Chuck
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
Chuck
"Steven Dufour" <fourd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9xr48.16358$ag5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Thanks Chuck. But is it really an expose?
The Mormon majority tends to perceive institutions that are not owned by the
Church as anti-Mormon,
"It's frustrating for the non-Mormon majority in the city, because the
cultural boundaries are already set, and there is little opportunity for
their input."
The extremes of wealth and poverty that characterize most American cities
are not evident in Salt Lake City, in part because of the Mormons' emphasis
on frugality and charity.
The Church had long denied any responsibility for the massacre, blaming a
few renegade Mormons and a band of Paiute Indians, whom the Church accused
of killing the women and children. In 1999, at the request of the
descendants of the victims, the Church rebuilt a small monument at the site.
The gesture became a public-relations disaster when construction workers
discovered a number of bones that seemed to indicate that the women and
children had been shot at close range, apparently by Mormons, rather than
killed by the arrows, clubs, and knives of the Indians.
Hinckley's manner is more corporate than pastoral.
The system may help resolve disputes over succession, but it has also
resulted in a gerontocracy whose leaders have sometimes been physically or
mentally incapacitated. Hinckley, however, is constantly flying around the
globe, visiting missions, dedicating temples, writing books, giving
speeches, and holding press conferences. He is widely regarded as the most
accessible and capable leader the Church has had in decades.
more later...
****
I just finished reading this. There is no expose that I can discern. THe
MMM is disposed of as a small quirk in old west history, almost like Al
Packer's barby in Hinsdale County CO, THe Kingston's and Allred's are
protrayed as corporate types with Lear jets and no explanation as to where
the money came from to buy these. THe Hinckley interview is superficial
and doesn't give anyone, saint or gentile, insight into the mechanics of
church policy or doctrine.
Here is the URL:
NO!
> Sorry. Here you go:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
>
> Chuck
>
€ Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's dark
side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter Larry
Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite interesting.
- It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the meaning of
the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in Mormonism than there are
in Hinduism.
cheers
> "Steven Dufour" <fourd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9xr48.16358$ag5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "camnchar" <camn...@nospam.home.com> writes:
> > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have to wait
> until
> > I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it. Thanks. -Steve
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
It now seems likely that Lee was made a scapegoat to appease public opinion
and the forces in Congress opposed to Utah's bid for statehood. A Tribune
columnist named Will Bagley, who is writing a book about the massacre, has
found contemporary diaries which he believes demonstrate that Young ordered
the killings and supervised a coverup.
Writers such as Twain and Arthur Conan Doyle described the Mormons in terms
similar to those the press uses to describe the Taliban today.
Curiously, the Book of Mormon is replete with denunciations of plural
marriage, as the arrangement is often called.
Some of the brides may have been as young as fourteen, and at least eleven
of them were already married to close associates. Some he married after
dispatching their husbands to the mission fields. A definitive tally of
Smith's wives may never be established, but it is clear that in the last
years of his life he was in a kind of marital frenzy, taking an average of
one new wife per month,
In 1866, Brigham Young declared, "The only men who become gods, even the
sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."
As Gordon Hinckley told me, "Polygamy came by revelation, and it left by
revelation."
Mormons have managed to make themselves into an ethnic group without any of
the usual markers of ethnicity-no distinctive language or accent, no special
foods or music.
****
What about green jello salad and funeral potatoes? Or Janis Kap Perry?
MoTab? Distinctive language? Flip, Fetch?
****
By far the most successful Mormon business venture is the Church itself.
Among its largest holdings are the Beneficial Life Insurance Company, which
has more than two billion dollars in assets, and the Bonneville
International Corporation, a media company with eighteen radio stations
concentrated in Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. The
Church reportedly owns more than a million acres of land in the continental
United States (the equivalent of the state of Delaware), on which it
operates more than a hundred and fifty ranches, farms, and orchards. It runs
the largest cattle ranch in the United States, Deseret Cattle & Citrus, near
Orlando, Florida.
When I asked him to describe his own revelations, Hinckley demurred.
"They're very sacred to me. They're the kind of things you don't want to put
before the world," he said.
****
I thought that was exactly what prophets did with their revelations????
They put them before the world!! What good is a prophet of God and
continuing revelation if he doesn't share those revelations with the people
he is leading??
