Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell it all' and you will
hear of a much different BY. In fact it tells about the... Oh I don't want
to spoil it for you. Well let's just suffice to say that BY wanted to keep
everyone (and I'm sure that included the women) uneducated.
James
Diana
"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:B84F7627.5349%jam...@uia.net...
> Diana,
>
> Your statement that BY sent women back east to medical school, can you
back
> that up? Take a read in Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell it all' and you will
> hear of a much different BY. In fact it tells about the... Oh I don't want
> to spoil it for you. Well let's just suffice to say that BY wanted to keep
> everyone (and I'm sure that included the women) uneducated.
Yes. In 1873 Brigham Young sent women back east to study medicine so that
they could come back to Utah and serve as physicians. The first woman sent
was Romania Pratt, who enrolled in Womens Medical College of Pennsylvania in
Philadelphia. Next, Margaret Curtis went, but she came home early because
she was homesick. She later went back and completed her degree, but in the
meantime, her sister-wife Ellis Curtis took her place. these were the first
few..and these women all became very respected physicians and leaders of
their field and their communities.
You can read about Ellis Curtis-Ship here:
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/SHIPP,ELLIS.html
Helen
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
written..
H/w, have you not found the culture in our faith encourages women to
focus on marriage and mother hood more so that the pursuit of a good
career? While I do appreciate the churches family values it has been very
obvious to me that
most people in the church believe that a woman should forget her career
once she has married.
I do understand the importance of mothers being at home with their
children, and one can still do this
while working part time. My husband and I married while we were both in our
second year of university.
I was pregnant wit hour fist child in my final year..I had plenty of
people(in the church) ask me if I was going to give up Uni and
my career aspirations now that I was pregnant.Many were surprised when I
said that I intended to
stay home for a year and return to the work force part time.I have had my
fair share of negative reactions from
members of the church when they hear that I have children and still work
part time
While I do think that women are quite valued within the LDS faith I do
personally feel that
many members are very narrow minded concerning women's roles within the work
force.
It does however depend on what work we do. As a Nurse I am very fortunate
that
my roster is a part time one and does give me plenty of time to be home with
my children.
I think mothers working part time is also beneficial to the fathers who get
to spend some
time taking care of the children and developing a bond with them.
I believe that women should feel free to make their own choices and not
feel guilty if they
still yearn a career and and mother hood. Society has often criticised
working mothers for
"wanting it all" Ie..happy marriage, careers and children H/w, when a man
has all of these things
no one ever begrudges him for having or desiring them.....
.
Diana
<snip>
> Society has often criticised
> working mothers for
> "wanting it all" Ie..happy marriage, careers and children H/w, when a man
> has all of these things
> no one ever begrudges him for having or desiring them.....
I've been a stay at home mother, and I've been a full time career principle
wage earner with my husband at home, AND I've been a full time wage earner
with my husband also earning and both of us attempting to raise our children
right.
Believe me, I know which I prefer, and which was better for the kids. I
prefer to be home. Didn't matter to the kids which of us was home, as long
as one of us was...and I really do believe our children are more important
to the future than our office skills are...or our nursing/sales/research/you
name it skills are. Whether we are male OR female.
It is true that Society hasn't condemned men for 'wanting it all', career
and family....but Helen, they DON'T have it all, do they? They have
traditionally had a career, a family, AND A WIFE. Without the wife they
can't 'have it all' any more than we can. They have the same stresses and
problems we face in attempting to do so.
Until the industrial revolution, families worked together; farmers and their
wives and their kids ALL worked the farm, there was no such thing as a 'stay
at home' spouse. The 'stay at home' bit only came about when food gathering
(jobs) were found outside the family unit..and that is pretty recent in
human history for most people. In fact, just a little over two hundred
years. We don't know how to deal with it yet.
One thing we DO know by now though is that if we can't include the children
in our income gathering anymore (and we can't) because they require a LOT
more education to make them ready for the world than they did a few
centuries ago, then one of us has to stay home and take care of
that.......and the work done by 'that one' must be given the respect it
deserves, not avoided as somehow 'lesser' work. I can't think of one thing
any person can do that is more important that raising good kids, not one. I
didn't feel like a second class citizen when I got to stay home, and I
certainly didn't consider Jim any less admirable when he stayed home and I
earned the money.
I wonder how many women would be so anxious to 'find fulfillment' in a
career outside the home if what was done INSIDE it was given it's proper
due?
Anyway, now my kids are grown and I'm in school again. I'm lucky. I DO get
to have it all, I just didn't get to have it all at once.
Helen
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
Another good post. You obviously have a very supportive husband as do I .
The most influential factor is that both partners have shared goals and
values. It works if you children/family come first.
In my case, two incomes is the only way to pay the mortgage and bills. I
also am a happier person because
I still feel like the woman I was ten years ago and have my own identity.
Because I am a happier person I am a better mother.
I guess it is also great because I work only thirty hours a fortnight. I
am here most of the time
with my kids and working night shifts means that the kids are in bed on
some of the occasions that
I am work. Not all Jobs allow for that.
When the kids are older I will possibly increase my hours...and study
more...that's the beauty of having them young...
I never did feel like a second citizen, I do not support Midi's notion of
the LDS attitude towards women.
I have always felt respected and valued within the LDS community.But it also
has alot to do with
our own self esteem too, you can only feel like a second class citizen if
you have been conditioned to think so (and the church does not do that) or
you allow your self to be treated like one.
I do think that women and men are uniquely different and have different
roles..but we
are equal in spiritual and intellectual worth. And I know that this is the
churches beleif too.
Cheers
Helen
Diana
<snip>
> Another good post. You obviously have a very supportive husband as do I .
Yes. He was very supportive, during all our life together.
> The most influential factor is that both partners have shared goals and
> values. It works if you children/family come first.
> In my case, two incomes is the only way to pay the mortgage and bills.
Unfortunately, that is true of more families that it should be true of; it's
an all too common fact of life!
>I
> also am a happier person because
> I still feel like the woman I was ten years ago and have my own identity.
> Because I am a happier person I am a better mother.
> I guess it is also great because I work only thirty hours a fortnight. I
> am here most of the time
> with my kids and working night shifts means that the kids are in bed on
> some of the occasions that
> I am work. Not all Jobs allow for that.
You are VERY lucky; fifteen hours a week is a very, very nice deal!
> When the kids are older I will possibly increase my hours...and study
> more...that's the beauty of having them young...
> I never did feel like a second citizen, I do not support Midi's notion of
> the LDS attitude towards women.
> I have always felt respected and valued within the LDS community.But it
also
> has alot to do with
> our own self esteem too, you can only feel like a second class citizen if
> you have been conditioned to think so (and the church does not do that)
or
> you allow your self to be treated like one.
...and THERE'S the biggie. If we don't allow others to treat us that way, if
we don't think of ourselves that way, then it's amazing how little of the
time we are viewed that way. ;-)
> I do think that women and men are uniquely different and have different
> roles..but we
> are equal in spiritual and intellectual worth. And I know that this is the
> churches beleif too.
Indeed it is!!! At least, I have always believed so, and found it to be true
in my life; I've done the married bit and the single mother bit, the stay at
home and the career high earning professional; I prefer married and stay at
home. (grin) MUCH prefer married......but I didn't get a vote there. Still,
I've had a chance to see a few different sides of the issue!
Helen
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good one
too
Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..
Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with my
kids and
they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...
Helen
Lee Paulson
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..
>
> ......and I didn't say that Mormon women were the first physicians. I said
> they were encouraged to become so when women elsewhere in the nation were
> discouraged from doing so. Brigham Young personally sent women back East to
> medical school to study medicine. However, I thank you for your factlet.
>
>
Ah, Diana, I did not mean to antagonize you. I do know a bit about
Wyoming, largely because I spend an enormous amount of my life there
(like now). I am unaware of the alleged Mormon connection to suffrage
in Wyoming, and have been unable to document that at all. There were
some humdinger women involved in suffrage in Wyoming though, and
nowhere can I find their religious affiliation. Can you give me some
sources?
I know you didn't say the first female physicians were LDS. I didn't
claim you did. Can you also find some info on BY and female
physicians?
Thanks.
Lee
Lee Paulson
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..
Diana, you snipped the part where you said Utah was the first state,
which prompted my Wyoming comment, but that's okay. I'll look into
the busines about the US requiring the removal of voting privileges
for women in Utah.
A friend just directed me to the Women of the West Museum's website.
This is their verbiage:
"The Western suffrage story began when Wyoming transformed a dream
into reality in 1869. That year, the twenty-member Territorial
Legislature approved a revolutionary measure stating: "That every
woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in this Territory, may
at every election to be holden under the law thereof, cast her vote."
William Bright, the bill's sponsor, had come to share his wife,
Julia's, belief that suffrage was a basic right of American
citizenship.
There was no organized suffrage campaign, and not a single parade,
debate or public display. But women kept vigil outside Governor John
A. Campbell's office until he signed the bill into law. Eliza A.
"Grandma" Swain of Laramie claimed the honor of casting Wyoming's
first female ballot in 1870. Esther Morris of South Park City and
Caroline Neil gained fame as the nation's first female justices of the
peace. The next year Wyoming's women sat on juries, another simple but
revolutionary inroad for women's rights."
Note there was no organized movement, either LDS or no according to
the museum. Ester Hobart Morris is widely acclaimed as the "Mother
of Western Suffrage" around these parts. She was an amazing lobbyist,
but was not LDS. Campbell, the governor who signed the bill including
the suffrage language, was not LDS.
Diana, I think it's great that you are proud to be an LDS woman. But
I think accuracy is nice too.
Lee
Lee Paulson
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> > Just to set the record straight, Wyoming was the first territory to
> > grant women suffrage in 1869. Utah was second in 1870. The first
> > female physician was Elizabeth Blackwell, who graduated from Geneva
> > College in Geneva, NY, in 1849.
>
> True, Wyoming was the first state, followed immediately by Utah, but the
> communities that advocated both states were MORMON, Lee. By the way, were
> you aware that the United States forced Utah to take the right to vote AWAY
> from the women before it could become a state? True, as soon as it did
> become so it gave the right back. Now I would call that a huge leap of faith
> for the women involved, personally...but I digress..
Amazing how an old horse can learn new tricks. I did a brief review
of Utah history. You are correct about Congress rescinding suffrage
in the Utah Territory, but not for particularly nefarious purposes,
evidently. This was all tied into the issue of polygamy and
statehood.
See http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/w/WOMANSUFFERAGE.html
Note that like the Women of the West Museum information, this article
does not indicate that suffrage was an LDS concept, but a civil rights
concept.
Lee
Diana
<snip to>
>
> You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good one
> too
> Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..
Twenty years, and it was good, and it did last. Helen, I was attempting to
gently hint about the truth rather than baldly stating it because I wanted
to avoid blurting out 'I'm a widow' because doing this in response to a post
like yours tends to result in discomfort on the part of the person to whom
I"m responding, and makes me look like I'm digging for sympathy. I've been a
widow for seven years now, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (Grin)
I've been thinking about using "Well, before my hubbie kicked the bucket
seven years ago, he..(fill in the blank)" do you think that would take some
of the wierdness out of it? (Grin)
> Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with
my
> kids and
> they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
> It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...
Not so amazing...sometimes 'sitting on the net' is more relaxing than a nap.
;-)
Diana
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> Ah, Diana, I did not mean to antagonize you. I do know a bit about
> Wyoming, largely because I spend an enormous amount of my life there
> (like now). I am unaware of the alleged Mormon connection to suffrage
> in Wyoming, and have been unable to document that at all. There were
> some humdinger women involved in suffrage in Wyoming though, and
> nowhere can I find their religious affiliation. Can you give me some
> sources?
I'm sorry, Lee.....I over reacted. Not your fault. I have also done a lot of
research about this regarding both Utah and Wyoming; the two, in regard to
womens suffrage, are very closely linked politically, if not always
theologically. ;-) However, in Wyoming the most influential women and the
most outspoken were NOT Mormon; the first women elected to office were in
Wyoming and most definitely not Mormon...but the communities that supported
them and actually voted for them were as likely to be Mormon as not.
According to what I have been able to find out, the Mormon communities were
the reason those outspoken non Mormon women got anywhere at all, because
they were the swing votes; they all voted FOR suffrage. There were (and
still are) a LOT of Mormon communities in Wyoming.
