The Brothers Bundy, Lafferty, and Mormon Myth

[_DrW]

I wonder if Nephi had remorse after beheading Laban,... after all he was just doing what God commanded

And that is LDS scripture - right out of the "-most correct of any book on earth."

[_honorentheos]

There was no remorse, of course, because the Laffertys truly believed in Brigham Young's Mormon myth of Blood Atonement.

If you honestly believe that a man had no remorse for brutally murdering a 15-month-old girl and her mother exclusively or primarily because of an outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine then you are just grotesquely stupid.

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

When I read your first quote I assumed your emphasis was on there being something other than doctrine that served as the primary factor, perhaps psychosis of some type given a person without emotional response was also emphasized in the statement. But then it seems that beginning with DrW's statement, the focus on blood atonement as the primary doctrine of issue here is a misjudgment, in my opinion.

There is a critical bit of doctrine at the heart of this that isn't outdated, has been clearly shown to have a great ability to manipulate a person's moral compass, and is central to Mormon belief: God said it, so His will be done. The Book of Mormon practically opens with a story that illustrates that Nephi's moral compass telling him murder is wrong must be overcome in order to comply with the will of God. The story of Abraham and Isaac is another story from the Judeo-Christian tradition that sets the stage for manipulation of one's better moral impulses.

Focusing on blood atonement is bad judgment on either side, in my opinion. But I think the question of how much the Church short-circuits one's development of true moral agency is a valid one, and one the LDS people have issues with even if it isn't about blood atonement or murder.

I suspect on DrW's part the original focus on blood atonement is due to his OP originating with Krakauer who, judging from Under the Banner of Heaven, was fascinated by that bit of Brigham-era doctrine and went to extraordinary lengths to keep it alive and well in all of Mormonism today. I enjoy other of his work with qualifications, but he clearly favors sensationalism over critical evaluation in his writing and the subject of blood atonement is nothing but sensational. Under the Banner of Heaven was terrible and is a litmus test for one's critical thinking abilities. If the drama, emotion, and bias against Mormonism in such an over the top treatment is successful in bringing a person to the primary arguments of the book, that person is easily manipulated by drama, emotion, and bias.

[_maklelan]

]
Why, so you are. And to suggest that would indeed be laughably stupid.

Has somebody made that suggestion?

From the OP:

There was no remorse, of course, because the Lafferties truly believed in Brigham Young's Mormon myth of Blood Atonement.

[_DrW]

If you honestly believe that a man had no remorse for brutally murdering a 15-month-old girl and her mother exclusively or primarily because of an outdated and long-rejected bit of doctrine then you are just grotesquely stupid.

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

When I read your first quote I assumed your emphasis was on there being something other than doctrine that served as the primary factor, perhaps psychosis of some type, given a person without emotional response was also emphasized in the statement. But then it seems that beginning with DrW's statement, the focus on blood atonement as the primary doctrine of issue here is a misjudgment, in my opinion.

There is a critical bit of doctrine at the heart of this that isn't outdated, has been clearly shown to have a great ability to manipulate a person's moral compass, and is central to Mormon belief: God said it, so His will be done. The Book of Mormon practically opens with a story that illustrates that Nephi's moral compass telling him murder is wrong must be overcome in order to comply with the will of God. The story of Abraham and Isaac is another story from the Judeo-Christian tradition that sets the stage for manipulation of one's better moral impulses.

Focusing on blood atonement is bad judgment on either side, in my opinion. But I think the question of how much the Church short-circuits one's development of true moral agency is a valid one, and one the LDS people have issues with even if it isn't about blood atonement or murder.

I suspect on DrW's part the original focus on blood atonement is due to his OP originating with Krakauer who, judging from Under the Banner of Heaven, was fascinated by that bit of Brigham-era doctrine and went to extraordinary lengths to keep it alive and well in all of Mormonism today. I enjoy other of his work with qualifications, but he clearly favors sensationalism over critical evaluation in his writing and the subject of blood atonement is nothing but sensational. Under the Banner of Heaven was terrible and is a litmus test for one's critical thinking abilities. If the drama, emotion, and bias against Mormonism in such an over the top treatment is successful in bringing a person to the primary arguments of the book, that person is easily manipulated by drama, emotion, and bias.

