Pahoran wrote:It was a group of local civic/military/church leaders lurching from bungle to blunder to a crisis largely of their own making, at which point they panicked.
Regards, Pahoran
And you can show that, with evidence, right?
Pahoran...? Pahoran...? PAHORAN...?
*crickets*
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
That's pretty much the way I read the Walker/Turley/Leonard book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.
I would suggest that you look there.
Willy Law wrote:I am sure you realize that the only historians that take Massacre at Mountain Meadows seriously are those with temple recommends in their wallet.
Willy Law wrote:I am sure you realize that the only historians that take Massacre at Mountain Meadows seriously are those with temple recommends in their wallet.
Has there ever been a book about an event in history that wasn't biased? What did you expect?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
But here you are, defending the MMM murderers, whose crimes were much greater than any of those in the anti-Mormon mobs.
Nonsense. By your silence you defend them. By your silence you give a free ride to the protestant churches who most likely encouraged the hostility toward the Mormons. And yet, you are quick to bring up MMM. MMM was the result of trauma suffered by the Mormons who experienced severe persecution in their lives. Also, the persecution was being threatened once more. It was a sad incident but understandable from a shell shocked people.
By your silence you defend every other massacre you haven't mentioned in this thread, then. That's silly.
You ARE defending the murderers at MM. Why are you doing that? In your zeal to defend a church you never really belonged to, you seem to be doing more harm than good.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Daniel Peterson wrote:That's pretty much the way I read the Walker/Turley/Leonard book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.
I would suggest that you look there.
Willy Law wrote:I am sure you realize that the only historians that take Massacre at Mountain Meadows seriously are those with temple recommends in their wallet.
That's flatly and demonstrably untrue.
"While no on doubts the professionalism of Walker, Turley and Leonard, their status as Chruch employees raises deeper doubts for secularists. Historians tend to be reflexively skeptical when a believer writes history of his own religion, or, for that matter, when a historian writes a history of a corporation-in this case, the Church-while being employed by that corporation. Fair or not, few professors beyond Provo will validate the authors’ declaration of academic freedom."
Willy Law wrote:I am sure you realize that the only historians that take Massacre at Mountain Meadows seriously are those with temple recommends in their wallet.
Has there ever been a book about an event in history that wasn't biased? What did you expect?
I get what you are saying, but disagree. There are books on virtually every subject throughout history that most would consider unbiased. For MMM I believe most everyone would agree that Brooks' is unbiased and and honest treatment of the massacre. As for what I expect from a book written by three people employed by the church? I expect exactly what was produced.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
All Indians walk in single-file lines, eh Willy? At least, the one you saw did.
I don't doubt that you can come up with several negative reviews of the book.
I can come up with negative reviews of just about any book.
That's several long miles removed from demonstrating that nobody takes the book seriously except active Mormons, which was your claim.
A quick look at the jacket blurbs (which include, as I recall, an endorsement from the Pulitzer-Prize-winning non-LDS historian Daniel Howe) would be enough to demonstrate your claim to be false, as would a hasty glance at even just the first page of the amazon.com entry on the book, which features glowing reviews from Publisher's Weekly and Booklist, as well as unsolicited endorsement from the Israeli historian and journalist Seth Frantzman.
And remember, we're talking Oxford University Press here, not Deseret Book. There's no question that non-temple-recommend-holding scholars approved the manuscript for publication.
Willy Law wrote:What I provided was not a review of the book, but a statement regarding the problems with authors writing the history of their employers.
And yet the authors (whom I know personally, and whom I know to be men of integrity) say that they were unimpeded in their research and their writing, and their book has been, to a substantial degree, well received by historians.
Willy Law wrote:What I provided was not a review of the book, but a statement regarding the problems with authors writing the history of their employers.
And yet the authors (whom I know personally, and whom I know to be men of integrity) say that they were unimpeded in their research and their writing, and their book has been, to a substantial degree, well received by historians.
Yes, well... I bet they don't have million dollar estates from years of payment out of the tithes.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.