A piece on the USAToday.com website by conservative commentator Michael Medved criticizing the new film September Dawn (scheduled to be released on August 24th), has been getting much approval from the LDS community. Even Fox News chimed in with a very hastily put-together piece agreeing with Medved when he asks, “Why would Hollywood release a controversial feature film about alleged Mormon terrorists of 150 years ago while all but ignoring the dangerous Muslim terrorists of today?” Medved goes on to state, “Why frame an indictment of violent religiosity by focusing on long-ago Mormon leaders rather than contemporary Muslims who perpetrate unspeakable brutalities every day?”
Personally, I don’t see this as a pertinent issue. September Dawn is a Hollywood drama, not a documentary, and the Massacre was a real event that in less than a month will be having its 150th anniversary. The timing is understandable.
Medved showed an incredible amount of naiveté when he said, “Mormons won’t respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith’s founders.” One need only read the comments that followed his article to see how wrong he is. Sadly, in typical fashion, many Mormons who agreed with Medved wanted to make sure people understood that this film is just one more example of bigotry and hatred against the LDS Church. Hoping to add some thoughtful points to the discussion I wrote:
“I normally like Michael Medved’s commentary, but in this case he makes a terrible “either/or” logical fallacy. I too would like Hollywood to deal more with the Islamic terrorist problem we face, but this does not mean I’d like the rest of history to be ignored. Having studied Mormonism as an outsider for over 30 years, I can tell you that much of what we know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre is given to us by the perpetrators. Not even Mormon historians will deny that evidence has been tampered with or expunged. This could be why there is no smoking gun directly implicating Brigham Young.
The word is that a new book about the massacre by LDS historians is going to pin the order to kill the Fancher/Baker party on Isaac Haight, a Mormon stake president from Cedar City. Can we reasonably assume that around 50 devout Mormon men would kill 120 innocent men, women, and children, on the orders of a mere stake president when murder in LDS theology is an unforgivable sin? The idea is ridiculous to those who know how priesthood authority works in the LDS Church. It seems rather obvious that these men felt they would be protected, and the only man able to do that would be Brigham Young. Considering that John D. Lee was the only person to be executed for the crime, I’d say he did a pretty good job. I suggest that people interested in this topic read Will Bagley’s “Blood of the Prophets.”
In what I assume was a response to my main point, “Dr. H” wrote:
“The posts on this article show that there are plenty of people out there that would twist history to justify their hatred against people they disagree with. The new book coming out about the MMM, that clears Brigham Young and implicates Isaac Haight, shows very convincingly how it was that good Mormons, fearful of being wiped out by the US Army, would follow the orders of Haight and commit the atrocity. He was not only a stake president, but their militia commander. Regardless of the fact that everyone involved was Mormon, this was a civil militia affair, not a church doing. What started as a couple of foolish militiamen picking a fight ended as a community resorting to a murder in an ill-advised cover-up effort to prevent further agitation of the government against the Mormons.”
All I can say is “WOW!” Can I then assume that if Dr. H was transported back in time and fully cognizant of the “fearful” situation faced by the folks in southern Utah, that he would have followed Isaac Haight’s command to “do his duty” and put a bullet in the head of an unarmed civilian? Who cares if Haight was the militia commander? These were innocent men, women, and children they attacked and killed, not soldiers! Sidney Johnston’s army was hundreds of miles away, and like the Fancher/Baker party, posed no immediate threat. Besides, Mormons often praise General Alexander Doniphan for refusing a command by a superior officer to kill Joseph Smith. Doniphan argued that to do so would to be to kill him in “cold-blood.” What makes this so different?
I personally have no high hopes for the book coming out by the LDS Church. Like always, it is an in-house job that, like the massacre itself, comes with an oath of secrecy on the part of those involved. No outsiders were allowed to examine the information available to the three Mormon historians involved in the project. That being the case, how can any Mormon automatically assume with absolute certainty that Young was in the clear? Even Dr. H admits to a cover-up that had to obviously include Young and the rest of the LDS leadership. A common trait with people involved in cover-ups is that they lie. LDS Church historian Richard Turley himself admitted at the last Mormon History Association conference that evidence had been tampered with and was missing. How difficult would it have been for Young and others to cover their tracks given the fact that he was the most powerful man in the territory? If Mormons want to clear Brigham Young, then let them be the first to tell their church to open the archives to any and all responsible historians. It may not settle the issue once and for all, but at least it will demonstrate that the LDS Church really has nothing to hide.