****
as many as two hundred million dead people have been baptized as Mormons,
including Buddha and all the popes, Shakespeare, Einstein, and Elvis
Presley-what Peck dismissively calls "celebrity work for the dead."
Non-Mormons, along with Church members who were worried about the appearance
of cronyism, criticized Romney's appointment as an invitation for the world
to view the Winter Games as the Mormon Olympics. James Shelledy, the Salt
Lake Tribune editor, said to me, "The Governor conducted an exhaustive
forty-eight-hour search for the best B.Y.U. graduate available."
Tim Heaton, a professor of demographics, explained the "four 'C's" that
distinguish Mormons from other Americans: chastity, conjugality, chauvinism,
and children
Utah reportedly leads the nation in the use of antidepressants; Prozac
prescriptions, for instance, are about sixty per cent above the national
average.
"I mean, if you were a believer, you'd come at this from the perspective
that the Lord is behind all this, and the deception, if there be any, is by
design."
Hugh Nibley, who is the most venerable figure in Mormon scholarship,
although he is little known outside it.
Nowhere in North America is there evidence of an ancient civilization that
had, as Smith describes it, wheeled transportation or the capacity to make
steel weapons, or a written language that corresponded to Egyptian.
When the Church showed the documents to four distinguished Egyptologists,
however, each of them came to the same conclusion: the papyri were ordinary
Egyptian funerary documents and had nothing at all to do with Abraham.
the fact that Smith had also produced a "grammar" of the Egyptian language
weakened the theory.
Although Romney, like other Mormons, defends the practice of polygamy in the
early days of the Church by pointing to a surplus of women in Utah, census
reports for the time show roughly equal numbers of men and women.
Brigham Young authorized women to leave their husbands if they could find a
man "with higher power and authority" than their present husband.
Apparently, many of them did, as shown by the rate of divorce at the time.
It was clear, following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that it could not
exist in America if it continued to practice racial discrimination, and yet
the issue of extending priesthood to blacks was not resolved until 1978
In 1993, a leading apostle, Boyd K. Packer, spoke, with alarm, of the "major
invasions into the membership of the Church" by feminists, homosexuals, and
scholars and intellectuals. A few months later, five Mormon intellectuals
were excommunicated and one was "disfellowshipped,"
"But for me to decide that the problems are insurmountable would mean
walking away from five generations of people before me. What really clicks,
what really keeps us there, is the culture."--Ken Driggs
D. Michael Quinn says, "the Mormon message attracts people who want to
become Americanized."
"I read both the Mormon Bible and the life of Smith and I was horrified,"
Tolstoy wrote in a diary entry. "Yes, religion, religion proper, is the
product of deception, lies for a good purpose. An illustration of this is
obvious, extreme in the deception: The Life of Smith; but also other
religions, religions proper, only in differing degrees."
****
For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both sides of the
story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
distortion.
****
****
It does however go much further in discussing real problems with the
Corp.of JC of LDS than most mainstream media attempts such as Newsweek
or Larry K.
Did learn that they own more than just KSL TV and radio, they own more than
15 TV and radio stations.
I for one would like to know just how many business the church really does
own.
"rabidcorgi" <rabid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59ef674d.02012...@posting.google.com...
Why does that matter to you?
I read the article. The impression I got was of a reporter who began not
liking us, ended up not liking us, but tried to get the facts out anyway. He
DID mention MMM, two full paragraphs, but dismissed what was done TO us with
a single sentence. Even though that sentence was:
"In the nine years that remained in his brief life, Smith and his
disciples were driven from one settlement after another, in what was an
unparalleled assault of religious persecution in America."
I found this indicative of his bias.
I also saw that he wasn't able to use objective adjectives; every time he
had to choose a modifier, he went with the negative one: for instance, he
said that the Book of Mormon was written in a 'florid' style, that Mark
Twain called 'chloroform in print'" While it is true that Twain said that,
it was not necessary for the author to include that coupled with the word
'florid'. The whole thing is calculated to show his personal distaste for a
religion that, if one simply reads the facts presented in the article,
stands up rather well to scrutiny in acts and in values. The author DOES
mention those, though he does so reluctantly, almost as if he reeeeaaaaally
didn't want to but needed to give the devil his due. ;-)
So I wouldn't call it an "expose'", exactly, but its REAL obvious that the
writer didn't like the assignment OR the topic. The most that I can say for
him is that he tried to be thorough. Sorta.
