DiscussMormonism.com

I skimmed over some of the comments on the MAD MMM thread here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 999&st=180

Analytics’ comments made me consider something I don’t remember fully digesting before. Everyone that’s studied MMM seems to agree that the LDS planning mass murder did agree to send a messenger to Brigham Young to get his input. We’re all familiar with the response, basically, let them pass in peace but the Indians will do what they will.

The implications of this are striking. These folks weren’t trying to hide some evil, nefarious deed they knew their religious leader would condemn. They actually thought he might approve of it. Otherwise, why send a messenger at all? If you were engaging in an act that you knew your religious leader would never condone, then you certainly wouldn’t send a messenger asking him if it was OK for you to do it. You wouldn’t ask for approval for an action unless you had some reason to believe that approval was possible.

Let’s take an imaginary example. A group of LDS live in an area where there is a lot of crime and threats. A group of people pass through their neighborhood that the LDS don’t trust, and some of the LDS hatch up a plan to kill them all. Can you imagine any of them saying, hey, wait a minute, let’s ring up President Monson to check and make sure it’s A-OK?

If there were no doubt in anyone’s mind that Brigham Young opposed mass murder of men, women, and children, they would never have even tried to get his approval. The fact that they thought approval was possible meant that BY had said something that led them to conclude as much.

At the very least, I think this clearly means that the violent rhetoric of BY wasn’t viewed as mere hyperbole by the people who actually heard it, and when apologists today insist that it was mere hyperbole and the Mormons knew it was mere hyperbole are engaging in “presentism”.

That's a great point. Some guys at work were joking yesterday about a 21 inch monitor one of the other guys did a work order for and scored. They joked about how they could never get away with that now.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If Brigham said "no", was he secretly uspset that he was asked? plausible deniability and all? Would he have hoped they'd just do it and not involve him?

2) What would make it even a consideration for BY? I wonder how his views on blood atonement would play in. it's very "old testament" and in the Old Testament, it's clear that God requires the blood and punishment to the "fourth generation" so, he could conceivably even justify killing children.

Man, religion sure is messed up. Sam Harris is right.

These people were in a state of borderline war and many of them believed they were possibly enemies and were seeking to stir up the Indians against them.

Why in the world wouldn't someone in such a situation ask the man who is in essence their military commander what they should do?

You're assuming also that their question was something along the lines of: "Should we slaughter them?" The question was more along the lines of what do we do. Do we keep them from passing? Send them another way? Let them pass? Fight them? You're also assuming that the local leaders had already decided to attack before they dispatched a messenger.

The implication is not striking. If a group of civilian refugees were to pass a military checkpoint and the officer in charge didn't know if they should be allowed to pass then (according to this logic) if he radios to his superior to request instructions then he's assuming that his commander wants them all massacred.

Nehor - the local leaders HAD already decided to attack before sending the messenger. In fact, the attack had already commenced. Is this actually contested by anyone? If so, on what evidence?

I agree that they were in a state of war. That war apparently included the justification in killing women and children, which is quite unusual. Women and children are often killed in war, but usually as "collateral damage". To specifically target them was very unusual and, again, raises the question of just what BY had been teaching them that made them think approval was possible.

1) If Brigham said "no", was he secretly uspset that he was asked? plausible deniability and all? Would he have hoped they'd just do it and not involve him?

2) What would make it even a consideration for BY? I wonder how his views on blood atonement would play in. it's very "old testament" and in the Old Testament, it's clear that God requires the blood and punishment to the "fourth generation" so, he could conceivably even justify killing children.

I can't even speculate about number 1.

I think BY's statements while ordering the dismantling of the rough altar US soldiers later constructed at the site verifies it that he did view it as a form of divine vengeance. The question is: divine vengeance for what? Pratt's murder or the harassment of the US government? How strong is the evidence that Eleanor Pratt (falsely) fingered some members of the Fancher party as being present at Pratt's murder? If that evidence is strong, I would say it was in retribution for the killing of Pratt.

beastie wrote: To specifically target them was very unusual and, again, raises the question of just what BY had been teaching them that made them think approval was possible.

There's no doubt BY sometimes engaged in rhetoric that could be inflammatory. "Death on the spot", for example. This is so contrary to what the Book of Mormon teaches, that one might seriously wonder if Young was a believer in the Book of Mormon.

That's why I concluded very long ago in agreeing with Quinn's statement that "blindly following leaders borders on idolatry".

beastie wrote:Let’s take an imaginary example. A group of LDS live in an area where there is a lot of crime and threats. A group of people pass through their neighborhood that the LDS don’t trust, and some of the LDS hatch up a plan to kill them all. Can you imagine any of them saying, hey, wait a minute, let’s ring up President Monson to check and make sure it’s A-OK?

for what it's worth, Mormonism has come a long way since BY. Elder Ballard has more than once encouraged members to be more understanding of their non-Mormon neighbours. Is there bigotry among some Mormons. 100% certain. And I think Ballard addressed this:

Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belongto our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .

. . . I believe it would be good if we eliminated a couple of phrases from our vocabulary: “nonmember” and “non-Mormon.” Such phrases can be demeaning and even belittling. Personally, I don’t consider myself to be a “non-Catholic” or a“non-Jew.” I am a Christian.

. . . if neighbors become testy or frustrated because of some disagreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with some law we support for moral reasons, please don’t suggest to them—even in a humorous way—that they consider moving someplace else. I cannot comprehend how any member of our Church can even think such a thing! Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. . . . If our history teaches us nothing else, it should teach us to respect the rights of all people to peacefully coexist with one another.

I don't think the current leaders should be lumped with some of the violent rhetoric of BY, any more than the current Pope should be linked with the Inquisition and torture and death of people.