Honor,

Although the subject of the OP was Krakauer's article about the Oregon Wildlife Refuge takeover, you make a great point here. Others upthread have made the same point from different perspectives. I don't disagree and will make an edit to the OP to reflect the more general Will of God aspect and de-emphasize Blood Atonement as a specific justification.

After all, as was mentioned upthread, the former is from the story of Laban straight out of the Book of Mormon.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Duly noted and fixed.

You need to fix your assumption that K is a competent narrator. One only need read Anatoly whatever's competing work about K's Everest trip. K sells books and we'll.

So. So awesome. I love it when a lawyer steps on his own crank trying to appear smarter than he is capable of being!

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm not trying to clear someone of responsibility, I'm pointing to the laughable stupidity of suggesting a bit of doctrine completely overpowered a person's otherwise normal sense of right and wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philadelphi ... -of-islam/

I'm pretty sure doctrine absolutely influences people's behavior.

Anyway, the Danites just didn't appear out of thin air. Their genesis had/have their roots in Blood Atonement.

- Doc

[_Fence Sitter]

There is a critical bit of doctrine at the heart of this that isn't outdated, has been clearly shown to have a great ability to manipulate a person's moral compass, and is central to Mormon belief: God said it, so His will be done.
.

Which can be seen clearly at work today in the recent bit of policy revelation by the church regarding the treatment of married gay people and their children.

I have members in my family who are uncomfortable with this "policy" but defend it based on the belief that what ever leadership says is God's will.

[_maklelan]

Hello Maklelan,

First of all, did you bother to read the Krakauer article that was linked to in the OP?

Yes.

If not, did you at least read the excerpt from said article that was quoted in the OP?

Yes.

Had you done either before you went through your ready / fire / aim routine, you would have seen that Krakauer's statement regarding no remorse was based on a in-person prison interviews with Bro. Dan Lafferty himself.

I don't recall challenging that.

Furthermore, had you read the article, you would have seen that Krakauer, again based on interviews with Bro. Lafferty, attributed Lafferty's belief that the killings were God's will largely on his belief in Blood Atonement.

Actually the article does no such thing. The only references to blood atonement occur here:

It didn't take him long to discover that polygamy wasn't the only divine principle the modern LDS Church had abandoned in its eagerness to be accepted by American society. Dan learned that in the 19th century, both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had preached about the righteousness of a sacred doctrine known as "blood atonement:" Certain grievous acts committed against Mormons, as Brigham explained it, could only be rectified if the "sinners have their blood spilt upon the ground." And Dan learned that Joseph had taught that the laws of God take precedence over the laws of men.

That's the only reference at all to blood atonement. The motivations for the murders are described here:

Like his older brother, Ron, Dan Lafferty was brought up as a pious Mormon. "I've always been interested in God and the Kingdom of God," he says. "It's been the center of my focus since I was a young child." And he is certain God intended for him to kill Brenda and Erica Lafferty: "It was like someone had taken me by the hand that day and led me comfortably through everything that happened. Ron had received a revelation from God that these lives were to be taken. I was the one who was supposed to do it. And if God wants something to be done, it will be done. You don't want to offend Him by refusing to do His work."

Why is it so hard for you to understand that this kind of religious nonsense can, and often does, give rise to all kinds of anti-social behaviors, including the murder of innocents?

Because I'm writing a doctoral dissertation on the cognitive science of religion and know better than to take the words of naïve dogmatists over the science of how religious beliefs do and do not influence behavior.

Apologists and senior Church leaders are becoming well known for telling Mormons to understand and embrace their history. Looks as though the better one does on the understanding part, the more difficult the embracing part becomes.

That's quite reductive and simplistic.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because I'm writing a doctoral dissertation on the cognitive science of religion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive ... f_religion

That was a pretty interesting read. Do you have anything that you can share from your dissertation? I think it would be potentially enlightening.

- Doc

[_Morley]

Mak-

It's quite clear that there were more than a few Nineteenth Century Nauvoo Mormons who had a problem with polyandry and/or polygamy but still practiced it because they were instructed to. Contemporary doctrine influenced the behavior that some said they found to be otherwise morally repugnant.