> I know you didn't say the first female physicians were LDS. I didn't
> claim you did. Can you also find some info on BY and female
> physicians?
He announced his intention to send women to medical school in October of
1873, and sent them every year for several years. I posted one link in
response to one post about one of the women involved:
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/s/SHIPP,ELLIS.html
This is a biography of Ellis Shipp, one of two sister-wives who went back as
a part of this program. It wasn't easy for any of 'em, but when is anything
ever easy?
Diana
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip>
> Diana, you snipped the part where you said Utah was the first state,
> which prompted my Wyoming comment, but that's okay.
Not intentionally!! I'm sorry about that. ;-)
> I'll look into
> the busines about the US requiring the removal of voting privileges
> for women in Utah.
Please do. I've always been amused by the fact that one territory was the
first to give the women the vote, but the other state was the first state in
which women actually voted. ;-) People keep getting the two things
confused.
<snip website and quotes for brevity>
Here is a link for the following information:
http://www.utahhistorytogo.org/suffrage.html
Wyoming was the first territory in which women recieved the right to vote.
Utah was the second, following in months. Utah women were the first to
actually be able to excercise that privilege.
The vote was taken away from Utah women in 1887, by federal anti-polygamy
laws, laws that the federal government required Utah to abide by in order to
become a state. However, when Utah agreed to these laws, the US congress
approved statehood.....and the Utah womens suffrage movement (none was
needed the first time..) went into action. Here is a quote from the above
link:
"Despite a move to put the matter to a separate vote, supporters of women's
suffrage managed to get it written into the new Utah Constitution by a
comfortable majority. The new document was adopted on 5 November 1895 with a
provision that "the rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold
office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and
female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and
religious rights and privileges."
Utah women probably succeeded in 1895 where women elsewhere had failed
because their efforts were approved by leaders of the main political force
in the state-the Mormon church. Leading suffragists, in addition to Margaret
Caine and Emily Richards, included relatives and friends of church leaders:
Emmeline B. Wells, editor of the Exponent; Zina D. H. Young, wife of Brigham
Young; Jane Richards, wife of Apostle Franklin D. Richards; and Sarah M.
Kimball, among many others. They could not be dismissed as fire-eating
radicals."
> Diana, I think it's great that you are proud to be an LDS woman. But
> I think accuracy is nice too.
Yes. It is, isn't it?
Wyoming women recieved the vote in 1869. Utah women FIRST got it in Feb. of
1870, had it taken away by the Federal government, and then got it back in
1895 when Utah became a state. Y'know, sometimes I wonder, considering what
the United States Government kept DOING to us, why we wanted so badly to be
a part of it, and why we still love it and support it..but we do and we did.
Forgiving group of idiots, we, I suppose. (grin)
diana
Diana
Well, the issue has been that Mormons are/were supposed to be so anti-women,
male dominated and Mormon women were downtrodden. In this light then, the
idea that Utah women were given the right to vote the first time without any
campaigning on their part at all, no demonstrations, no candle light
vigils....just as a matter of course would seem important.
After all, the thing that started this conversation was the accusation that
Mormons considered women to be second class citizens and unworthy of
rights..and no, I am aware that this accusation did NOT come from you,
Lee!!!
It's just that when I get these cockamamie accusations that Mormons consider
women to be something less than men, I get angry.....and can't help pointing
out that unlike the rest of the nation, which had to do some heavy duty
sacrificing/campaigning/convincing to get women the right to vote, OUR fight
was not to GET it, but to KEEP it...and the fight wasn't against the Mormon
men, but against all those holier than thou non-Mormon politicians who were
bound and determined to control the way we sorshiped (anti polygamy laws
were precisely that...laws against the way we worshiped..) We didn't have
any problems with MORMON men.
(grump)
...as an aside, are you aware that Utah is the only state in the union where
it is unconstitutional to be polygamous, not just against a legal statute?
It was a requirement of the Federal government that this be included, or
Utah would not have been allowed to become a state. No other state in the
entire union was required to do this. I would call that 'nefarious'.
Diana
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2c...@news.antelecom.net...
>
With or without the garments. ;-)) newguy
>
>
Helen
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2c...@news.antelecom.net...
>
> news:3c2c5574$0$30287$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> <snip to>
> >
> > You must have been married for a while and it sounded like a good
one
> > too
> > Sorry to hear that the marriage did not last ..
>
> Twenty years, and it was good, and it did last. Helen, I was attempting
to
> gently hint about the truth rather than baldly stating it because I wanted
> to avoid blurting out 'I'm a widow' because doing this in response to a
post
> like yours tends to result in discomfort on the part of the person to whom
> I"m responding, and makes me look like I'm digging for sympathy. I've been
a
> widow for seven years now, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. (Grin)
>
> I've been thinking about using "Well, before my hubbie kicked the bucket
> seven years ago, he..(fill in the blank)" do you think that would take
some
> of the wierdness out of it? (Grin)
no
not really...
> > Yes..I am very lucky to have such practical hours, it works in well with
> my
> > kids and
> > they don't miss me too much. I am pretty busy and often tired.
> > It is amazing that I find time to sit on the net.h/w...
>
> Not so amazing...sometimes 'sitting on the net' is more relaxing than a
nap.
> ;-)
>
Oh God...I'm such a clusz. I am very sorry Diana.
I initially wondered about weather your husband had passed on on.
I am sorry to hear that he has gone.Please excuse my huge lack of finesse.
Yes sitting on the net is more relaxing than a nap...but I felt a bit
horrible the other day when my seven year old said to me
"Gee, you give Dad a hard time...but you are always on the computer Mum"
He was a bit cross with me I think , so I joined him in the sunshine for a
while.....
I think he was sick of seeing the back of my head.....
Diana
<snip to>
> With or without the garments. ;-)) newguy
Newguy?
THWAP.
Diana
> >
> >
>
>
Diana
<snip to> Oh God...I'm such a clusz. I am very sorry Diana.
> I initially wondered about weather your husband had passed on on.
> I am sorry to hear that he has gone.Please excuse my huge lack of finesse.
(grin) See what I mean? Don't worry, Helen, it's ok. really!! I was
actually just thinking how sad a comment it is about society today that the
automatic assumption when a woman says 'was' married is that it is divorce
that is the only option. It happens all the time.
> Yes sitting on the net is more relaxing than a nap...but I felt a bit
> horrible the other day when my seven year old said to me
> "Gee, you give Dad a hard time...but you are always on the computer Mum"
> He was a bit cross with me I think , so I joined him in the sunshine for a
> while.....
> I think he was sick of seeing the back of my head.....
Seven? Well, yeah, better to play with the kidlet...but my youngest is
seventeen and a half, and wouldn't be caught dead in a playground with me.
;-)
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2d0fac$1...@news.antelecom.net...
Whoops, I think I got out of line again. ;-))) newguy
James Hughes
> From: "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:11:56 -0800
> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>
In my dealings with the LDS church I've noticed that the church has
'opinions' on most legal issues. Case in point, the recent issue on the
ballot in CA which would have allowed same sex marriages. I'm not sure how
it was relayed to the members, but a friend of mine and I had a discussion
on the matter. She stated that 'The Church' was against the issue. She
further stated that some of the members in her ward (who were considered
very liberal) had been talking about voting for it.
That is a modern day example. So would it be too much of a stretch to say
that the church did what they did just to have more political power?
newguy
--
.
"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:B8525A5A.6056%jam...@uia.net...
In my wife's ward it was relayed to the members over the pulpit by reading a
letter from the GA's. newguy
newguy
--
.
"James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:B8525A5A.6056%jam...@uia.net...
>
>
For your info. newguy
By Bob Egelko
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- As the March 7th vote on California's
Proposition 22, the so-called Knight Initiative which would prohibit the
state from recognizing same-sex marriages, both supporters and opponents of
the measure are ratcheting up their efforts.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the LDS Church's North America West Area
had a letter to members read in sacrament meeting last Sunday urging members
to support the initiative. Last year the Church urged members to support the
proposition with financial donations. Supporters of the proposition have
donated twice the amount raised by opponents of the measure. (there was
more to this article, but this covers the main part).
Diana
....and don't you EVER forget it.
(grin)
Diana
> In my dealings with the LDS church I've noticed that the church has
> 'opinions' on most legal issues. Case in point, the recent issue on the
> ballot in CA which would have allowed same sex marriages. I'm not sure how
> it was relayed to the members, but a friend of mine and I had a discussion
> on the matter. She stated that 'The Church' was against the issue. She
> further stated that some of the members in her ward (who were considered
> very liberal) had been talking about voting for it.
>
> That is a modern day example. So would it be too much of a stretch to say
> that the church did what they did just to have more political power?
That was the accusation at the time, and by those like you who can't see the
truth for the propaganda.
OF COURSE the church wanted more political power. Actually, the church
wanted all Mormons to have political power, which is a small but significant
difference...let's face it, the US had a habbit of using very large hammers
on us; like literally half the armed services. ;-) However, given that the
power of the vote was given to all women in Utah, not just all Mormon women,
it is difficult to figure out how this was going to work out; just having
the men vote would still have gauranteed Mormon power in the state alone,
given the respective populations of Mormon to non-Mormon.....why add the
women? Certainly having the women vote wouldn't add much to Utah's influence
in the nation as a whole; so frankly, the accusation doesn't really make
much sense.
James Hughes
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>
> news:B8525A5A.6056%jam...@uia.net...
> <snip>
>> In my dealings with the LDS church I've noticed that the church has
>> 'opinions' on most legal issues. Case in point, the recent issue on the
>> ballot in CA which would have allowed same sex marriages. I'm not sure how
>> it was relayed to the members, but a friend of mine and I had a discussion
>> on the matter. She stated that 'The Church' was against the issue. She
>> further stated that some of the members in her ward (who were considered
>> very liberal) had been talking about voting for it.
>>
>> That is a modern day example. So would it be too much of a stretch to say
>> that the church did what they did just to have more political power?
>
From Newguy's post (didn't get picked up in this thread)
By Bob Egelko
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- As the March 7th vote on California's
Proposition 22, the so-called Knight Initiative which would prohibit the
state from recognizing same-sex marriages, both supporters and opponents of
the measure are ratcheting up their efforts.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the LDS Church's North America West Area
had a letter to members read in sacrament meeting last Sunday urging members
to support the initiative. Last year the Church urged members to support the
proposition with financial donations. Supporters of the proposition have
donated twice the amount raised by opponents of the measure. (there was
more to this article, but this covers the main part).
> That was the accusation at the time, and by those like you who can't see the
> truth for the propaganda.
I see quite well thank you.
> OF COURSE the church wanted more political power. Actually, the church
> wanted all Mormons to have political power, which is a small but significant
> difference...
I think that's a huge difference, how can you say it's a small difference
(shall I get you some reading glasses? ;>>> )
> let's face it, the US had a habbit of using very large hammers
> on us; like literally half the armed services. ;-)
After the Fancher wagon train dissappeared, or should I say after they were
massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
And if I remember correctly, the Mormon Militia was one of the best armed
well trained brigades. They ran several Indian Agents and other government
folk out of Utah, and if they couldn't run fast enough they killed them.
> However, given that the
> power of the vote was given to all women in Utah, not just all Mormon women,
> it is difficult to figure out how this was going to work out; just having
> the men vote would still have gauranteed Mormon power in the state alone,
> given the respective populations of Mormon to non-Mormon.....why add the
> women?
Well let's see how that one plays out. If the LDS men are already a majority
and most LDS men had more than one wife, you could effectively triple your
clout, not only in state matters but in US matters too.
> Certainly having the women vote wouldn't add much to Utah's influence
> in the nation as a whole; so frankly, the accusation doesn't really make
> much sense.
You are entitled to your opinion.
If you would like to read about how women were treated back in BY's day I
would suggest you read Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell It All'. It's online so
you can download it. I found a new url where they have converted the whole
book to text (much better than the old site I had which only had scans of
the pages and you had to download them one by one). Anyway take a few
minutes and read some of it if you dare. It's not 'Anti', Fanny was a member
of the church, one of her daughters was the fourth wife of one of BY's kids.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/6373/fstenhouseindex.html
As for the MMM, check your library for the October issue of 'American
Heritage' there is an article on the incedent. It's a good read.