Believe me, I've seen worse.
Imagine if Harpers had published the article...
Diana, when he mentioned the MMM, and didn't mention the following, I was
appalled:
The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
emigrants noticed a large number of Indians riding about Parawan. They
also noticed that these Indians had a lot of tinware and clothing tied to
their saddles. There was plenty of time to study this unusual behavior,
because Colonel Dame detained both of these trains in Parawan before
allowing them to proceed.
The first one, the Tanner-Matthews train, having left Salt Lake City
barely a week after the Fancher train, was detained because the fight was
still going on in the Meadows when it arrived in the Parawan vicinity.
Then when these people were allowed to go on, they were taken through
Mountain Meadows after dark. They were told to stay in or close to their
wagons, and right on the trail. They were not allowed to set up their camp
until they were three miles beyond the Meadows. This was strange to them.
Since the written records of this train make no mention of an odor of dead
animals, we assume that the shallow graves of the emigrants had not yet
been invaded by the wolves that Jacob Hamblin saw eating the bodies that
they had dug up. When he returned to the Meadows a week after
Tanner-Matthews had passed through Hamblin counted 18 wolves doing this,
and he noticed that the wolves were partial to the bodies of the women and
the children.
Fifty or more miles on down the trail, at the ford of the Muddy, the
members of the Tanner train met Chief Jackson, and his band. No threats
were made by these warriors, because both Tanner and Matthews were
Mormons, and their guide, Ira Hatch, was well know to Chief Jackson. From
him they learned of the killing of the two men that had escaped to the
California trail the day that young Aiken had been shot. Hatch apparently
remained mum through all of this, because there is no mention of his
having commented on the chief's report. We now know that Hatch was there
with Chief Jackson when the escapees were found, and that he was the one
who ordered the killing.
A few miles before the Tanner train arrived at San Bernardino it was
overtaken by the mail carrier, Bill Hyde, who told them more details of
the fight at Mountain Meadows. He also told them of the record book that
Chief Jackson had taken off the body of one of the men that was killed at
the Muddy.
Quite naturally the non-Mormon members of this train were able to put the
facts, as they knew them, together. They knew that men from the
Fancher-Baker train had been killed as they tried to run for help. They
had seen all of those Indians in Parawan with what appeared to be loot
tied to their saddles, and they had noticed that these Indians seemed to
be perfectly at ease riding around that white man's town. They now knew
that the entire train had been destroyed. It is not at all surprising that
the non-Mormons suspected that there was a close association between the
Mormons and the Indians in whatever had caused the fight at Mountain
Meadows, and many of them were sure that the Mormons had a hand in the
battle as well.
A part of Brigham Young's "battle ax of the Lord" attacked elements of the
Duke train, (which was the second train, after the Fancher-Baker
emigrants, to travel down the California trail.) Two of their leaders,
Collins and Turner, were seriously wounded in that raid. These emigrants
were able to escape to the nearby town of Beaver, where Mormons
intervened, and persuaded the Indians to leave with a number of the
emigrant's cattle. After that episode all of the wagons of this train
united for safety, and proceeded on to Parawan. Like the Tanner-Matthews
outfit that had passed this way the preceding week, these people were also
detained by Colonel Dame. After a couple of Mormon guides were provided,
(for the sum of $1810.00) and after it was considered safe to travel they
were allowed to proceed.
Apparently the site and stench of dead bodies that had been exhumed by
wild animals was something that the Mormon leaders did not want Gentiles
to experience, so this train was detoured around the Meadows on a little
used trail that had been blazed by Parley P. Pratt during the winter of
1849 - 50. Their route from Parawan to Santa Clara, which took them down
the valley east of the Pine Valley Mountains, is now closely paralleled by
Interstate 15.
At their camp seven miles from the ford of the Muddy, these people had a
bad experience that infuriated them. Creeping stealthily through deep
ravines by moonlight Indians were able to steal about 300 head of cattle.
The angered men of the train thought that there were enough of them to
fight the Indians, and drive their cattle back, but the Mormon guides
advised against this. They told the leaders, Duke and Honea, that if they
tried such a thing the Indians very likely would kill them all. Rather
than fight, the guides thought that it would be better for them, the
guides, to calmly approach the Indians, negotiate, and try to retrieve as
many of the cattle as they could. To the disgust of the members of the
train, that was the last they saw of the guides.
