Ensgin Article On MMM

[_Blixa]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

Keep in mind, the Ensign article spewed forth by Turley was written for the members, not the public.

I suppose the feature length book will be too...

[_Polygamy Porter]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

Keep in mind, the Ensign article spewed forth by Turley was written for the members, not the public.

I suppose the feature length book will be too...

BINGO!

[_Jason Bourne]

The actions of the leadership AFTER it happened speak louder than the words of the paid defenders of today.

Do they now. And what pray tell in your infinite lack of wisdom does it tell ue?

Turley's delay after delay after delay speaks volumes as well.

Well if it speaks volumes your comments sure missed them. One sentence?

And ferchisssakes Jason, why not just a link to the silly article? Why did you feel the need to post the whole thing?

To bug you PP.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

I would be very interested in what you have to say.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

Keep in mind, the Ensign article spewed forth by Turley was written for the members, not the public.

Well Duh!!!!

[_Jason Bourne]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

Keep in mind, the Ensign article spewed forth by Turley was written for the members, not the public.

I suppose the feature length book will be too...

BINGO!

I think it will be for members and the general public. And I have no doubt it will be better and more reliable the bagley's book.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I have a lot of comments Jason, boy do I have a lot of comments. However, my books are boxed up and I can get to my notebooks under all the luggage and clothes. The best I can do now is to say that some statements are interesting in light of former "official explanations" and some statements are still problematic.

Keep in mind, the Ensign article spewed forth by Turley was written for the members, not the public.

I suppose the feature length book will be too...

BINGO!

I think it will be for members and the general public. And I have no doubt it will be better and more reliable the bagley's book.

Sure, just like the Nazi's authoring a book about the Holocaust.

Why not allow outside unbiased authors full access to the "secret" archives of TSCC?

[_Blixa]

And I have no doubt it will be better and more reliable the bagley's book.

It could not possibly be.

I have no idea what "reliability" problems you have with BOTP, but having read through 6/8's of the entire bibliography (and soon to have double checked the whole thing), I have none. My criticisms of BOTP are that it pulls some punches (but I can understand the reasons for doing so).

I'm curious if the Turley book will cite material Bagley didn't have access to; but if so, I can't imagine that it will make much difference. The difference will be in the interpretative framework and from what I've seen it will be psychologistic (possibly invoking issues of mass violence/mob psychology) rather than ideological.

The main difficulty with writing the history of this incident is the enormous lengths people have already gone to to cover it up. One could make a good argument in fact that the cover story was in play even before the event happened. And this in itself constitutes a rather important piece of "evidence."

A letter or note from Brigham Young ordering the destruction of the Fancher party will never turn up because it never existed. It didn't need to. Even a cursory glance at the life of BY reveals that he is was a master of innuendo and nods and winks. Look at how he ordered the destruction of the Carleton cairn at the site, for just one example. It seems crystal clear to me that BY did indeed intend to send a message by "cutting off" (with extreme prejudice) the travel of gentile emigrants: the rational for this otherwise irrational strategy can be found in the Mormon hierarchy's reformation frenzy, frenzied millenialism and BY's vanity defiance of federal authority.

Whether or no he singled out the Fancher party itself as a first example is a more interesting question. I think it obvious that George A. Smith targeted them specifically for destruction, perhaps one could make a case that BY's intent was more general.

[_Inconceivable]

The overall theme of the article appears to portray the murderers and her accomplices as victims as well:

The tragedy has deeply grieved the victims’ relatives, burdened the perpetrators’ descendants and Church members generally with sorrow and feelings of collective guilt, unleashed criticism on the Church, and raised painful, difficult questions. How could this have happened? How could members of the Church have participated in such a crime?

I cannot see how 80+ Mormons could not have been given orders by leaders to commit such an atrocity. Not just any leaders, but influencial leaders. Perhaps not leaders but one leader. A Revelator that spoke for God Himself. One that wielded the authority to Trump the accepted commandments of God.

The murderers went unpunished in this life, having been hidden within a church that should have called them out. How could a church that taught against secret combinations (organized crime) parallel it's definition?

21 And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes,
and malice.
22 And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according
to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea,
the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by
the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.
23 For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh
not in darkness.
32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that
they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name
of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have
malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit
whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them
shall perish.33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good
among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children
of men;

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 26:21 - 23, 32 - 33)


I would like to see John D. Lee's temple endowments he received posthumously once again rescinded (as well as excommunication for a number of others). The act of reinstating him years after his death is probably the biggest slap in the face to anyone related to the Fancher party. It should be understood that the hierarchy of power now considers John D. Lee worthy of the Celestial kingdom.

The church will forever carry the burden/guilt/grief of such a horrific deed so long as it remains unwilling to punish it's members for their inhumanity to man. Truly a secret combination indeed.

[_beastie]

A letter or note from Brigham Young ordering the destruction of the Fancher party will never turn up because it never existed. It didn't need to. Even a cursory glance at the life of BY reveals that he is was a master of innuendo and nods and winks. Look at how he ordered the destruction of the Carleton cairn at the site, for just one example. It seems crystal clear to me that BY did indeed intend to send a message by "cutting off" (with extreme prejudice) the travel of gentile emigrants: the rational for this otherwise irrational strategy can be found in the Mormon hierarchy's reformation frenzy, frenzied millenialism and BY's vanity defiance of federal authority.

Whether or no he singled out the Fancher party itself as a first example is a more interesting question. I think it obvious that George A. Smith targeted them specifically for destruction, perhaps one could make a case that BY's intent was more general.

I think there can be little doubt that BY wanted to escalate violence against settlers to let the feds know his power - his power to stop emigration to CA. This is why I view MMM as a terrorist act, much like the terrorist act of 9/11. Both actions were perpetrated by a group of people who felt threatened and powerless in the face of a powerful enemy. Both groups were justified in feeling threatened and powerless to an extent, and both groups had suffered injustices. Both groups reacted by "sending a message" to the powerful enemy that while they couldn't meet them on a normal battlefield, they could kill random citizens of the powerful enemy. Both groups had constructed religious models that could be used to justify the seemingly unjustifiable attack of citizens who had nothing to do with the actions of the enemy.

I think that BY really wanted the Indians to do all the dirty work. He didn't want temple endowed people to possibly risk spilling innocent blood. I think what went so wrong with MMM was that the Indians wouldn't do their job.

I'm also convinced that no evidence directly implicating BY exists, but I don't think it matters in terms of his moral complicity. The leaders of the church were fostering a climate of hysteria and violence by what apologists now call typical, meaningless rhetoric typical of the time period.