Diana, I wasn't trying to start a war, I'm a peaceful man. I may not have
documented my facts to your liking but they aren't just propoganda. Do a
little digging on your own and let me know what you find, I'd be interested
in hearing back on this.
Cheers,
James
Diana
<snip to> >
>
>
> From Newguy's post (didn't get picked up in this thread)
<snip quote from Newguy's post, since I am NOT talking about the church's
position on marriage in California, and consider your attempt to slip it
into this conversation without responding to any of my proof that women in
the church had civil rights before almost any other women in America
disengenuous, slippery, dishonest, and an attempt to backpedal that is as
obvious as it is silly)
>
> > OF COURSE the church wanted more political power. Actually, the church
> > wanted all Mormons to have political power, which is a small but
significant
> > difference...
>
> I think that's a huge difference, how can you say it's a small difference
> (shall I get you some reading glasses? ;>>> )
I was being sarcastic. OF COURSE it's a big difference. It's why I wrote it.
> > let's face it, the US had a habbit of using very large hammers
> > on us; like literally half the armed services. ;-)
>
> After the Fancher wagon train dissappeared, or should I say after they
were
> massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
> perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
Boy, do you need to read some history. The army was already almost upon us
at the time of the MMM. It was not sent in response.
Y'know, the more I discuss things with you, the more obvious it is that you
haven't done your homework at all.
> And if I remember correctly, the Mormon Militia was one of the best armed
> well trained brigades. They ran several Indian Agents and other government
> folk out of Utah, and if they couldn't run fast enough they killed them.
Y'know, your memory leaves something to be desired. Like existance. And
accuracy.
> > However, given that the
> > power of the vote was given to all women in Utah, not just all Mormon
women,
> > it is difficult to figure out how this was going to work out; just
having
> > the men vote would still have gauranteed Mormon power in the state
alone,
> > given the respective populations of Mormon to non-Mormon.....why add the
> > women?
>
> Well let's see how that one plays out. If the LDS men are already a
majority
> and most LDS men had more than one wife, you could effectively triple your
> clout, not only in state matters but in US matters too.
It is clear that your knowledge of the US constitution is on a par with your
knowlege of US history.
> > Certainly having the women vote wouldn't add much to Utah's influence
> > in the nation as a whole; so frankly, the accusation doesn't really make
> > much sense.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion.
Yes, and so are you, as idiotic as I see it to be.
> If you would like to read about how women were treated back in BY's day I
> would suggest you read Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell It All'. It's online
so
> you can download it. I found a new url where they have converted the whole
> book to text (much better than the old site I had which only had scans of
> the pages and you had to download them one by one). Anyway take a few
> minutes and read some of it if you dare. It's not 'Anti', Fanny was a
member
> of the church, one of her daughters was the fourth wife of one of BY's
kids.
That's nice. I cannot comment on it, since I haven't read it.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/6373/fstenh
>
> ouseindex.html
>
> As for the MMM, check your library for the October issue of 'American
> Heritage' there is an article on the incedent. It's a good read.
Believe me, I know more about the MMM than you do, in all likelihood. It was
an atrocity commited by frightened, vengeful men who knew better and were
told not to do it.
> Diana, I wasn't trying to start a war, I'm a peaceful man. I may not have
> documented my facts to your liking but they aren't just propoganda. Do a
> little digging on your own and let me know what you find, I'd be
interested
> in hearing back on this.
James, I apologise, but you haven't documented ANY facts that support your
claims, and haven't commented at all on the facts that I replied with that
disprove your claims. All you have done so far is post inaccuracies. This is
not conducive to intelligent discourse.
For instance, in the above post you respond to my simple, historically
correct statement that the US sent half it's armed forces against the
Mormons in Utah by saying "after the Fancher train disappeared??" Have you
not bothered to investigate the smallest bit of history, and put any dates
together at all? IF there is any cause and effect between the army and the
MMM, it is not that the MMM caused Buchanan to send the army. It would be
the other way around. The army had been on its' way for quite some
time....and in fact, if it had not BEEN on its' way, MMM could very well not
have happened.
Consider: the Fancher train, consisting of peaceful farmers, met up with a
group of rowdys from Missourri and environs who were bragging about having
killed Joseph Smith and participated in the massacre at Hauns Mill, and were
also bragging about 'finishing what they started' when they got to SLC. At
least, this is what the people in Utah heard was going on. The trouble is,
before the Fancher train was attacked, the men doing the bragging had split
from them. So, even if the reports of their bragging were true, the people
doing it weren't with the train at Mountain Meadows. It was a horrible
event. They were attacked at Mountain Meadows, lied to, murdered....saving
only children under the age of eight who were eventually returned to their
families. There is no excuse for MMM. None. There are, however, motives
which need to be examined, and it is useful to actually get the facts
straight.
For instance; the reason that the braggarts could make their wildass
statements is because they knew that Johnson's army was already on the way,
and could very likely be in SLC before they were. I can think of no other
reasonable explaination for such idiotic behavior; if the Mormons were as
fearsome as you would have us believe, then any small group of people headed
for their stronghold would think a couple of times before threatening to
kill 'em all.
So, in answer to your attempt to blame MMM for Johnsons' Army, Do try
looking up the history and checking the dates, hmmn?
Oh, and by the way and as you can see, I do know about MMM.
Diana
James Hughes
the name calling. I may be dumb, but I'm not an idiot. ;>>>
Can't we just agree to disagree?
> From: "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 09:23:12 -0800
> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>
> "James Hughes" <jam...@uia.net> wrote in message
> news:B852AD39.61A6%jam...@uia.net...
> <snip to> >
>>
>>
>> From Newguy's post (didn't get picked up in this thread)
>
> <snip quote from Newguy's post, since I am NOT talking about the church's
> position on marriage in California, and consider your attempt to slip it
> into this conversation without responding to any of my proof that women in
> the church had civil rights before almost any other women in America
> disengenuous, slippery, dishonest, and an attempt to backpedal that is as
> obvious as it is silly)
>>
>>> OF COURSE the church wanted more political power. Actually, the church
>>> wanted all Mormons to have political power, which is a small but
> significant
>>> difference...
>>
>> I think that's a huge difference, how can you say it's a small difference
>> (shall I get you some reading glasses? ;>>> )
>
> I was being sarcastic. OF COURSE it's a big difference. It's why I wrote it.
I'm a little slow, next
time could you be a
little more obvious. ;>>>
>>> let's face it, the US had a habbit of using very large hammers
>>> on us; like literally half the armed services. ;-)
>>
>> After the Fancher wagon train dissappeared, or should I say after they
> were
>> massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
>> perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
>
> Boy, do you need to read some history. The army was already almost upon us
> at the time of the MMM. It was not sent in response.
>
Didn't realize that you were that old. ;>>>
> Y'know, the more I discuss things with you, the more obvious it is that you
> haven't done your homework at all.
>
>> And if I remember correctly, the Mormon Militia was one of the best armed
>> well trained brigades. They ran several Indian Agents and other government
>> folk out of Utah, and if they couldn't run fast enough they killed them.
>
> Y'know, your memory leaves something to be desired. Like existance. And
> accuracy.
>
"By the time James Buchanan was elected, in 1856, the Mormons were defying
every federal authority, from judges and U.S. marshals to Indian agents.
Territorial officers were fleeing Utah. There followed increasing reports of
Mormon clashes with emigrant parties headed to California, as well as with
the government surveyor Capt. John W. Gunnison, who, along with members of
his party, was massacred in south-central Utah whil mapping a route for the
transcontinental railroad. Church militia"blue-eyed, white-faced Indians"
were said to be masquerading as Utah Paiutes in these confrontations."
(Sally Denton, American Heritage magazine, Oct. 2001)
How's that?
>>> However, given that the
>>> power of the vote was given to all women in Utah, not just all Mormon
> women,
>>> it is difficult to figure out how this was going to work out; just
> having
>>> the men vote would still have gauranteed Mormon power in the state
> alone,
>>> given the respective populations of Mormon to non-Mormon.....why add the
>>> women?
>>
>> Well let's see how that one plays out. If the LDS men are already a
> majority
>> and most LDS men had more than one wife, you could effectively triple your
>> clout, not only in state matters but in US matters too.
>
> It is clear that your knowledge of the US constitution is on a par with your
> knowlege of US history.
>
Well then, let's just say my US Constitution knowledge is on par with your
knowledge of polygamy.
>>> Certainly having the women vote wouldn't add much to Utah's influence
>>> in the nation as a whole; so frankly, the accusation doesn't really make
>>> much sense.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> Yes, and so are you, as idiotic as I see it to be.
I already offered to get you some glasses. ;>>>
>
>> If you would like to read about how women were treated back in BY's day I
>> would suggest you read Fanny Stenhouse's book 'Tell It All'. It's online
> so
>> you can download it. I found a new url where they have converted the whole
>> book to text (much better than the old site I had which only had scans of
>> the pages and you had to download them one by one). Anyway take a few
>> minutes and read some of it if you dare. It's not 'Anti', Fanny was a
> member
>> of the church, one of her daughters was the fourth wife of one of BY's
> kids.
>
> That's nice. I cannot comment on it, since I haven't read it.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/6373/fstenh
>
Get back to me when you have, and then maybe our conversation will be a bit
different.
>>
>> ouseindex.html
>>
>> As for the MMM, check your library for the October issue of 'American
>> Heritage' there is an article on the incedent. It's a good read.
>
> Believe me, I know more about the MMM than you do, in all likelihood. It was
> an atrocity commited by frightened, vengeful men who knew better and were
> told not to do it.
How can you talk about BY that way and call yourself a Mormon? ;>>>
I believe that the Fancher train was made up of wealthy cattle owners and
thoroughbred horse breaders (not farmers). Capt. Alexander Fancher, born the
second of three boys lead the train. It was his third trip to the coast,
where he had already staked out a ranch for himself. The party started out
on March 29, 1857 and got to SLC on August 3. This is where they had planned
to stock up on provisions. "But although the fields were obviously brimming,
the Mormons refused to sell them any food." (Sally Denton, American Heritage
magazine, October, 2001) This is when they were urged to head south and the
train split up. Four wagons went west along the well mapped northern route.
Could these have been the rowdys? The rest went south and into infamy.
> For instance; the reason that the braggarts could make their wildass
> statements is because they knew that Johnson's army was already on the way,
> and could very likely be in SLC before they were. I can think of no other
> reasonable explaination for such idiotic behavior; if the Mormons were as
> fearsome as you would have us believe, then any small group of people headed
> for their stronghold would think a couple of times before threatening to
> kill 'em all.
>
Documentation please.
(Oh I forgot that you were there. ;>>)
> So, in answer to your attempt to blame MMM for Johnsons' Army, Do try
> looking up the history and checking the dates, hmmn?
>
> Oh, and by the way and as you can see, I do know about MMM.
>
> Diana
Really?
Cheers,
James
Susan
Christian who believed Jesus was married, and I have gone to church
all over the country. I said Christian though, and not Mormon.
Also, show me the text, where if I "read carefully" I will find that
it was Jesus who married at the wedding where he performed his first
miracle.
Jesus had mainly 1 function on earth-to be the atoning sacrifice for
our sins. He wouldn't have married knowing that he would die at that
age. And he preached in the temple at a very young age-the elders were
surprised that someone so young knew so much. So-he was *not* married
or did not have to marry to preach in the temple.
Gee, make up things as you go Diana.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message news:<3c25...@news.antelecom.net>...
> "newguy" <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> news:u2ag6rd...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Helen, I have been interested in some of the statements in your posts that
> > would indicate you are not completely happy with the teachings of
> Mormonism.
> > I would be curious what you think of the following which show that Brigham
> > Young taught that Christ was married and most likely a polygamist I
> neither
> > condemn nor accept the following, but was just curious as to your
> feelings.
> > newguy
> >
> > Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259 & 260
> >
> > It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana
> > of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be
> > discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that
> > occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and
> > the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and
> > improper to say the best of it.
> >
> > I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the
> most
> > pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to
> follow
> > him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious
> > ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of
> > their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed tarred and
> > feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old
> Prophet
> > mean when he said (speaking of Christ), "He shall see His seed, prolong
> his
> > days, etc"?