Of course it did not occur to the emigrants that to fight such a large
tribe of warriors would have been disastrous, nor did it occur to them
that it took all of the courage and ingenuity of the guides to keep the
Indians satisfied with the cattle rather than the complete annihilation of
the train, which is what the Indians had in mind.
Naturally when the emigrants arrived in California they reported that the
Mormons had used the Indians to steal their cattle, and had pocketed the
$1810.00; and of course all Gentiles believed them.
And stories like this added more fuel to the fire.
There are on record a number of examples of this sort of thing, and
undoubtedly there were a great many more that were never recorded, for we
know of many more trains that passed through southern Utah that fall that
left no written record.
This is how we know of them.
After the massacre, Brigham young, recognizing it as a public relations
disaster, abruptly changed tactics. It was now OK to sell supplies to all
California emigrants. It was now important to give them as much assistance
as possible. From records of supplies purchased in Salt Lake City it is
known that a number of wagon trains passed through on their way to Las
Vegas and San Bernardino in the fall of 1857, and many more obtained
supplies than left journals or diaries to record their experiences along
the way.
However, four wagon trains had members that left a detailed written record
of their experiences. It is from reviewing these records that we are able
get a good idea of how the public at large learned of the massacre.
These are the records that let us know of the emigrants seeing so many
Indians, loaded with loot, riding fearlessly - even as friends - around
the Mormon town of Parawan, and at the same time seeing the war-like
attitude of the Indians toward non-Mormons. These are the records that
tell of the horror of counting skeletons along the trail as the wagons
passed through Mountain Meadows, and of the death of the last two
emigrants who escaped from the Meadows when young Aiden was shot.
With every succeeding group of people that traveled through southern Utah
during the fall and winter of 1857 there were more stories to tell of the
massacre, and more stories to tell about the Indians and about the
Mormons. The end result was that the citizens of California were more and
more aroused, horrified and angered. They cried out for justice, but deep
down what they wanted was revenge.
If Colonel Dame, and all the others had really thought that they would be
able to keep their deed a secret by "doing away with all who are old
enough to talk," they were really wrong.
Rather than blanketing the fire they had fanned the flames.
The tone was of one who is highly ignorant of the culture.
He knew what it meant, all right. He's a cagey fellow. Interesting how he
didn't appear to be interested in discussing theological matters, and kept
trying to steer the conversation toward the building of temples, the
Church's rapid growth, etc etc.
The whitewashing of Church history is nowhere more evident than in the words
of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
Chuck
Ah, Clovey, you're too knowledgeable to consider any report on Mormonism an
expose. I'm sure, however, to the unwashed this article is exposeish
enough. It covers almost every scandal the One True Church has faced, with
the exception of the Hoffman affair -- which is a curious exception, given
the Church's current President.
It even mentions one of your favorite subjects, the lack of DNA evidence ...
Chuck
Don't cotton to publicity, I see. Get used to it. The Molympics are
a'commin.
Chuck
Clovis, I'm not going to defend what happened to the Fanchers. I can think
of several explanations, but no excuses, OK?
My point was that, no matter how superficially the writer dealt with the
MMM, he didn't deal with what was done TO us at all. You can be as appalled
as you wish, but until you are just as appalled by the masacre at Hauns'
Mill, the mob killing at Carthage, the hundreds of people persecuted and
killed for nothing more than their belief system, I will view your
indignation at the MMM with considerable cynicism; you are obviously not as
concerned with justice as you seem to me, all you want to do is vilify the
Mormons. It's propaganda, and as such, dishonorable.
To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to worship
freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits make
lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend on
Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
bothered?
I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as the
Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight back.
This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
Doesn't make the attack right. Doesn't excuse it.....but no act occurs in a
vacuum, Clovis. I don't blame the Fanchers. I blame the men who attacked the
train. It was a horrific act, and nothing that was done previously to the
men who attacked the train excuses it. It does, however, go quite a way
toward explaining it.
> Chuck
My gripes:
1. No mention why JSjr was in stir in Nauvoo.
2. No mention what was going on in Utah viz militias and danites and
HIckman and Rockwell, so somehow the MMM was an anecdotal anomaly.
3. No mention in the meddling in other states politics.
4. No mention of the prior use of peepstones before the discovery of the
plates.
