Article in The Christian Science Monitor on September Dawn

[_ozemc]

Thought people might be interested in this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p02s01-ussc.html

[_Nephi]

It was interestingly enough that one of the main articles in this month's Ensign is about the MMM. I was impressed, though that they were very frank about the article. You can read it online here. At least the church is coming forward about the issue, but its sad it took such pressure from the media to make that happen. I think this shows that the church is just a fallible as any other church on earth as well.

[_guy sajer]

It was interestingly enough that one of the main articles in this month's Ensign is about the MMM. I was impressed, though that they were very frank about the article. You can read it online here. At least the church is coming forward about the issue, but its sad it took such pressure from the media to make that happen. I think this shows that the church is just a fallible as any other church on earth as well.

I assume that in the article the Church did not accept any blame for what happened but rather attempted to deflect and diffuse blame.

One thing I'd like to see addressed. There is much controversy about whether BY purposively set in motion events that led to the massacre (Will Bagley thinks so, others don't), but there does not appear to be any controversy (or is there) that BY was up to his eyeballs in the cover up, or at the very least, he was less than forthright in demanding a full accountability, apparently more than content to let John D. Lee be served up as the single scapegoat for the massacre.

Participating in a cover up of mass murder is not as heinous as mass murder itself, but it's pretty damn heinous in its own right. Even if BY gets a pass on the massacre, he does not get a pass on the cover-up, and this alone is, IMHO, is sufficient to indelibly stain his moral character and brands him morally unfit to be God's one true emmissary on earth.

[_quaker]

Out of curiosity, do you think the Church would have included the recent articles about Mountain Meadows had this film and recent television programs not left viewers with the idea that it was Brigham who contrived a conspiracy to commit all the murders?

I do not think it would have commanded nearly as much attention in Church publications if there were not highly speculative ideas being imprinted as facts on the minds of many people.

I can understand why the Church wants to clarify to people that blaming Brigham for the massacre, and by association the organization of the COJCOLDS, is based on speculation.

Another question: If the writers of the film and Bagley and co. started claiming that the Holy Spirit confirmed to their hearts that BY ordered the massacre, and that was enough evidence for them to point the finger, what would the Church do? :)

[_Mercury]

I do not think it would have commanded nearly as much attention in Church publications if there were not highly speculative ideas being imprinted as facts on the minds of many people.

Yes, I forgot how "factual" Legacy is in displaying character. payback is a Bitch Mormons. Maybe the church will think twice about twisting so called historical portrayals in the future.