>
> I don't know about Helen, but Brigham Young could speculate with the best of
> 'em. Sometimes he was right. Sometimes he wasn't. He himself made it quite
> clear that he was human and wrong from time to time. ;-)
>
> However, as to his opinion that Jesus may have been married.......that's
> hardly news. Nor, though the idea may be controversial in eclesiastical
> circles, is it considered heinous, heresy or incredibly radical. Jesus could
> very well have been married, y'know. Nothing in the bible says He
> wasn't...and the customs of the time dictating what a man could and could
> not do indicated that He probably was. For instance, it was customary to
> allow only married men to preach in the synagogues. Jesus preached in the
> synagogues. Therefore, he was either married or a very rare exception was
> made for Him..and there was no reason at all that the Jews of His time would
> have made any sort of exception for Him, was there?
>
> There isn't any mention of His wife, who she may have been, whether there
> were any children, though there are quite a few oral legends about His wife
> and children migrating to Britain. (shrug) We don't really know. Does it
> matter?
>
> As to whether He was a polygamist. Well, there is no mention of one wife,
> let alone more, but polygamy was allowed in that culture. He was the foster
> son of a general contractor sort of person, not exactly dirt poor...but we
> have no evidence either way.
>
> Me...I think He was probably married. (shrug) So do many, MANY other
> Christians who aren't LDS. ;-)
Diana
I will be certain to include the word in caps and in parantheses next time.
> >>> let's face it, the US had a habbit of using very large hammers
> >>> on us; like literally half the armed services. ;-)
> >>
> >> After the Fancher wagon train dissappeared, or should I say after they
> > were
> >> massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
> >> perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
> >
> > Boy, do you need to read some history. The army was already almost upon
us
> > at the time of the MMM. It was not sent in response.
> >
> Didn't realize that you were that old. ;>>>
One must be old to read a history book or two? How about a web site?
> > Y'know, the more I discuss things with you, the more obvious it is that
you
> > haven't done your homework at all.
> >
> >> And if I remember correctly, the Mormon Militia was one of the best
armed
> >> well trained brigades. They ran several Indian Agents and other
government
> >> folk out of Utah, and if they couldn't run fast enough they killed
them.
> >
> > Y'know, your memory leaves something to be desired. Like existance. And
> > accuracy.
> >
> "By the time James Buchanan was elected, in 1856, the Mormons were defying
> every federal authority, from judges and U.S. marshals to Indian agents.
> Territorial officers were fleeing Utah. There followed increasing reports
of
> Mormon clashes with emigrant parties headed to California, as well as with
> the government surveyor Capt. John W. Gunnison, who, along with members of
> his party, was massacred in south-central Utah whil mapping a route for
the
> transcontinental railroad. Church militia"blue-eyed, white-faced
Indians"
> were said to be masquerading as Utah Paiutes in these confrontations."
> (Sally Denton, American Heritage magazine, Oct. 2001)
>
> How's that?
Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Jaunita Brooks' account of
MMM.....
and BTW, Sally Denton's information is a little out of date and more than a
wee bit biased. Be that as it may, the above quote does NOT say that
Buchanan sent the army out to punish the Mormons for MMM, as you claim.
For your information, Buchanan sent the army out to enforce the replacement
of Brigham Young as governor of the territory by Gov. Albert Cumming,
because he had heard rumors that the Mormons were in rebellion...rumors that
were unfounded. Buchanan sorta forgot to let Brigham Young KNOW this small
detail, that he was being replaced. . .so all the Mormons knew was that, for
the FIFTH time, they were about to be driven out of their homes and forced
to go somewhere else. This time, however, they decided that they were bloody
well not going to go.
There is NO historian who acts purely on fact that blames the Mormons for
Buchanan's Blunder. None. The rumors upon which Buchanan acted were just
that, unfounded rumors. If it weren't for a man named Kane, who escorted
Cummings to Young alone, all hell would have broken loose, and believe me,
m'friend, we would not have left. As it was, Cummings became governor
without any problem from Brigham. It's a good thing, we had had quite
enough.
> >>> However, given that the
> >>> power of the vote was given to all women in Utah, not just all Mormon
> > women,
> >>> it is difficult to figure out how this was going to work out; just
> > having
> >>> the men vote would still have gauranteed Mormon power in the state
> > alone,
> >>> given the respective populations of Mormon to non-Mormon.....why add
the
> >>> women?
> >>
> >> Well let's see how that one plays out. If the LDS men are already a
> > majority
> >> and most LDS men had more than one wife, you could effectively triple
your
> >> clout, not only in state matters but in US matters too.
> >
> > It is clear that your knowledge of the US constitution is on a par with
your
> > knowlege of US history.
> >
> Well then, let's just say my US Constitution knowledge is on par with your
> knowledge of polygamy.
I am the great grandaughter of the second wife of a polygamist on one side,
and of several on the other. I have many family journals, private ones kept
by the women involved, and have done my research. I think I have quite a
good grip on the facts of things, sir.
Certainly you have not proven the same: you still haven't commented upon my
proof that Mormon women were encouraged by the church and church leaders to
vote and be physicians before almost ANY non-Mormon woman in America. Now
that I have shown you that you don't know as much as you think you do, will
you go back and take another look at things?
I doubt it. So far you haven't given me much reason to accept your knowledge
of the history of my people over mine, especially since your factual
knowlege of the simplest and easiest to prove matters is so lacking.
Oh, yes, I AM a wee bit angry here.
> > Believe me, I know more about the MMM than you do, in all likelihood. It
was
> > an atrocity commited by frightened, vengeful men who knew better and
were
> > told not to do it.
>
> How can you talk about BY that way and call yourself a Mormon? ;>>>
Oh, give me a break.
<snip>
> I believe that the Fancher train was made up of wealthy cattle owners and
> thoroughbred horse breaders (not farmers).
OK, WEALTHY farmers, "the best equipped train on the trail". I'll give you
that one.
> Capt. Alexander Fancher, born the
> second of three boys lead the train. It was his third trip to the coast,
> where he had already staked out a ranch for himself. The party started out
> on March 29, 1857 and got to SLC on August 3. This is where they had
planned
> to stock up on provisions. "But although the fields were obviously
brimming,
> the Mormons refused to sell them any food." (Sally Denton, American
Heritage
> magazine, October, 2001)
Did she also mention that since the army was ALREADY ON ITS WAY TO ATTACK
US, we were told to stock up against the expected attack, and not to trade
with anyone? Oh, gee, could that have been it...this army that you claim was
sent as a RESULT of the MMM?
> This is when they were urged to head south and the
> train split up. Four wagons went west along the well mapped northern
route.
> Could these have been the rowdys? The rest went south and into infamy.
No, do read up again. (sigh) The group to which I refer left the Fanchers
before they got to Salt Lake City. Oh, are you aware that while the worst of
the rowdies left the Fancher train, it was reported that the Fanchers
themselves, miffed because the beleaguered Mormons wouldn't sell them any
lettuce, put a poisoned ox in a spring, thus killing several Indians?
Whether the Fanchers did it or not, it WAS done, and it was attributed to
them. Not a good time to get miffed with the Mormons and let that pique be
known. They had been pushed to the wall and were about to push back.
Definiately a group of people in the wrong place, doing and saying the wrong
things at the wrong time and to the wrong people.
Again, I do NOT excuse what happened to them. They should have been able to
do and say any damned thing they wanted to and still be let go free.
> > For instance; the reason that the braggarts could make their wildass
> > statements is because they knew that Johnson's army was already on the
way,
> > and could very likely be in SLC before they were. I can think of no
other
> > reasonable explaination for such idiotic behavior; if the Mormons were
as
> > fearsome as you would have us believe, then any small group of people
headed
> > for their stronghold would think a couple of times before threatening to
> > kill 'em all.
> >
>
> Documentation please.
>
> (Oh I forgot that you were there. ;>>)
Quite obviously, since the only one here who hasn't been providing
documentation in this discussion is YOU. Do you often talk to yourself?
Oh, by the way, you might want to clarify this: documentation of what?
My dear sir, I'm the one that provides the documentation, have every single
time for every thing I've claimed. Did you miss that? YOU are the one who
has so far neglected to do so with any sort of accuracy or reliability, and
whose historical accuracy I have been proving less than reliable. Do go back
and read, I'll wait.
As for 'agreeing to disagree"? James, I will agree that you have every
right to think that Mormons are the scum of the planet, and that our history
is of nothing but bloody murder commited by us against everyone else and
that everything nasty ever said by anyone about us MUST be true simply
because it's nasty and about us, but I will not agree to let you post
inaccurate data and make claims that I can prove incorrect: like the one
about Mormon women being kept downtrodden and second class citizens, or that
Buchanan sent the army after us because of MMM.
I mean, if you are going to come after us, at LEAST do it with some
semblance of intelligence, OK?
Diana
"Susan" <bcs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9928be87.0112...@posting.google.com...
> That's interesting Diana-in 46 years I have never met another
> Christian who believed Jesus was married, and I have gone to church
> all over the country. I said Christian though, and not Mormon.
>
Ah, the first 'Mormons aren't Christian" volley.
The idea that Jesus may have been married is not uniquely Mormon, Susan.
Really. I promise; it's been discussed as a possibility in many a Protestant
theological seminary.
> Also, show me the text, where if I "read carefully" I will find that
> it was Jesus who married at the wedding where he performed his first
> miracle.
I can't. For one thing, I don't make that claim. ;-)
> Jesus had mainly 1 function on earth-to be the atoning sacrifice for
> our sins. He wouldn't have married knowing that he would die at that
> age. And he preached in the temple at a very young age-the elders were
> surprised that someone so young knew so much. So-he was *not* married
> or did not have to marry to preach in the temple.
Look, Susan, unruffle the feathers. First, I am not committed to the idea
that Jesus was married. The reasons I believe that He MAY have been are
cultural, exactly the same reasons some other NON Mormon (yet Christain, non
the less) think that He may have been. ;-)
As for "teaching' in the Temple when He was twelve....well, all young Jewish
men of that time were presented to the Temple elders at around that age. He
wasn't "TEACHING". He was discussing the scriptures with the Temple priests.
I would expect the Saviour to have a better understanding than others of the
scriptures, and thus impress His elders with that understanding, but it was
not a bit unusual for Him to be at the Temple discussing scripture with the
Priests at His age. All young Jewish boys did it.
However, actually preaching in the synagogues at the age of thirty? Only
married men were allowed that privilege. Yet, Jesus preached there.
On the other hand, I have no special reason to believe that the wedding in
Cana was that of Jesus Himself. Could have been, but there's nothing that
specifically says so.
>
> Gee, make up things as you go Diana.
(grin) I don't need to, Susan.
I do have a question, however; would finding out that Jesus did indeed have
a wife ruin your faith?
Diana
James Hughes
;->>>
I have tried to be nice and keep on topic. You on the other hand have done
nothing but attack my person (typical TBM tactic). And for your sources, I
don't count "I", "WE", and "US" as sources. It's easy to call a source
biased, doesn't mean they are. As for my sources being outdated, one was
published in October of this year and by a subsidiary of Forbes magazine no
less. I'm sure that you'll tell me that Forbes has an axe to grind against
the Mormons.
Let me state this so that you can understand it (I'll type a little slower
so that you can keep up ;->>> ) I am not nor have I ever claimed to be an
expert on the MMM. I have done some investigating but it is far from
exhaustive. I find it interesting to hear other perspectives until they
start attacking me personally as you have done. If you want to keep
attacking me go for it, you'll be easy enough to ignore, just like Jong Kim
and Darrick Evenson. Although I don't think you've made it to their level
yet.
> Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Jaunita Brooks' account of
> MMM.....
Let's see... Jaunita is a Mormon and therefore subject to being ex'd for
apostocy. So she should be a completely unbiased source.
Please.
> and BTW, Sally Denton's information is a little out of date and more than a
> wee bit biased. Be that as it may, the above quote does NOT say that
> Buchanan sent the army out to punish the Mormons for MMM, as you claim.
>
> For your information, Buchanan sent the army out to enforce the replacement
> of Brigham Young as governor of the territory by Gov. Albert Cumming,
> because he had heard rumors that the Mormons were in rebellion...rumors that
> were unfounded. Buchanan sorta forgot to let Brigham Young KNOW this small
> detail, that he was being replaced. . .so all the Mormons knew was that, for
> the FIFTH time, they were about to be driven out of their homes and forced
> to go somewhere else. This time, however, they decided that they were bloody
> well not going to go.