5. No mention of the sealed archives in Little Cottonwood.
etc.
He made mention of the printing press fiasco, and almost as an aside that it
was caused by JSjr's penchant for taking other men's wives.
> 2. No mention what was going on in Utah viz militias and danites and
> HIckman and Rockwell, so somehow the MMM was an anecdotal anomaly.
Nope.
> 3. No mention in the meddling in other states politics.
He did mention the Church's meddling in Hawaii and California on the gay
marriage thang.
> 4. No mention of the prior use of peepstones before the discovery of the
> plates.
Nope.
> 5. No mention of the sealed archives in Little Cottonwood.
Nope.
I agree, it could have been better. Too much truth, however, and you risk
charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than enough
food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in recorded
history.
Chuck
> "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:a2verl$t2i$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Diana <di...@antelecom.netlnospam> wrote:
>>
>> > "garydw" <gar...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:UxE48.102953$t07.14...@twister.midsouth.rr.com...
> <snip to>
>> Diana, when he mentioned the MMM, and didn't mention the following, I was
>> appalled:
>>
>> The first two wagon trains that came along behind the doomed Fancher
>> emigrants noticed a large number of Indians riding about Parawan. <snip
> rest of story for brevity>
> Clovis, I'm not going to defend what happened to the Fanchers. I can think
> of several explanations, but no excuses, OK?
> My point was that, no matter how superficially the writer dealt with the
> MMM, he didn't deal with what was done TO us at all. You can be as appalled
> as you wish, but until you are just as appalled by the masacre at Hauns'
> Mill, the mob killing at Carthage, the hundreds of people persecuted and
> killed for nothing more than their belief system, I will view your
> indignation at the MMM with considerable cynicism; you are obviously not as
> concerned with justice as you seem to me, all you want to do is vilify the
> Mormons. It's propaganda, and as such, dishonorable.
I could care littel for justice. Everyone is dead, long dead. It is the
mangling of history that bothers me. Is there a similar mangling of the
Haun's Mill and Carthage events?
> To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
> horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
> them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
Huh? That there was an organized system for raiding wagon trains on both
major routes through Utah? This is the cause. That BY had sparked what
became well known as the Mormon Reformation, inciting people into a
zenophobic violent state of mind? These are the causes. Fancher and his
group ran smack into this deadly cocktail.
> Be reasonable at least; do you think that if we had been allowed to worship
> freely in New York, Illinois or Missourri, if Boggs hadn't signed that
> Extermination Order, if the good Christian neighbors hadn't gone around
> shooting unarmed nine year old boys in the head with the comment 'nits make
Is this history whitewashed?
> lice', or if Buchanan hadn't decided that half the army had to descend on
> Utah in order to replace the governor, that the Fanchers would have been
> bothered?
They sure would have, because of BY's Mormon Reformation.
> I don't. Entire groups of people who have been persecuted as badly as the
> Mormons were tend to get paranoid. People who are looking at having to
> move.......AGAIN.....might just dig their heels in and finally fight back.
> This is why the Fanchers were attacked.
Those down in Iron County hadn't seen much persecution...
> Doesn't make the attack right. Doesn't excuse it.....but no act occurs in a
> vacuum, Clovis. I don't blame the Fanchers. I blame the men who attacked the
> train. It was a horrific act, and nothing that was done previously to the
> men who attacked the train excuses it. It does, however, go quite a way
> toward explaining it.
Please explain Haight.
No mention of the many mormons killed by their neighbors, raped, beaten,
drivin from their homes and no mention of Gov. Boggs and his infamous
extermination order, either....
But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
No mention of Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs in the head, and Joseph Smith
Jr. declaring Boggs dead (prematurely) in fulfillment of prophecy ...
Chuck
Insofar as I can tell, Haun's Mill is accepted as part of the historical
record. I found not one source (I obviously haven't seen every one) that
said these people deserved what they got nor denying it took place. That
is different than MMM. In the case on MMM, admission to the murders then
admits to other aspects which lead to other things, ending in the piracy
policy.
> But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
Diana, I have to hand it to you. I would give most anyone the benefit of
the doubt in even the most acrimonious debate. But this comment comes
close to the basest of them. Been to your bishop lately? Take a hard
copy of your post along. Cheers.
