So you're honestly telling me that missionaries, bishops, and stake presidents in your current area feel that MMM was justified?
Why do you compartmentalize?
I'm not trying to compartmentalize. I'm honestly trying to understand your statement. You've gone on two different tracks here. You were talking about Brigham Young's view, and then you were making a general statement about modern members. I'm not trying to criticize. I was reading your statement with my mouth open. It's hard for me to believe that there are modern members of the Church who actually believe that MMM was a good thing. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
No, your trying to create a fallback in logic. If I say that there are none in my current area then you can (poorly) discount it.
I do not see why you included the *current area* clause in your question other than to leave a further "out".
I had a hard time finding members that even are aware of the MMM, and I spent my summers vacationing in Cedar City!
Furthermore I do not see the logic in your statement. Providing BY's statement as relevant to my conclusions I am still justified in making the statememts that I did because Mormonism has a temporal relevance from the 1820's to now, not just your convenient posit involving a shifted timeframe.
All historical events are relevant irregardless of when they were said. It still applies to Mormonism.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Brigham young didn't order the MMM but on the other hand smiles and gleeful expressions are shared among the faithful when speaking of the "justified slaughter".
This was your statement. It's a pretty strong statement, Vegas. I wanted to make sure I knew what you were referring to. "Smiles and gleeful expressions are shared among the faithful when speaking of the justified slaughter".
My comment was that I have never experienced speaking with faithful members of the Church who were smiling or gleeful regarding MMM. Those who actually know about it are shocked and dismayed that it happened. The only way they can justify it at all is that there had to have been some type of miscommunication error. It's just too terrible to think about otherwise.
Brigham young didn't order the MMM but on the other hand smiles and gleeful expressions are shared among the faithful when speaking of the "justified slaughter".
This was your statement. It's a pretty strong statement, Vegas. I wanted to make sure I knew what you were referring to. "Smiles and gleeful expressions are shared among the faithful when speaking of the justified slaughter".
My comment was that I have never experienced speaking with faithful members of the Church who were smiling or gleeful regarding MMM. Those who actually know about it are shocked and dismayed that it happened. The only way they can justify it at all is that there had to have been some type of miscommunication error. It's just too terrible to think about otherwise.
Are you claiming that the MMM was caused by a miscommunication or do you feel it was spurred on by an endemic effed up social situation - IE Mormonism and blood atonement?
A large (NOT ALL) percentage, 60-70 percent have a dual approach. Mormons live in a world where everything is true, even conflicting opinions.
It was an accident, it was justified, etc. They in the same breath find the MMM to be a horrible accident and also state that those DAMN OUTSIDERS should have known what was coming.
Its a dualistic mindset present in a very distorted mind confused at brasen discrepancies in the happy gumdrop candyland of Mormonism. The MMM is a glaring discrepancy and they feel, juset as Pahoran and BY did that it was justified because if they did not feel it justified their world would come crashing down. They are holding a dual opinion, one public (it was bad) and one private (it was good).
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Are you claiming that the MMM was caused by a miscommunication or do you feel it was spurred on by an endemic effed up social situation - IE Mormonism and blood atonement?
A large (NOT ALL) percentage, 60-70 percent have a dual approach. Mormons live in a world where everything is true, even conflicting opinions.
It was an accident, it was justified, etc. They in the same breath find the MMM to be a horrible accident and also state that those DAMN OUTSIDERS should have known what was coming.
Its a dualistic mindset present in a very distorted mind confused at brasen discrepancies in the happy gumdrop candyland of Mormonism. The MMM is a glaring discrepancy and they feel, juset as Pahoran and BY did that it was justified because if they did not feel it justified their world would come crashing down. They are holding a dual opinion, one public (it was bad) and one private (it was good).
I personally don't think it was justifiable on any level. I also don't see how the "outsiders" could have seen it coming. Even if they did, this band of Mormons wasn't justified in what they did. There's nothing good about it.
Mister Scratch wrote:Unless I am mistaken, Pahoran is one of those modern members who more or less approves of the MMM slaughter.
I don't know about Pahoran, but I have met members who said that the MMM was justified, and one who said that it was no more morally troubling than a natural disaster.
liz3564 wrote:I also thought that the statement prior mentioned by Brigham Young is up for grabs as to whether or not it actually occurred.
The source was Wilford Woodruff, an eyewitness to BY's statement, who wrote it down in his journal. What is "up for grabs" about that?
My shock was simply the statement Vegas made regarding the fact that there were members he had actually spoken to who honestly thought that MMM was a justifiable incident, and a proper incident to have happened.
I've heard many members "justify" it in some way, but none that I know of have said it was "proper." I personally think the Church institution ought to issue a formal apology for any role played by Church leaders, including BY and George A. Smith.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
liz3564 wrote:I also thought that the statement prior mentioned by Brigham Young is up for grabs as to whether or not it actually occurred.
The source was Wilford Woodruff, an eyewitness to BY's statement, who wrote it down in his journal. What is "up for grabs" about that?
My shock was simply the statement Vegas made regarding the fact that there were members he had actually spoken to who honestly thought that MMM was a justifiable incident, and a proper incident to have happened.
I've heard many members "justify" it in some way, but none that I know of have said it was "proper." I personally think the Church institution ought to issue a formal apology for any role played by Church leaders, including BY and George A. Smith.
We all know the likelihood of that happening. In my opinion, Hinckley's speech at the monument "rededication" was worse than if he had simply stayed away. I can't imagine that the Fancher Party descendants were pleased to hear him say that in no way could the church be held responsible for the massacre. That would have been the proper time for an apology. If it didn't come then, it will never come.
beastie wrote:In my part of the world, I would guess most members don't even know what MMM is.
I agree. Most converts I've talked to haven't known. About the only members who are even slightly aware are those who attended seminary.
Where would a member learn about MMM except in a history class? I don't think it's taught in any of the GD classes, is it?
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.