Interesting choice of words, since one of the reasons reported to have been
a reason for the MMM was the 'blood atonement' of ol' Joe Jr.
>>>
>> Well then, let's just say my US Constitution knowledge is on par with your
>> knowledge of polygamy.
>
> I am the great grandaughter of the second wife of a polygamist on one side,
> and of several on the other. I have many family journals, private ones kept
> by the women involved, and have done my research. I think I have quite a
> good grip on the facts of things, sir.
And for that you have my most humble lament.
> Certainly you have not proven the same: you still haven't commented upon my
> proof that Mormon women were encouraged by the church and church leaders to
> vote and be physicians before almost ANY non-Mormon woman in America. Now
> that I have shown you that you don't know as much as you think you do, will
> you go back and take another look at things?
I thought we were on the subject of the MMM now.
You were angry from the start. Now just go grab a cup of coffee, er tea, um
Postum and relax a bit. Like I said, I don't want a war. Cool your jets and
stop the name calling or I won't respond.
;->>>
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2e...@news.antelecom.net...
If one believes the Catholics, Jesus had many wives; . . . just ask the
Nuns. newguy
>
>
Diana
> Can't we all just get along?
> ;->>>
>
> I have tried to be nice and keep on topic.
Be nice? James, you have made accusations of murder, mistreatment and mayhem
on the part of my people that I have completely debunked, and have not
responded to even one of the facts that I have posted, choosing instead to
switch topics (I didn't bring up the MMM, you did).
> You on the other hand have done
> nothing but attack my person (typical TBM tactic). And for your sources, I
> don't count "I", "WE", and "US" as sources.
I haven't used "I", "WE" and "US" as sources. I have used historical books,
non-Mormon web sites and non-Mormon references. You haven't responded to any
of them.
> It's easy to call a source
> biased, doesn't mean they are. As for my sources being outdated, one was
> published in October of this year and by a subsidiary of Forbes magazine
no
> less. I'm sure that you'll tell me that Forbes has an axe to grind against
> the Mormons.
I didn't say that they had an ax to grind. I said that the information was
outdated.....and yeah, I said biased. People who don't do thier homework and
use easily debunked sources for articles are biased, against reasonable
research, if nothing else.
> Let me state this so that you can understand it (I'll type a little slower
> so that you can keep up ;->>> ) I am not nor have I ever claimed to be an
> expert on the MMM.
Good thing, since you are the one who claimed that the army was sent against
the Mormons because of it. I admire restraint.
> I have done some investigating but it is far from
> exhaustive. I find it interesting to hear other perspectives until they
> start attacking me personally as you have done. If you want to keep
> attacking me go for it, you'll be easy enough to ignore, just like Jong
Kim
> and Darrick Evenson. Although I don't think you've made it to their level
> yet.
I'll work at it.
Actually, I do attempt not to use ad hominem attacks against critics, but
rather address the issues. Most of the time. That I have failed in this with
you I apologize for. I will try very hard not to do this again.
>
> > Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Jaunita Brooks' account of
> > MMM.....
>
> Let's see... Jaunita is a Mormon and therefore subject to being ex'd for
> apostocy. So she should be a completely unbiased source.
A: Jaunita is dead.
B: she is considered the most accurate source of information about the MMM
by everybody, not just Mormons, since she tried very hard to be as objective
as possible. She did NOT write a whitewash, y'know. The Mormons involved in
the MMM got nailed by her.
> Please.
Yes. Please.
> > and BTW, Sally Denton's information is a little out of date and more
than a
> > wee bit biased. Be that as it may, the above quote does NOT say that
> > Buchanan sent the army out to punish the Mormons for MMM, as you claim.
> >
> > For your information, Buchanan sent the army out to enforce the
replacement
> > of Brigham Young as governor of the territory by Gov. Albert Cumming,
> > because he had heard rumors that the Mormons were in rebellion...rumors
that
> > were unfounded. Buchanan sorta forgot to let Brigham Young KNOW this
small
> > detail, that he was being replaced. . .so all the Mormons knew was that,
for
> > the FIFTH time, they were about to be driven out of their homes and
forced
> > to go somewhere else. This time, however, they decided that they were
bloody
> > well not going to go.
>
>
> Interesting choice of words, since one of the reasons reported to have
been
> a reason for the MMM was the 'blood atonement' of ol' Joe Jr.
All that information correcting your mistakes and all you can respond to is
the word "bloody", with a cheap shot at Mormons.......and you are upset with
my insulting YOU?
> >> Well then, let's just say my US Constitution knowledge is on par with
your
> >> knowledge of polygamy.
> >
> > I am the great grandaughter of the second wife of a polygamist on one
side,
> > and of several on the other. I have many family journals, private ones
kept
> > by the women involved, and have done my research. I think I have quite a
> > good grip on the facts of things, sir.
>
> And for that you have my most humble lament.
...and another cheap shot, but no honest response to what I said.
> > Certainly you have not proven the same: you still haven't commented upon
my
> > proof that Mormon women were encouraged by the church and church leaders
to
> > vote and be physicians before almost ANY non-Mormon woman in America.
Now
> > that I have shown you that you don't know as much as you think you do,
will
> > you go back and take another look at things?
>
> I thought we were on the subject of the MMM now.
No, that was YOUR idea. I am trying to keep on the topic we began with,
which was actually you calling me, in essence, a liar for claiming that
Mormon women had the vote earlier than almost all other American women and
that they were among the earliest physicians.
Oh, I did notice that you not only did not respond to the proof I posted,
but are now claiming that I post no documentation in support of my
claims......and you are upset at ME using ad homenems?
<snip to> > Oh, yes, I AM a wee bit angry here.
>
> You were angry from the start.
Yes I was. For good reason. In fact, that's why I responded to you, your
unreasonable and completely inaccurate portrayal of Mormon women.
>Now just go grab a cup of coffee, er tea, um
> Postum and relax a bit. Like I said, I don't want a war. Cool your jets
and
> stop the name calling or I won't respond.
Y'know, I don't recall ever calling you names. I could be wrong, however.
Would you care to show me where I called YOU, specifically, a name rather
than calling your statements inaccurate and biased?
There is, after all, a difference. Besides, in looking for an instance where
I actually called you a name rather than attacking your positions and
statements, perhaps you will actually get to read the documentation you are
claiming I never provided.
<snip to end>
Diana
> Can't we all just get along?
> ;->>>
>
> I have tried to be nice and keep on topic. You on the other hand have done
> nothing but attack my person (typical TBM tactic).
<snip>
Y'know what? I've gone back and read my posts. I found two things.
First, I HAVE been insulting as all get out. For that you have my humble
apologies.
Second, I have indeed supported my claims with hard fact and references, and
you have not.
(shrug) It's not a good way to end the year.
Diana
<snip>
> If one believes the Catholics, Jesus had many wives; . . . just ask the
> Nuns. newguy
Newguy, you owe me a free bottle of Windex for my monitor screen.
(grin)
However, and to be fair, I don't think it's the same thing.
James Hughes
> From: "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>
> news:B853B446.67C8%jam...@uia.net...
>> Can't we all just get along?
>> ;->>>
>>
>> I have tried to be nice and keep on topic. You on the other hand have done
>> nothing but attack my person (typical TBM tactic).
>
> <snip>
>
> Y'know what? I've gone back and read my posts. I found two things.
>
> First, I HAVE been insulting as all get out. For that you have my humble
> apologies.
Thanks, it takes a big person to admit to their mistakes.
>
> Second, I have indeed supported my claims with hard fact and references, and
> you have not.
Are we going to labor this point anymore.
My tally is:
2 websites and 1 book for you. BTW, the one website never really appeared in
the communication between us directly, it kinda showed up in one of your
posts, but...
1 Website/book, 1 magazine article, and 1 newspaper article for me.
Diana | James
3 | 3
As far as references, we've tied (IMO)
>
> (shrug) It's not a good way to end the year.
>
May you have a happy and safe new year.
James
TheJordan6
>>let's face it, the US had a habit of using very large hammers on us; like
literally half the armed services. ;-)
James Hughes wrote:
>After the Fancher wagon train disappeared, or should I say after they were
massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
James, as Diana has written, the MMM occurred while Johnston's Army was in
Wyoming on their way to the Salt Lake Valley. The army's mission was to depose
the belligerent Brigham Young as territorial governor, and to quash any Mormon
opposition to that change in power. The fact that Young ordered his men to
harrass the army, drive off their stock, and burn their supply wagons, is ample
evidence of the kind of opposition that Washington had been warned of to expect
from the Mormons. As you quoted somewhat from the 'American Heritage' article,
the Mormons had harrassed and driven off a number of federal officials from the
territory. Some of those officials made their way back to Washington and gave
President Buchanan and Congress their reports of the Mormons' refusal to obey
U. S. laws or recognize federal authority. Shortly before the MMM occurred,
Illinois Republican Stephen A. Douglas gave a speech wherein he summarized
those reports that warned of what Mormon atrocities:
"First, that nine-tenths of the [Mormon] inhabitants [of Utah territory] are
aliens by birth who have refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of
allegiance, or do any other act recognizing the government of the United States
as a paramount authority in the territory (Utah).
"Second, that the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons
(and they constitute the whole people of the territory) are bound by horrible
oaths, and terrible penalties, to recognize and maintain the authority of
Brigham Young, and the government of which he is head, as paramount to that of
the United States, in civil as well as religious affairs; and they will in due
time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all the means in their
power to subvert the government of the United States and resist its authority.
"Third, that the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now
forming alliance with the Indian tribes in Utah and adjoining
territories---stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility---and organizing
bands of his own followers under the name of Danites or destroying angels, to
prosecute a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens who support
the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and disgusting
practices of the Mormon government......
"Should such a state of things actually exist as we are led to infer from the
reports---and such information comes in an official shape---the knife must be
applied to this pestiferous, disgusting cancer which is gnawing into the very
vitals of this body politic."
Douglas' speech was published in the 'Missouri Republican' on June 18,
1857---less than three months before the MMM occurred on September 11.
Douglas' remarks predicted in fine detail what the Mormons might do if they
were left unchecked by the government, stating that the Mormons might
"prosecute a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens." Those
reports to Washington are the reason why President Buchanan felt it wise to
send 2500 troops to escort the new governor Cumming. So, although it's not
correct to say that Buchanan sent the Army out because the Fancher party had
been massacred, it is obvious from the reports sent to Washington before the
massacre that Buchanan sent such a large contingent out because he feared that
the Mormons might commit such atrocities. And the event of the Mountain
Meadows massacre on September 11 shows us that Buchanan's move was justified.
Most Mormons, Diana included, like to believe that the MMM was not the product
of institutional church teachings, but was instead planned and perpetrated by
renegade local Mormons. But that is refuted by a mountain of evidence, some of
which I listed in a post only a couple of weeks ago, and bears repeating here:
I documented the evidence for Young's and institutional Mormonism's culpability
in the MMM in a series of 18 posts last summer. The degree of Young's, and the
general church's involvement in the conspiracy can be determined by examining
the following:
*Mormon teachings beginning in Missouri in 1838, including Joseph Smith's
"revelation" that the Mormons should "consecrate" goods from the Gentiles for
the use of the "house of Israel" (which is what got the Mormons driven out of
Missouri)
*The formation and motives of the Danite band, including their oaths of
loyalty, obedience, vengeance, and secrecy
*The temple endowment oaths, which expanded on the Danite oaths, and which
every Mormon swore to in the endowment ceremony during the period of the MMM
*Brigham Young's many statements showing his intention to make Utah Territory
an independent nation, free from U. S. laws
*Young's refusal to recognize the auhority of federal overseers, and the
harassment of them to the point that many of them fled Utah
*Young's many public threats of violence against apostates, Gentiles, etc.,
including his statement that he had "some of the meanest devils on earth"
(Danites) who could carry out his orders
*Young's actions in forming alliances with Indian tribes against the U. S.
government and its citizens, telling them that the Indians must fight with the
Mormons or the Americans would kill them both
*Young's statement to Army Captain van Vliet on September 7 that he "shall not
hold the Indians by the wrist any longer.....tell the government to stop all
emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."
