MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_TAK]

So answer the question ... Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

The authors -- respected historians -- have repeatedly said in public and in print and, in fact, in this volume, that they were encouraged by Church leaders to follow the evidence wherever it led them and to tell the truth, wholly and without partisan spin. They say that they have made every effort to do precisely that.

I believe them. I know them, somewhat, and have no reason to believe them to be liars.

Yes that's what they said but it still does not answer the question .. Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

[_Yong Xi]

Yes that's what they said but it still does not answer the question .. Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

All of us know the answer to that, even Daniel. The church would never let that evidence reach the light of day.

I don't know if "smoking gun" documents implicating BY ever existed. If they did, they were likely destroyed a long time ago.

[_beastie]

And exactly what does it tell us?

I think it tells us that BY and other church leaders viewed the massacre as being the direct result of the mistreatment of the church, and felt some sense of justification about it.

And of course the church would never let evidence that BY ordered the massacre be published in a book that they funded and supported. If the brethren did so, by their own words they would be under God's condemnation.

[_Wheat]

Yes that's what they said but it still does not answer the question .. Do you really think that if evidence was developed by the authors that BYoung instigated this attack that the Church would let that be published?

And do you really think that, even if there were NOT any evidence whatsoever that Brigham Young instigated the attack, that anti and exmormons would ever believe it?

[_beastie]

And do you really think that, even if there were NOT any evidence whatsoever that Brigham Young instigated the attack, that anti and exmormons would ever believe it?

Opinions on this point are quite varied in the exmormon community, chaff. Some adamantly believed he ordered it, others do not, others are uncertain.

And thanks for not answering the question. I don't believe any defender of the faith will directly answer the question.

[_truth dancer]

You are not suggesting True Believers will not do anything they believe God wants them to do are you? :-)

Some believers have done terrible things in the name of God, or using God as a pretext, just as some non-believers have done terrible things on behalf of their ideologies.

Unless you are sort of suggesting the idea that True Believers will do anything they believe God wants them to do is a wild generalization?

I'm not "sort of suggesting the idea." I'm saying it outright.

I first read Eric Hoffer when I was about thirteen, and he was a significant influence on my thinking from an early age -- even a kind of intellectual hero to me. If you want to use the term True Believer in some restricted (even Hofferian) sense, you need to make that absolutely crystal clear every time you make so unnuanced a generalization as you've been making here. Serious readers may, in that case, be willing to cut you a little bit of slack. Though it still seems to me that you're engaging in a form of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

My father is a HUGE fan of Hoffer and I grew up with him as well! ;-)

I'm sorry I didn't realize the term "True Believer" meant anything to anyone other than in the "Hoffer" sense. I still don't know how else it would be understood.

We discuss this enough on this forum that I didn't consider any other interpretation, if there are others. Nevertheless...

The point is not that people commit crimes... duh!

The point is, True Believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense of the term), will do whatever they think God is wanting them to do.

If, a group of True Believers believed, covenanted, promised, and thought God wanted them to harm or kill others, they would do so. Or if they believed the murder would bring salvation or heaven, or exaltation or glory, they would do so.

As you know the LDS temple ceremony at the time, (without going into it at all), contained some items that are quite different than they are today. I believe this may have contributed to the MMM. The foundational belief, promises, and covenants that were made, in my opinion may have influenced the murderers to do what they otherwise would not.

To not address this issue in a book about the MMM is to miss a significant point concerning the motivation of a group of people who willingly slaughtered innocent families.

I'm open to learning here if someone has a different opinion.

~dancer~

[Maureen]

And do you really think that, even if there were NOT any evidence whatsoever that Brigham Young instigated the attack, that anti and exmormons would ever believe it?

I don’t think that he instigated the murders ..
I do think BY wanted the Fancher cattle and horses, he wanted the Indians to help him fight the outsiders and he set the tone in the rhetoric that that lead to things getting out of hand.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think it tells us that BY and other church leaders viewed the massacre as being the direct result of the mistreatment of the church, and felt some sense of justification about it.

Yes I agree. But was the justification they felt a result of orchestrating it or a result of the natural tendency to want some vengeance. I would guess that many of us migh at least initially not feel to bad to see some calamity befall some radical Islamic group even if they had no connection to 9/11.

And of course the church would never let evidence that BY ordered the massacre be published in a book that they funded and supported. If the brethren did so, by their own words they would be under God's condemnation.

I imagine this is true as well.

[_beastie]

Yes I agree. But was the justification they felt a result of orchestrating it or a result of the natural tendency to want some vengeance. I would guess that many of us migh at least initially not feel to bad to see some calamity befall some radical Islamic group even if they had no connection to 9/11.

I don’t know the answer to that. It would take hard evidence for me, personally, to believe that BY directly ordered the attack. I do believe he was indirectly involved, and in a court of law, would probably bear some culpability, particularly in regards to the cover-up.

The one thing that keeps my mind open to the fact that BY might have directly ordered it is that the perpetrators were not punished by the LDS church until their hand was forced, and, of course, the LDS church covered up Mormon involvement. I find both of those facts extremely troubling. I have no doubt BY could have immediately found out who the perpetrators were and have brought them to justice. I’m sure he thought he was protecting the church by protecting the perpetrators, but this is the type of reasoning that feasibly could have justified ordering the attack, too.

I imagine this is true as well.

Thanks for answering the question, Jason. There are some believers who are willing to answer it directly, although they tend not to be black/white defenders of the faith. I am positive that the church would not condone publishing the information, either.

[_Dr. Shades]

The authors state that they were given unprecedented access to heretofore unavailable sources.

Of all the sources made available to them, is there any reason to believe that they were given access to things which were true but were not very useful?