Done to us after the bank scandal, done to us after the raids on the
Gentile's, done to us after the extermination order was pronounced by us on
them, done to us after Joseph Smith destroyed a printing press just because
he didn't like what it had to say. Ever heard of freedom of the press?
What did this group from AK do to US? Should Christ have killed his
persecutors instead of allowing them to crucify him? Did the people killed
at MMM ever pose any real threat to the saints or was it pure revenge?
> a single sentence. Even though that sentence was:
>
> "In the nine years that remained in his brief life, Smith and his
> disciples were driven from one settlement after another, in what was an
> unparalleled assault of religious persecution in America."
This is biased? If it is biased it is in the positive. He says what
happened to the saints was due to their religion and not all of the other
actions that they did to stir the anger of their neighbors. If mormons were
persecuted simply because they were of a different religion why weren't
amish people in the region persecuted?
>
> I found this indicative of his bias.
>
> I also saw that he wasn't able to use objective adjectives; every time he
> had to choose a modifier, he went with the negative one: for instance, he
> said that the Book of Mormon was written in a 'florid' style, that Mark
> Twain called 'chloroform in print'" While it is true that Twain said
that,
> it was not necessary for the author to include that coupled with the word
> 'florid'.
Since when is "florid" a negative adjective? As for chloroform I am sure
many members have a similar feeling when trudging through Alma and the
Isaiah sections.
>The whole thing is calculated to show his personal distaste for a
> religion that, if one simply reads the facts presented in the article,
> stands up rather well to scrutiny in acts and in values. The author DOES
> mention those, though he does so reluctantly, almost as if he
reeeeaaaaally
> didn't want to but needed to give the devil his due. ;-)
What you mean he tried to present both sides? And by 'facts' I take it that
you are not refering to the parts about the papyri, or the lack of
historical evidence for the BoM, or Tolstoy's comments, or the part about
the cenus records indicating that there wasn't an overabundance of available
women that produced the need for polygamy, or the high divorce rate in UT
due to BY's advice that women are justified in leaving their husbands for a
man with a higher priesthood calling? What about GBH stating that BY really
did teach that HF is Adam? Was that a real quote or do you think he twisted
his words on that one?
>
> So I wouldn't call it an "expose'", exactly, but its REAL obvious that the
> writer didn't like the assignment OR the topic. The most that I can say
for
> him is that he tried to be thorough. Sorta.
How do you know that he didn't like the assignment? If he didn't like the
assignment he could have been a lot more superficial like other writers and
interviewers have been with the church. You are coloring his attitudes with
your own personal dislike for what he said. What would have indicated that
the author LIKED the topic? If the article had been filled with gushing
praise for how wonderful the church is, only told the churches view on
things, and ended with some powerful endorsement of this amazing American
religion?
So now the church is a culture not a religion? I guess that lawyer in
Atlanta would agree with you. Believe in the culture, who gives a damn
about the religion and whether or not it is what it claims to be.
Not to mention a prophet who feels his revelations are too personal to share
with the church he is the prophet, seer and revelator for. I agree. I was
impressed more by what the author included than by what he left out. Sure
it would have been nice to have a few more tidbits put in but I agree with
Chuck that if he had been too heavy handed many mormons would likely avoid
the whole article. This way he has enough parts that members with be
pleased with to get them to read the other parts. I bet GBH doesn't put up
a picture of himself standing next to the author of this article like he did
with Larry King. Larry was a pussycat compared to this guy.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> First came the revelation that members of the Salt Lake Bid Committee had
> boosted its candidacy by dispensing more than a million dollars in cash and
> gifts
€ Gifts = callgirls
>...
> Mormons have managed to make themselves into an ethnic group without any of
> the usual markers of ethnicity-no distinctive language or accent, no special
> foods or music.
> ****
> What about green jello salad
€ As I recall, Jello and Prozac are mentioned. Shades of the "Stepford
Wives"?
>> ...
> For the most part a very impressive article. This is one of the first
> writers in a long time who did not pull punches and showed both sides of the
> story. I am sure members however will say it is full of lies and
> distortion.
>
cheers
> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2601020...@port75.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <Wyr48.4038$vc.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "camnchar"
> > <camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's dark
> > side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter Larry
> > Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite interesting.
> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the meaning of
> > the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in Mormonism than there are
> > in Hinduism.