*Young's illegal declaration of martial law, stating that the U. S. Army had no
right to invade Utah territory, and his illegal orders that no emigrants could
travel through Utah without having a "pass" from him to do so (The Fancher
party rightfully refused to recognize the legality of such a "pass")
*Young's meeting with Jacob Hamblin, Dimick Huntington, and ten southern Indian
chiefs on September 1, of which Young wrote "A spirit seems to be takeing
possession of the Indians to assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from
exterminating the Americans"
*The fact that another wagon train, the Duke party, was also attacked and
robbed in Southern Utah by Mormons disguised as Indians, during the same time
as the MMM. The attack on the Duke party refutes Mormon contentions that the
Fancher party had been singled out for punishment because they had committed
crimes against local Mormons or Indians.
*Dimick Huntingdon's journal entry concerning that September 1 meeting, wherein
Young gave the Indian chiefs "all the cattle that had gone to California by the
south route" (IOW, the route through southwestern Utah. The only people or
cattle traveling through that route during that time were the Fancher and Duke
wagon trains, which were both attacked and robbed.)
*Young's 20-year effort in covering up the affair and sheltering any Mormons
from prosecution.
*Young's remark upon visiting the memorial erected to the MMM victims that
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little," wherein his men
tore down the memorial.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>"By the time James Buchanan was elected, in 1856, the Mormons were defying
> every federal authority, from judges and U.S. marshals to Indian agents.
> Territorial officers were fleeing Utah. There followed increasing reports
of
> Mormon clashes with emigrant parties headed to California, as well as with
> the government surveyor Capt. John W. Gunnison, who, along with members of
> his party, was massacred in south-central Utah whil mapping a route for
the
> transcontinental railroad. Church militia"blue-eyed, white-faced
Indians"
> were said to be masquerading as Utah Paiutes in these confrontations."
> (Sally Denton, American Heritage magazine, Oct. 2001)
>
>> How's that?
Diana responded:
>Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Juanita Brooks' account of
MMM.....
Diana, I have read, and am fully conversant in Brooks' book, and she
corroborates what James Hughes quoted above. Perhaps YOU should read it.
>and BTW, Sally Denton's information is a little out of date and more than a
wee bit biased.
Please give us some evidence for such assertions.
>Be that as it may, the above quote does NOT say that
Buchanan sent the army out to punish the Mormons for MMM, as you claim.
I explained in another post that Buchanan sent such a large army contingent out
in part to PREVENT the Mormons from committing such atrocities as the MMM.
Unfortunately, Brigham Young prevented Johnston's army from entering SLC by
having his men harass them, drive off their stock, and burn their supply
wagons. If Young had not committed that act of treason, the army might have
entered Utah in time to escort the Fancher and Duke trains through the
territory so the Mormons couldn't attack them.
>For your information, Buchanan sent the army out to enforce the replacement of
Brigham Young as governor of the territory by Gov. Albert Cumming, because he
had heard rumors that the Mormons were in rebellion...rumors that were
unfounded.
They were official reports, not "rumors," and they most certainly were NOT
"unfounded," as evidenced by the fact that the Mormons harassed and drove off
federal officials, and Young, a federally-appointed territorial governor,
anounced that he was declaring "independence" from the United States:
"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.)
"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," William
R. Berrett, p.321.)
In 1855, one of the succeeding associate justices, William W. Drummond,
tendered his resignation, and included among his reasons:
"That Brigham Young is the head of the Mormon Church; and, as such head, the
Mormons look to him, and to him alone, for the law by which they are to be
governed; therefore no law of congress is by them considered binding in any
matter; that he [Drummond] knew that a secret, oath-bound organization existed
among all the male members of the Church to resist the laws of the country, and
to acknowledge no law save the law of the priesthood, which came to the people
through Brigham Young; that there were a number of men 'set apart by special
order of the Church', to take both the lives and property of any person who may
question the authority of the Church." [Drummond was undoubtedly referring to
Young's "Avenging Angels" such as Porter Rockwell and "Wild Bill" Hickman.]
"That the records, papers, etc., of the supreme court have been destroyed by
order of the Church, with the direct knowledge and approbation of Governor
Young, and the federal officers grossly insulted for presuming to raise a
single question about the treasonable act. That the federal officers of the
territory are constantly insulted, harassed, and annoyed by the Mormons, and
for these insults there is no redress. That the federal officers are daily
compelled to hear the form of American government traduced, the chief
executives of the Nation, both living and dead, slandered and abused from the
masses as well as from all the leading members of the Church. The judge also
charged discrimination in the administration of the laws as against Mormon and
Gentile; that Captain John W. Gunnison and his party were murdered by Indians,
but under the orders, advice and direction of the Mormons; that the Mormons
poisoned Judge Leonidas Shaver, Drummond's predecessor; that Almon W. Babbitt,
secretary of the Territory, had been killed on the plains by a band of Mormon
marauders, who were 'sent from Salt Lake City for that purpose, and that only';
under direct orders of the presidency of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints,
and that Babbitt was not killed by Indians, as reported from Utah."
"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, 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.)
"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 unwilingly 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.)
>Buchanan sorta forgot to let Brigham Young KNOW this small detail, that he was
being replaced.
This is another oft-repeated lie of Mormon apologists. Young knew VERY WELL
that the army's mission was to replace him as governor, as evidenced by Young's
remarks in a letter to Jacob Hamblin of August 4, 1857:
"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......We
have an abundance of 'news.' The government have appointed an entire set of
officials for the Territory. These Gentry are to have a bodyguard of 2500 of
Uncle's [Sam's] regulars.....They were to start from Fort Leavenworth July
15th.....There errand is entirely peaceful. The current report is that they
somewhat query whether they will hang me with or without trial. There are
about 30 others that they intend to deal with. They will then proclaim a
general jubilee and afford means and protection to those who wish to go back to
the States." (As quoted in Brooks, "Mountain Meadows Massacre," p. 34.)
Not only does Young's letter of August 4 indicate that he knew the army's
mission was to escort "an entire set of officials for the territory," his
sardonic remark about not knowing whether he would be hung "with or without
trial" demonstrates consciousness of guilt for his rebellion. The very reason
Young prosecuted a guerrilla war to prevent the Army from entering the valley
was because he feared being found guilty of treason and hanged.
>so all the Mormons knew was that, for the FIFTH time, they were about to be
driven out of their homes and forced to go somewhere else.
The Mormons deserved to be booted out of all the places they had been, and if
Young had not capitulated and given up his governorship, the Mormons would have
been run out of Utah as well, and they would have deserved it.
>This time, however, they decided that they were bloody
well not going to go.
To the contrary, Young looked for other places to emigrate to---even sending
his men out on a mission to find a non-existent lush habitat south of Utah that
he had claimed to have seen "in a vision"---and Young even went so far as to
evacuate SLC and tell the Mormons to gather seven years' worth of grain to live
on in the desert, if necessary. Young only decided to capitulate after Captain
Van Vliet informed him:
"In the course of my conversation with the governor and the influential men of
the territory, I told them plainly and frankly what I conceived would be the
result of their present course. I told them that they might prevent the small
military force now approaching Utah from getting through the narrow defiles and
rugged passes of the mountains this year, but that next season the United
States Government would send troops sufficient to overcome all opposition."
Young realized that if he continued his rebellion against the government, and
his efforts to make Utah Territory his own independent kingdom, that the
government would eventually send enough troops out to overthrow him. So he
caved in.
>There is NO historian who acts purely on fact that blames the Mormons for
Buchanan's Blunder.
All you're telling us here is that you haven't even studied the history, but
instead you are relying solely on propaganda dispensed by Mormon apologists.
>None. The rumors upon which Buchanan acted were just
that, unfounded rumors.
That is exactly what deceitful Mormon apologists claim, but the evidence says
otherwise.
"These troops had been ordered to Utah by John B. Floyd, Secretary of War in
the administration of President James Buchanan. The order to Harney from the
Commanding General of the Army, dated June 29, 1857, explained the move as
follows: 'The community and, in part, the civil government of Utah Territory
are in a state of substantial rebellion against the laws and authority of the
United States. A new civil governor is about to be designated, and to be
charged with the establishment of law and order.' (Arrington, "Great Basin
Kingdom," p. 171.)
Randy J.
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2e...@news.antelecom.net...
>
Nuns claim to be married to Jesus, . . . you mean they are not telling the
truth? Also, my server won't accept attachments to the newsgroups,
otherwise I'd send a bottle of Windex. . ;-))) newguy
>
>
Diana
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011230150600...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> Diana wrote:
>
> >>let's face it, the US had a habit of using very large hammers on us;
like
> literally half the armed services. ;-)
>
> James Hughes wrote:
>
> >After the Fancher wagon train disappeared, or should I say after they
were
> massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
> perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
>
> James, as Diana has written, the MMM occurred while Johnston's Army was in
> Wyoming on their way to the Salt Lake Valley. The army's mission was to
depose
> the belligerent Brigham Young as territorial governor, and to quash any
Mormon
> opposition to that change in power.
Well now, as it turned out, all Buchanan had to do was tell Brigham Young
formally that he was being replaced. He forgot to do that, y'know, which was
the problem.
As it turned out, the Mormons never directly attacked the army.....though
the young men of the army were certainly determined to get the Mormons! Of
course, we did sorta do a job on their supplies....but Buchanan had no
business sending the army out to Utah. He had no business replacing Young
with Cummings WITHOUT LETTING YOUNG KNOW FIRST. In no other territorial
governership was this ever done, that one governor was replaced without
warning.
Sending Cummings out with such a military escort was exactly like a
declaration of war, Jordan. As it turned out, no war was waged; Kane and
Cummings went alone to Young, the transfer of authority was made, all could,
and should, have been done with a lot less grief. Buchanan's Blunder was
indeed one of the dumbass moves of the nineteenth century.....and that is s
judgment by military historians, not by Mormons. ;-)
The fact that Young ordered his men to
> harrass the army, drive off their stock, and burn their supply wagons, is
ample
> evidence of the kind of opposition that Washington had been warned of to
expect
> from the Mormons.
Uh, when you declare war on a people to whom you had previously been less
than kind, you gaurantee less than cordial welcomes, Jordan. Buchanan
gauranteed his own welcome, and the welcome would have been the same no
matter WHO he sent that army against.
> As you quoted somewhat from the 'American Heritage' article,
> the Mormons had harrassed and driven off a number of federal officials
from the
> territory.
Yeah...like the judge who introduced a prostitute to SLC leaders as his
wife, and who let that same prostitute sit on the bench with him as he
judged cases? Every single official kicked out of the territory, that you
point to as something not good on our part, was someone who was either
proven dishonest, corrupt or murderous. Every single one of 'em.......and
proven in federal court, not just in the court of LDS opinion. Do be fair.
>Some of those officials made their way back to Washington and gave
> President Buchanan and Congress their reports of the Mormons' refusal to
obey
> U. S. laws or recognize federal authority.
OF course they did. Their gravy train was derailed. This tends to upset
people.
<snip to end, as the rest of this post isn't worth the bandwidth>
Diana
> James Hughes quoted:
<snip> >Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Juanita Brooks' account
of
> MMM.....
>
> Diana, I have read, and am fully conversant in Brooks' book, and she
> corroborates what James Hughes quoted above. Perhaps YOU should read it.
I have read it. James claimed that Buchanan sent the army against the
Mormons as a result of the MMM.
<snip>
> I explained in another post that Buchanan sent such a large army
contingent out
> in part to PREVENT the Mormons from committing such atrocities as the MMM.
No he didn't. Do read history books written by someone who is neither Mormon
nor anti-Mormon. Try a couple of military history books. "Buchanans Blunder'
is not one of the USA's more shining moments.
> Unfortunately, Brigham Young prevented Johnston's army from entering SLC
by
> having his men harass them, drive off their stock, and burn their supply
> wagons. If Young had not committed that act of treason, the army might
have
> entered Utah in time to escort the Fancher and Duke trains through the
> territory so the Mormons couldn't attack them.
Wasn't treason, you idiot. Buchanan gauranteed that one when he "forgot" to
tell Young that he was being replaced, and simply sent the army. As it
turned out, the only person he had to send was Cummings, the replacement.
