Robert Taylor Burton: Saint or Murderer?

[_harmony]

I will do so as soon as you explain how the slaughter of George Pickett's division at Gettysburg was not murder.

I was not aware Pickett's division was waving a white flag of surrender as they charged the enemy line.

Or that they numbered women and children those who were killed.

[_harmony]

I prefer for them to live with their shame and then possess it in full at the final judgment.

This does not surprise me, given that repentence is a foreign concept to you.

[_Will Schryver]

I will do so as soon as you explain how the slaughter of George Pickett's division at Gettysburg was not murder.

I was not aware Pickett's division was waving a white flag of surrender as they charged the enemy line.

There is no credible, unbiased, non-hostile account that would confirm the surrender of the Morrisite fort prior to the breaching of its walls by Burton and his men. Morris was shot literally in the moments following the breach of the fort walls, not during the act of some kind of formal surrender.

Not that the facts (or a dearth thereof) should stand in the way of your condemnation of men about which you know nothing, concerning an event about which the historical record is devoid of contemporary accounts.

[_Will Schryver]

Or that they numbered women and children those who were killed.

Many innocent bystanders, including women and children, were killed at Gettysburg. That's what happens when a battle takes place in the presence of civilians. In WWII, more civilians than combatants were killed.

[_Will Schryver]

I prefer for them to live with their shame and then possess it in full at the final judgment.

This does not surprise me, given that repentence (sic) is a foreign concept to you.

As it apparently is to you, also, given that you don't even know how to spell the word.

In any case, you're probably correct to some degree. I only wish I was as familiar with repentance as you are with hypocrisy, then I would be much closer than I am to being washed clean of my sins.

[_Buffalo]

There is no credible, unbiased, non-hostile account that would confirm the surrender of the Morrisite fort prior to the breaching of its walls by Burton and his men. Morris was shot literally in the moments following the breach of the fort walls, not during the act of some kind of formal surrender.

Not that the facts (or a dearth thereof) should stand in the way of your condemnation of men about which you know nothing, concerning an event about which the historical record is devoid of contemporary accounts.

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[citation needed]

The technique is described in a saying, often incorrectly attributed to Lenin without citation as "A lie told often enough becomes the truth",[1] although the user may not be intentionally promoting a lie and may just believe an illogical or faulty proposition.

[Ahoody]

Maybe so. Why don't you do a little digging? Of the 500-1000 men backing up Burton, didn't anyone think the incident journal-worthy? What about the trial transcripts? Newspaper reports? What was Burton's side of the story? If there's any justification of this incident, why not put it up here instead of offering "maybe this and maybe that."

Bishop Burton doesn't need to worry about the facts of the story. What he does know is that 99.99% of his listeners are going to accept his talk at face value.

The Morrissite Massacre is well known to any student of Utah/western/Mormon history. I listed one very thorough book on the subject, I think there are two more book length treatments, though For Christ Will Come Tomorrow, is still as far as I know, the definitive treatment. In addition, it is mentioned in every account of the "Utah War." I can think of at least three recent books on this era in Utah history, as well as several from the past few decades, as well as early accounts like H.H. Bancroft's History of Utah. And you will also find mention of it in popular history websites like the Utah Historical Society's "Utah History to Go" series. The entry on this event was written by Hal Schindler.

All of this information is easily available. If contemporary Mormons are unfamiliar with it, I guess that's because they are those "crappy members" we hear so often about.

[_stemelbow]

This is pathetic. It is an ugly black spot and why in the world Bishop Burton would speak on this is beyond me. Its evil, plain and simple, and I'm as confident that this old time Burton will pay severely, and others too, just as I'm confident many other murderers will pay.

I'm just a bit angry that Bishop Burton used this in GC. I appreciate being notified of it. thanks, Tomosi.

Some of the other posts here are pretty pathetic though. As if murder to LDS if committed by LDS is not really murder, or as if Will intends to murder any apostate.

[_Chap]

This is pathetic. It is an ugly black spot and why in the world Bishop Burton would speak on this is beyond me. Its evil, plain and simple, and I'm as confident that this old time Burton will pay severely, and others too, just as I'm confident many other murderers will pay.

I'm just a bit angry that Bishop Burton used this in GC. I appreciate being notified of it. thanks, Tomosi.

Some of the other posts here are pretty pathetic though. As if murder to LDS if committed by LDS is not really murder, or as if Will intends to murder any apostate.

After reams of Schryver posts, how refreshing to be reminded that LDS are just basically normal folks whose parents happened to be LDS.

I just hope Schryver does not now start hinting that stemelbow is going apostate ... he does prophecies, you know.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There is no credible, unbiased, non-hostile account that would confirm the surrender of the Morrisite fort prior to the breaching of its walls by Burton and his men.

This is false. The LDS Church's version of what happened, which was written by Elder B.H. Roberts and appeared in 1930 in Comprehensive History of the Church (Vol. 5, p. 39) (all bold and italics added for emphasis), states:

Towards the close of the third day a division of the posse took possession of a house near the fort, in doing which another man of the posse was killed. Shortly after this a man bearing a white flag came out of the fort; all firing ceased; upon inquiry being made by the bearer of the flag as to what was required, he was answered by Deputy Sheriff Burton that unconditional surrender was required, stacking of the arms, and the surrender of all the men bearing arms. The flagman with this information returned to the fort, and when it was observed that those within were stacking their arms, Burton, followed by twenty or thirty of the posse immediately at hand, some on foot and others (four) mounted, entered the fort. With his warrant in hand Deputy Sheriff Burton informed the excited people that the men for whom he held warrants, and all who had borne arms in the fight would be arrested. Some one asked that Morris be allowed to speak to the people, which request Burton granted with the proviso that he be brief and do not incite the people to further resistance.

Clearly a surrender had been made before anyone, including Burton, had entered the fort.

Morris was shot literally in the moments following the breach of the fort walls, not during the act of some kind of formal surrender.

Wrong again. See above quote from LDS publication. Morris was shot only after beginning to speak to the people, which had been expressly allowed by Burton (and by which time the Morrisites' arms had been stacked up and were under guard by Burton's men).

Not that the facts (or a dearth thereof) should stand in the way of your condemnation of men about which you know nothing, concerning an event about which the historical record is devoid of contemporary accounts.

It's clear that you are ignorant of the basic facts even as provided in the most favorable of LDS sources.