>
> He knew what it meant, all right. He's a cagey fellow. Interesting how he
> didn't appear to be interested in discussing theological matters, and kept
> trying to steer the conversation toward the building of temples, the
> Church's rapid growth, etc etc.
>
€ Defending mormonite theology got him in trouble before during an
interview with a secular reporter.
> The whitewashing of Church history is nowhere more evident than in the words
> of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
>
Indeed, Chuck. The job of the Revelator is not to reveal the real special
secrety stuff.
Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
"intellectuals" were being purged. Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
Mike
Whoa-ho, Diana. Yeah, there's not alot of point to comment and debate about
the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the faith
when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do? That's
human nature.
Mike
I thought it was great example of "gonzo journalism". I mostly read the New
Yorker for the cartoons anyway. :-)
Thanks Diana. I think I see now why when reading it, (you've got to
hand it to the New Yorker, they give good *long* reads, relatively speaking)
I was reminded of who the New Yorker's target audience was. He was
translating this alien culture into cosmopolitan terms I thought. No easy
task given the harsh nature of urban life. I was surprised and not so
surprised to catch the statistic that SLC had less than 50% membership. I
find myself wondering what it might've been like reading this first in a
crowded coffee-shop at the height of day instead of online. Oh well,
zeitgeist for another day.
Mike
that is as descriptive of utah mormonism as anything ever written. It is
a culture composed of people who love to feel persecuted, and the church
reinforces that for them.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
> > I agree, it could have been better. Too much truth, however, and you risk
> > charges that the author was "just another anti" and so we should all, of
> > course, dismiss the article out of hand. I thought it gave more than
> enough
> > food for thought, especially the interview with GBH. A prophet who isn't
> > interested in discussing theology!! That has GOT to be a first in
> recorded
> > history.
>
> Not to mention a prophet who feels his revelations are too personal to share
> with the church he is the prophet, seer and revelator for.
"revelations" are pretty watered down now. No more of those God and Jesus
standing in the tree tops revelations. Now a warm feeling is called a
"personal revelation".
You're comparing this to Hunter S. Thompson??????
> > > > > camnchar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice expose on Mormonism.
> > > > >
> > > > Steven Dufour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is this online? If so could you post a link? Otherwise I'd have
> > > > to wait until I'm in my doctor's waiting room to read it.
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > camnchar wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry. Here you go:
> > >
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> > >
> > R. L. Measures wrote:
> >
> > ? Thanks, Chuck. This article pretty well covers the church's
> > dark side. Hinckley's parting admonition for *New Yorker* reporter
> > Larry Wright not to talk to the church's critics was quite
> > interesting.
> > - It's hard to believe that prophet Hinckley didn't know the
> > meaning of the word "polytheism" when there are more gods in
> > Mormonism than there are in Hinduism.
> >
> > cheers
> >
>
> Come on. It's a hard enough political battle keeping the Christian
> title when it suits. Now you want him to put polytheistic out there on the
> wind? I can almost feel the chatter building.
>
> Meanwhile, I took offense to the reporter's perception that the
> "intellectuals" were being purged.
€ As has often been the case in the Salvation business , there are
libidinal men who can not tolerate allowing women even modest amounts of
power. In the present day Mormonite church, women can not receive any
priesthood powers. However, there is evidence that Joseph Smith, Junior
gave women two priestly powers. In prophet Smithąs private journal, he
recorded that he told women they would possess priesthood privileges,
gifts and blessings permitting them to heal the sick and cast out devils.
After 1921, the old devils in the hierarchy started telling Mormon women
that they could only enjoy the blessings of the priesthood through their
husbands. 15 months after LDS historian and author Dr. D. Michael Quinn
published an essay on this subject, he was barred from church archives and
excommunicated. Subsequently, Quinn wrote a book titled "The Mormon
Hierarchy: Origins of Power". In December 1994, author and researcher
Brent Metcalf was excommunicated from god's one true church because he
edited łNew Approaches to the Book of Mormon ˛, a collection of essays
that question the historicity of the Book of Mormon . Between September
1993 and October 1994, seven high profile Mormons were excommunicated by
the LDS "Authorities". For her efforts in writing "No Man Knows My
History" , professor Fawn Brodie received rave reviews from the New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune - and excommunication
from the Mormonite church. When she was excommunicated, it was rumoured
that the reason for excommunicating her was not so much because of what
she said in her Smith bio. - it was for the thoroughness of her research
and documentation. It seems that Fawn Brodieąs greatest sin was that she
had left no path of "plausible deniability" for the all-male Mormon
hierarchy.