After all, that's who ended up doing the job anyway, without help, you will
remember, from the army.
<snip to end, as Randy really makes my blood boil>
Diana
(psst, don't tell anybody, but the reason everyone REALLY gets upset about
the idea that Jesus may have been married is.........sex.)
Nuns are married to Him in 'name only". sorta. ;-)
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/30/2001 6:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c2f...@news.antelecom.net>
Well, you're right, in an unwitting sort of way. The reason early Mormon
leaders pitched the concept that Jesus was married was to support their
polygamy doctrine. It's the same reason they postulated that 'Elohim' was a
polygamist, and that Mary was one of his 'celestial wives.'
Randy J.
Clovis Lark
> Diana wrote:
>>>let's face it, the US had a habit of using very large hammers on us; like
> literally half the armed services. ;-)
> James Hughes wrote:
>
>>After the Fancher wagon train disappeared, or should I say after they were
> massacred? (I'm not trying to be abrasive, just trying to keep a little
> perspective. I'm wondering if you've read about the MMM)
> James, as Diana has written, the MMM occurred while Johnston's Army was in
> Wyoming on their way to the Salt Lake Valley. The army's mission was to depose
> the belligerent Brigham Young as territorial governor, and to quash any Mormon
> opposition to that change in power. The fact that Young ordered his men to
> harrass the army, drive off their stock, and burn their supply wagons, is ample
> evidence of the kind of opposition that Washington had been warned of to expect
> from the Mormons. As you quoted somewhat from the 'American Heritage' article,
> the Mormons had harrassed and driven off a number of federal officials from the
> territory. Some of those officials made their way back to Washington and gave
> President Buchanan and Congress their reports of the Mormons' refusal to obey
> U. S. laws or recognize federal authority. Shortly before the MMM occurred,
> Illinois Republican Stephen A. Douglas gave a speech wherein he summarized
> those reports that warned of what Mormon atrocities:
One of the officials driven off was an Indianan, John W. Dawson:
BY WILL BAGLEY
Nobody ever had a worse New Year's Eve than the Utah
Territory's third governor, John
W. Dawson.
Dawson, an Indiana lawyer and newspaper editor, had a tough
time during the three
December weeks he spent in Utah in 1861. In a speech to the
Legislature, he called on
Mormons to pay $26,982 in federal taxes to help fight the Civil
War.
Brigham Young did not like the idea. First, the Feds would
want the taxes and then "they
will want us to send 1,000 men to the war." He would "see them in
Hell before I will raise
an army for them." The LDS prophet said that anyone who had been a
newspaper editor for
15 years must be "a jackass."
After Dawson vetoed a popular scheme to win statehood for the
Territory of Deseret,
someone took five shots at a federal judge in front of the
governor's rooms on Main Street.
Local authorities laughed it off, but Dawson got the message.
On New Year's Eve, he boarded an eastbound stagecoach under
"circumstances somewhat
novel and puzzling." Dawson said his health "imperatively
demanded" that he return home,
but the Deseret News reported he left "in a state of mental
derangement, or in other words,
distressingly insane."
An LDS apostle charged that the governor had gotten in trouble
"hunting a seamstress."
Dawson allegedly propositioned a Mormon widow, who "drove him out
of her house with a
fire shovel," which, the News claimed, accounted for his mental
state.
An odd gang of rowdies fell in behind the stagecoach as it
rumbled up Emigration Canyon
to Mountain Dell.
"I was followed by a band of Danites [legendary Mormon
vigilantes]," Dawson informed
Abraham Lincoln. That night the crowd at the stage-coach station
got drunk. After the
governor discovered someone had stolen his valuable beaver robe,
stage driver Wood
Reynolds knocked him down. Lot Huntington and other thugs then
inflicted serious violence
on their victim.
The gang wounded "my head badly in many places, kicking me in
the loins and right
breast until I was exhausted," Dawson wrote. Once the governor had
been "viciously
assaulted & beaten," and, according to some, castrated, the
hoodlums carried "on their orgies
for many hours in the night."
This vile attack upset Salt Lake City authorities and they
ordered the perpetrators rounded
up. The ruffians claimed the chief of police had ordered the
assault, but within a month most
of them were dead at the hands of either Orrin Porter Rockwell, at
the time a deputy sheriff,
or the Salt Lake City police.
"How long does the government intend to persist in foisting
such characters upon us?"
asked Brigham Young. "It is our purpose to no more endure the
imposition of such men as .
. . Governor Dawson."
Dawson said he felt the "misrepresentation calumny &
unjustifiable invective" in the
Deseret News was an attempt to justify his assault.
Given the rough handling Dawson received, one might expect
historians to give him a
break, but most Utah chroniclers treat him as badly as the thugs
did that New Year's Eve at
Mountain Dell.
Ironically, being Utah's shortest serving governor was not
John Dawson's greatest claim
to fame. The battered politician returned to Indiana and spent his
last 15 years as a
pain-wracked invalid. He devoted his time to the study of local
history, earning the title "the
Herodotus of Fort Wayne."
Dawson published the first account of the adventures of John
Chapman, an old friend who
had spent 49 years wandering the frontier planting apple trees.
Walt Disney eventually made
Chapman famous, but it was John Dawson who created the American
legend, "Johnny
Appleseed."
_________
Bagley is a Utah historian and author. David L. Bigler's
"Forgotten Kingdom" described
Governor Dawson's unhappy Utah adventure.
http://www.sltrib.com/2001/dec/12302001/utah/162954.htm
newguy
--
.
"Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
news:3c2f...@news.antelecom.net...
Gee, what gyp! Maybe things will be better in the next life? newguy
>
>
James Hughes
Please leave me out of your posts on the MMM as I have already claimed that
I am not an expert. When you had trouble refuting Randy's post you attacked
me.
Remember we agreed to disagree.
And please stop with the name calling. It just shows your true character.
> From: "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:52:39 -0800
> Subject: Re: For Helen and whomever
>
>
Let's just say that you would have to concede and that's not in your nature.
Take your whoopin' and let it be.
Lee Paulson
> > "Diana" <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote in message
Oh, I don't think the LDS are any more anti-woman than Paul was.
>
> After all, the thing that started this conversation was the accusation that
> Mormons considered women to be second class citizens and unworthy of
> rights..and no, I am aware that this accusation did NOT come from you,
> Lee!!!
Whew! I know lots of LDS women who seem to be pretty normal people.
I suspect that there is a big disconnect between the Utah LDS and the
rest of the church members.
>
> It's just that when I get these cockamamie accusations that Mormons consider
> women to be something less than men, I get angry.....and can't help pointing
> out that unlike the rest of the nation, which had to do some heavy duty
> sacrificing/campaigning/convincing to get women the right to vote, OUR fight
> was not to GET it, but to KEEP it...and the fight wasn't against the Mormon
> men, but against all those holier than thou non-Mormon politicians who were
> bound and determined to control the way we sorshiped (anti polygamy laws
> were precisely that...laws against the way we worshiped..) We didn't have
> any problems with MORMON men.
>
> (grump)
>
> ...as an aside, are you aware that Utah is the only state in the union where
> it is unconstitutional to be polygamous, not just against a legal statute?
> It was a requirement of the Federal government that this be included, or
> Utah would not have been allowed to become a state. No other state in the
> entire union was required to do this. I would call that 'nefarious'.
>
> Diana
Nope. I didn't know that. But don't most states have laws against
bigamy? Wouldn't that take care of polygamy?
Lee
TheJordan6
>>>Ah, yes...you might want, however, to read Juanita Brooks' account of the
MMM.....
Randy wrote:
>>Diana, I have read, and am fully conversant in Brooks' book, and she
corroborates what James Hughes quoted above. Perhaps YOU should read it.
> I have read it. James claimed that Buchanan sent the army against the
Mormons as a result of the MMM.
I've already pointed out that James was mistaken in that assertion. And if you
are endorsing Brooks, perhaps you'd like to comment on what she wrote on page
xiii.
>>I explained in another post that Buchanan sent such a large army contingent
out
in part to PREVENT the Mormons from committing such atrocities as the MMM.
>No he didn't.
Yes, he did. To repeat my documentation which you have dishonestly snipped
without comment:
>Do read history books written by someone who is neither Mormon
nor anti-Mormon.
<chuckle> Care to recommend one that deals specifically with this incident that
isn't written either by a "Mormon or an anti-Mormon?" Hey, Will Bagley's about
to publish a new book on the MMM called "Blood of the Prophets." Care to tell
us whether he's "Mormon," "anti-Mormon," or "non-Mormon," so that we can know
whether or not to rely on his work?
The problem with your suggestion is that if anyone writes a book that tells the
version of events that is unfavorable to the LDS Church, Mobots like you simply
brand them as "anti-Mormon," and you discredit them on that basis---just as you
have wholesale branded every single federal official who fled Utah in the
1850's and '60's as a horrible person, simply because they published
information that was unfavorable to Brigham Young and his people.
>Try a couple of military history books. "Buchanan's Blunder' is not one of the
USA's more shining moments.
Neither are the MMM or Brigham Young's forced removal as governor shining
moments of Mormon history.
>>Unfortunately, Brigham Young prevented Johnston's army from entering SLC by
having his men harass them, drive off their stock, and burn their supply
wagons. If Young had not committed that act of treason, the army might have
entered Utah in time to escort the Fancher and Duke trains through the
territory so the Mormons couldn't attack them.
>Wasn't treason, you idiot.
Was, you Mormon. "Governor Cumming attempted to establish his authority from
Camp Scott, on Black's Fork.....A grand jury, called for the purposes of the
court, returned indictments for treason against Brigham Young and sixty of his
associates.....In April, President Buchanan appointed a peace
commission.....the commission carried with them a proclamation of pardon, under
date of April 6, 1858. The proclamation declared the Church leader to be in a
state of 'rebellion' and 'treason', yet in order to prevent the shedding of
blood, granted a pardon to all who would submit to the authority of the federal
government." ("The Restored Church," William R. Berrett, pp. 331-333.)
>Buchanan gauranteed that one when he "forgot" to tell Young that he was being
replaced, and simply sent the army.
I've already explained that
a) Buchanan had no requirement to send Young advance notice of his replacement,
because Young's term was up in 1854, and Buchanan could replace him at his
pleasure
b) Young's declarations that he was severing ties with the United States and
intended to establish an independent kingdom in Utah Territory made him a
traitor to his office, and thus invalidated his authority as governor
c) Young's declaration of martial law, prohibition of "foreign troops" from
entering the valley, and his orders to attack the army contingent prevented
Cumming or army officials from communicating their intent to him.
>As it turned out, the only person he had to send was Cummings, the
replacement.
Nonsense. If Cummings had gone in alone, the Mormons would have harassed him
and driven him off just like they did all the other federally-appointed
officials before him.
> After all, that's who ended up doing the job anyway, without help, you will
remember, from the army.
More nonsense. If the army hadn't been present, the Mormons might have
continued to interfere with federal officials' duties, and run them off, for
years. It was Van Vliet's promise that Washington would send a much larger
army contingent the next spring that forced Young to re-think his position and
cut a plea bargain the following April. And Cumming's resignation in disgust
in 1861 shows that the Mormons were still incorrigible at that time.
<snip to end, as Randy really makes my blood boil>
Aw dang, you snipped the documentation that refutes your contention that Young
didn't know why the army was coming. No problem, I'll just restore it. If you
don't like it, just take a Prozac, calm down, and delete it:
>Buchanan sorta forgot to let Brigham Young KNOW this small detail, that he was
being replaced.
This is another oft-repeated lie of Mormon apologists. Young knew VERY WELL
instead you are relying on the propaganda dispensed by Mormon apologists.
Lee Paulson
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3c258fd9$0$14428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> <snip to>
> > Another interesting topic that gets quite a few Catholics upset is that
> > Mother Mary remained a virgin. They would like to beleive that she
> > did remain so. But, umm I don't think that was possible some how,her
> > being married and all.
>
> Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus had siblings....
It's for just that reason that most RCCs don't believe Mary remained a
virgin, to my knowledge.
Lee
TheJordan6
>>James, as Diana has written, the MMM occurred while Johnston's Army was in
Wyoming on their way to the Salt Lake Valley. The army's mission was to depose
the belligerent Brigham Young as territorial governor, and to quash any Mormon
opposition to that change in power.
Diana wrote:
>Well now, as it turned out, all Buchanan had to do was tell Brigham Young
formally that he was being replaced. He forgot to do that, y'know, which was
the problem.
Buchanan (via Sidney Johnston) had no opportunity to do so, because Young
illegally declared a state of "martial law", forbidding any "foreign troops"
from entering the valley, thus preventing correspondence between the two
parties. Buchanan didn't "forget" to inform Young; to the contrary, Young
"played dumb" and pretended to his people that the army was advancing for no
reason. As I previously documented (which you dishonestly snipped without
acknowledging), Young knew as early as August 4, five weeks before the MMM,
that the army's mission was to depose him as governor, as evidenced by remarks
in his letter to Jacob Hamblin. As Young was well aware of the army's intent
by August 4, the guerrilla war he ordered against the army to prevent them from
entering the valley in October constituted an act of treason against the U. S.
government. ("General" Daniel H. Wells issued his instructions to Mormon
militia to attack the army train on October 4.)
>As it turned out, the Mormons never directly attacked the army.....
Regardless, the Mormons' acts in harrassing the army, burning their supplies,
stealing their cattle, and destroying federal property constituted treason
against the U. S. government.
>though the young men of the army were certainly determined to get the Mormons!
No differently than soldiers of today are 'whipped up' to act against the
perceived enemy. And certainly no different than the way the Mormons of
southern Utah were 'whipped up' by their 'priesthood leaders' to massacre 120+
American citizens at Mountain Meadows.
>Of course, we did sorta do a job on their supplies....but Buchanan had no
business sending the army out to Utah.
120+ dead American citizens, and many others who were harrassed, intimidated,
beaten, or fled Utah in fear for their lives, say you're wrong. Utah was U. S.
territory, and the President has the authority and the right to send troops
whenever and wherever he sees fit.
>He had no business replacing Young with Cummings WITHOUT LETTING YOUNG KNOW
FIRST. In no other territorial governership was this ever done, that one
governor was replaced without warning.
I've explained that Young's actions prohibited such communication, but in
addition, Young's term as governor was up in 1854, and it was the President's
right to replace him at any time after that, at his pleasure.
You fail to understand that because the reports of Mormon atrocities published
in Washington, the army was inclined to treat Young and his Mormons as
traitors, criminals, and the enemy. Thus, they had no need to give Young
"formal" notice of his replacement; Young's imminent removal was already a
given because of his actions.
>Sending Cummings out with such a military escort was exactly like a
declaration of war, Jordan.
It wasn't a "declaration of war," but it was exactly what would happen today if
a governor of a U. S. state or territory did what Young and the Mormons did.
The government would send in federal troops to depose the traitorous governor
and ensure a peaceful changeover of power. That's what would have happened in
Alabama in the '60's when George Wallace stood in the door of the University of
Alabama and refused to let a black student enroll. If Wallace hadn't backed
down, Kennedy would have federalized the Alabama National Guard troops and
forced Wallace to obey or arrest him. Like Wallace, Young backed down when he
realized that he wasn't going to win.
>As it turned out, no war was waged; Kane and Cummings went alone to Young, the
transfer of authority was made, all could, and should, have been done with a
lot less grief.
The visit of Kane and Cummings to Young came the following March, five months
after Young ordered his men to attack the army. Captain Van Vliet had met with
Young in SLC on September 9th, and assured him that the army had no intention
of waging war against the Mormons. Young's response to Van Vliet's visit was
to declare martial law and prohibit the army from entering the valley, and to
order Wells to attack the army. So the party who escalated tensions to the
point of war was Brigham Young, rather than the army officials.
>Buchanan's Blunder was indeed one of the dumbass moves of the nineteenth
century.....and that is judgment by military historians, not by Mormons. ;-)
It was only a "blunder" because of Young's treasonous actions in attacking the
army and preventing them from carrying out their duties. It's easy to
criticize Buchanan in hindsight, but you must understand that Utah contained
40,000 Mormons, many of whom had sworn a secret oath to obey Brigham Young as
"supreme leader", and to follow his laws and orders in preference to those of
the United States. Young had declared Utah territory and its inhabitants an
independent "kingdom," with him as its dictator. Buchanan sent 2500 troops to
escort Cumming because he had no way of knowing how much resistance they would
face from the Mormons.
>> The fact that Young ordered his men to harrass the army, drive off their
stock, and burn their supply wagons, is ample evidence of the kind of
opposition that Washington had been warned of to expect from the Mormons.
>Uh, when you declare war on a people to whom you had previously been less
than kind, you gaurantee less than cordial welcomes, Jordan.
The U. S. government did not "declare war" on the Mormons, and the reason the
U. S. government had been "less than kind" to Mormons over the previous 20
years was because of the Mormons' repeated anti-social behavior and criminal
acts.
>Buchanan guaranteed his own welcome, and the welcome would have been the same
no
matter WHO he sent that army against.
U. S. military forces have had to go many places they weren't welcome, and act
against all sorts of people who didn't want them there. Utah in 1857 was a
United States territory, and the President had a perfect right to send whomever
he chose to maintain order there. The result of that action was to depose a
tyrant who dictated by "divine right" and espoused policies that inspired
criminal acts. Unfortunately, Young's removal still didn't completely solve
the problem:
"When Sir Richard Burton came to Great Salt Lake in 1860, the English explorer
and writer found Governor Cumming disheartened because his 'scrupulous and
conscientious impartiality' had only served to alienate other federal
officials, who considered him to be a pacifist and had won no acceptance of him
from the people. Still firmly in command was the territory's true governor,
Brigham Young, while other federal officials, civil and military, had either
quit in disgust or were getting ready to go. That year, Cumming reported that
Utah was 'bordering on anarchy'.....Deeply disillusioned, the federal
bureaucrat later reported his labors had been 'onerous and embarrassing' and
asked for a leave of absence until a new appointee 'shall have arrived and
qualified.' When asked how a successor would get along, he replied, 'Get
along?
well enough, if he will do nothing. There is nothing to do. Alfred Cumming is
Governor of the Territory, but Brigham Young is Governor of the people.' "
(Bigler, "Forgotten Kingdom", p. 197-98.)
>>As you quoted somewhat from the 'American Heritage' article, the Mormons had
harrassed and driven off a number of federal officials from the territory.
>Yeah...like the judge who introduced a prostitute to SLC leaders as his wife,
and who let that same prostitute sit on the bench with him as he judged cases?
Mobots frequently cite Drummond's alleged lifestyle as a smokescreen to
discredit his reports and take the focus off the Mormons' documented crimes and
anti-government behavior. Those same Mobots have no problem with the fact that
while Drummond held office, Brigham Young and many of his subordinates were
having sex with dozens of women to whom they were not married. I believe the
applicable term here is "pot-kettle-black."
But while we're on the subject of Drummond, Diana, perhaps you could tell
us---if his character was so poor as to discredit his reports, then pray tell,
how could his reports to Washington, which Stephen A. Douglas quoted in his
speech in June, so accurately depict the conditions in Utah, and so uncannily
predict what happened on September 11? Was that just an incredibly lucky
guess?
>Every single official kicked out of the territory, that you point to as
something not good on our part, was someone who was either proven dishonest,
corrupt or murderous. Every single one of 'em.......and proven in federal
court, not just in the court of LDS opinion. Do be fair.
A common tactic of Mobots, when presented with massive documentation that
refutes their claims, is to wholesale dismiss the evidence based on alleged
character issues of those who provided the information, in lieu of actually
providing some specific evidence of their claims.
Your assertion is so bold that surely you can name each and every one of the
officials who fled Utah, and cite from credible, scholarly sources, the
information that "every single one of 'em...was either proven...in federal
court...to be dishonest, corrupt, or murderous."
And while you're at it, perhaps you can also explain why, if all those federal
officials were lying about conditions in Utah as you assert, why Young's
replacement, Alfred Cumming, who most Mormons view positively, resigned in
disgust in May of 1861, stating that Utah was "bordering on anarchy"?
>>Some of those officials made their way back to Washington and gave President
Buchanan and Congress their reports of the Mormons' refusal to obey U. S. laws
or recognize federal authority.
>OF course they did. Their gravy train was derailed. This tends to upset
people.
Darn, Diana, now there's another assertion you're going to have to back up with
some facts.
><snip to end, as the rest of this post isn't worth the bandwidth>
Well, it may not be worth anything to you, but it's worth a lot to a number of
other readers who are interested in the facts, rather than in propaganda and
polemics.
Randy J.
Jeff Shirton
> > Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus
> > had siblings....
>
> It's for just that reason that most RCCs don't believe
> Mary remained a virgin, to my knowledge.
While I have no idea what "most RCCs...believe" (and I wonder how you
can claim to know this, either), I *do* know what RCC doctrine is on
this issue.
The RCC teaches that Mary is "ever virgin", they teach of her "perpetual
virginity", that is, that she remained a virgin all her life.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
----- begin quote -----
499. "The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church
to confess MARY's real and PERPETUAL virginity even in the act of giving
birth to the Son of God made man.[Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571;
1880.] In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's virginal
integrity but sanctified it.'[LG 57.] And so the liturgy of the Church
celebrates MARY as Aeiparthenos, the 'Ever-VIRGIN'.[Cf. LG 52.]"
500. "Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the
Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.[Cf. Mk 3:31-35 ; Mk 6:3 ;
1 Cor 9:5 ; Gal 1:19 .] The Church has always understood these passages
as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and
Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus', are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of
Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other Mary'.[Mt 13:55
; Mt 28:1 ; cf. Mt 27:56 .] They are close relations of Jesus, according
to an Old Testament expression.[Cf. Gen 13:8 ; Gen 14:16 ; Gen 29:15 ;
etc.]"
----- end quote -----
This belief goes even further, that Mary's womb is considered analogous
to the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Place where the Word of God was
kept. That being the case, her womb would be too holy for other, sinful
humans to be born from.
----- begin quote -----
2676 [...] MARY, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is
the daughter of Zion in person, the ARK of the covenant, the place where
the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with
men.'[Rev 21:3.] Full of grace, MARY is wholly given over to him who has
come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
----- end quote -----
> Lee
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco.ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like,
"Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
Diana
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message <snip to>
>
> Oh, I don't think the LDS are any more anti-woman than Paul was.
>
No...because bigamy presupposes the non-consent of the wives, as a general
rule, and does not address those people who practice it in their religions
who come from outside the US. For instance, a polygamous African could bring
his wives over for awhile...even a long while..and not be in violation of
most bigamy laws.
You will find that those states which have anti-polygamy laws have them in
addition to bigamy statutes..and they are statutes, not constitutional
requirements. To overturn a statute requires a simple vote or having a
district court overturn it. To overturn Utah's constitutional prohibition
against polygamy would require a state constitutional convention or a ruling
by the Supreme Court...and I'm not certain that the Supreme Court (federal,
that is) can even hear it.
>
> Lee
Diana
Some still do, very much so...but I'll have to ask a priest I know if that
is still the church official stance, that Mary remained a virgin all her
life. I can't remember.
Diana
Diana
"Jeff Shirton" <unli...@unlisted.ca> wrote in message
news:s21Y7.9209$li.2...@read1.cgocable.net...
> "Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c7358b7.01123...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus
> > > had siblings....
> >
> > It's for just that reason that most RCCs don't believe
> > Mary remained a virgin, to my knowledge.
>
> While I have no idea what "most RCCs...believe" (and I wonder how you
> can claim to know this, either), I *do* know what RCC doctrine is on
> this issue.
>
> The RCC teaches that Mary is "ever virgin", they teach of her "perpetual
> virginity", that is, that she remained a virgin all her life.
>
> From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Ah. Thanks, Jeff.
Helen
> news:c7358b7.01123...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Especially when the scriptures DO mention that Jesus
> > > had siblings....
> >
> > It's for just that reason that most RCCs don't believe
> > Mary remained a virgin, to my knowledge.
That would be silly to assume that she remained a virgin.
Physiologically, once she had given birth she would have lost her hymen
Also, she was , by all accounts a happily married woman and a
"God fearing "one at that: surely her remaining a virgin would have been at
the
great displeasure of her husband..
Lee Paulson
Weird. I'll be interested in seeing the answer. Very strange.
Lee