>Dissenters were asked to get onboard or
> get out, yes, but I think there's still a theological school at BYU, no?
>
€ Notre Dame U has one, so why not BYU?
€ cheers, Mike
> € cheers, Mike
"The university violated former English Professor Gail Turley Houston's
academic freedom when it refused to give her continuing status, BYU's
version of tenure, the AAUP said. The administration had accused Houston
of attacking BYU in speeches at a nonchurch sponsered forum on Mormon
studies, and in Student Review, a non-campus newspaper."
Uh, Porter Rockwell was not tried for shooting Boggs in the head, and he
said that he didn't do it...so claiming that he did is a little silly, don't
you think? Besides, Porter was several hundred miles away from the site of
the shooting at the time it was done. Boggs had more enemies than the
Mormons.
I notice that you don't have anything to say about the persecutions the
Mormons faced? Does that mean you approve of them too?
> > No mention of the many mormons killed by their neighbors, raped, beaten,
> > drivin from their homes and no mention of Gov. Boggs and his infamous
> > extermination order, either....
>
> Insofar as I can tell, Haun's Mill is accepted as part of the historical
> record. I found not one source (I obviously haven't seen every one) that
> said these people deserved what they got nor denying it took place. That
> is different than MMM. In the case on MMM, admission to the murders then
> admits to other aspects which lead to other things, ending in the piracy
> policy.
>
> > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
>
> Diana, I have to hand it to you. I would give most anyone the benefit of
> the doubt in even the most acrimonious debate. But this comment comes
> close to the basest of them. Been to your bishop lately? Take a hard
> copy of your post along. Cheers.
With all due respect, Clovis, you have shown NO indication that you
disaproved of anything that was done TO us. You simply keep repeating all
the stuff you say we did. That to me indicates your disaproval of Mormons to
the extent that you approve of what was done to us.
Please feel free to prove me incorrect.
>
> > But I forgot, you approve of that stuff.
> >
>
> Whoa-ho, Diana. Yeah, there's not alot of point to comment and debate
about
> the nasty things that have been done to even the better members of the
faith
> when your main point is how bogus the faith is. Well, what to do? That's
> human nature.
Yes. It's human nature to "prove" how bogus a faith something is and use
things done BY members of that faith to others. However, to cavalierly
dismiss the things done TO members of that faith is unfair and shows a lack
of objectivity that borders on approval.
I went too far in accusing Clovis of approving things like Hauns Mill. On
the other hand, I honestly haven't seen any indication from him that he
disaproves of stuff like that, in fact, he has gone to rather great lengths
to excuse it by alluding to mythical actions by Danites. "Approve" "Excuse"
"Dismiss"...three terms that mean essentially the same thing, especially
when such pains are taken to point to the MMM in excruciating detail.
I haven't approved, excused OR dismissed the MMM. All I ask in return is a
fair examination of ALL that happened, including the actions taken against
us, with something other than a dismissive "Hauns' Mill is a part of
history" as if saying so made it irrelevent to the Mormon people.
Hauns' Mill was NOT irrelevent. Neither is the fact that some of the men
involved in the MMM had lost entire families to the persecution of their
religion, lost their families, their lands and homes, sometimes twice or
three times over. If you push people that hard, something is going to blow;
as I said, the MMM did NOT occur in a vacuum, nor did it occur because
Mormonism is evil.
John, so what do you say to the thousands who are in the culture and
view it as accurate?
Steve Lowther
You bet there is. I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone claimed that
Joseph Smith died in a blazing gunfight..that he provoked, or that the
attack on Hauns' Mill was self defense.
> > To me, what you are saying here is that the Mormons' acts at MMM were
> > horrific, so much so that it justified all the horrors visited upon
> > them.........even though you are putting the effect before the cause.
>
> Huh? That there was an organized system for raiding wagon trains on both
> major routes through Utah? This is the cause. That BY had sparked what
> became well known as the Mormon Reformation, inciting people into a
> zenophobic violent state of mind? These are the causes. Fancher and his
> group ran smack into this deadly cocktail.
........I'm not going to address everything you've