I again state my premise: Can we reasonably assume that around 50 devout Mormon men would kill 120 innocent men, women, and children, on the orders of a mere stake president when murder in LDS theology is an unforgivable sin? Mormons reading this blog, I ask you, if you lived during that time, would you do that?
Who knows who gave the order? The fact of the matter is that there was a climate at the time that led Mormons to kill a bunch of people that were just passing through their territory and posed no threat to them (Mormons). I would guess that there wasn’t anyone around at the time who would speak-up and argue against such an awful act. It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility that ranks were closed to protect the leadership. Look at how the Catholic Church dealt with sexual abuse by priests until recently.
Well, from my conversations with Geoff, I know he wouldn’t. He said he wouldn’t commit murder even if the prophet himself told him to do so. He said he would have to hear this being ordered from God himself. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with LDS belief, all these men who committed this atrocity will be sent to “outer darkness”. If Brigham Young had anything to do with this, which historically would appear so, then I’m sure he will be answering to God about being at least partially responsible in leading people away from God and towards “outer darkness”.
It’s funny. In the years that I have been involved with the LDS church, I have never once heard of the MMM until I found this website. They do in fact do a great job of covering up history.
Let me throw a couple of quotes into the mix that may give a better understanding about the authority LDS leaders wielded among their people during the time of the MMM. The first is by Heber C. Kimball, counselor to Brigham Young. Notice this was stated less than two months after the tragedy:
“In regard to our situation and circumstances in these valleys, brethren, WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are told for the future. And when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it – I mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong” (Heber C. Kimball, November 8, 1857, Journal of Discourses ” 6:32).
One hundred years later this same theme was echoed by another member of the LDS First Presidency:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray” (Marion G. Romney, quoting LDS President Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, Oct. 1960 p.78).
Just a comment about killing. I believe the commandment against killing involves the shedding of “innocent blood”. Thus, it was spiritually okay for Nephi to kill Laban and while we shudder at the deaths involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the death may have been considered by participants — at the time and in the context of the situation — not the shedding of innocent blood. I must say I would find it impossible to obey such a command myself, especially with regard the women and children. Yet we read numerous accounts in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon where women and children were among those killed by God either directly, such as the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, or indirectly, such as Laban. All I can say is we see through a glass darkly in our mortal existence and know that our Heavenly Father has all knowledge and understanding and that it will all be worked out.
Fear. Greed. Revenge. Take your pick. But to really understand Mountain Meadows, you have to go back to the wording of the Temple Endowment Ceremony at the time, which included something called “The Oath of Vengeance.” Google it.
I wonder what Mr. Grant or Mr. Kimball would say if I should pray about what counsel the prophet gives me. It might have been along the lines of “You fool! You heretic! How dare you question God’s authority here on earth!”
Perhaps they should have said what they did, but put at the end, “..unless it comes to slaughtering innocent civilians, then perhaps it would be wise to ask God if thats okay.”
Now of course, that assumes that Brigham Young had something to do with it. That is something that I’m sure will be debated on.
I have lived in 4 countries in the last 5 years and no matter where you go there seems to be this haunting realization that there is, presently, so much information readily available that it confuses people to the point of being overwhelming.
People have no clue who to trust as a result of a relativistic society. People even begin to question certainty of the phrase “‘certainty’ is certainly uncertain”.
Information is so ‘easily’ available that the individual doesn’t value it nor values the process of learning. Thus causing a complete attitude of laziness and indifference. It’s ‘easier’ to turn on the TV and ‘stupidify’ myself. I’ll just let everybody else do the learning for me because I can just download the information later. And when I disagree with an individual based upon my dogmas and presuppositions I will just scream ‘bigotry’ and ‘intolerance’ instead of truly investigating the situation because football is on right now and I just don’t have the time. Thus pride gets in the way of a true unbiased investigation of any given topic, belief, doctrine, etc.
This mentality should truly bring us to grips with reality and the future that is facing our next generation.
I must disagree with this statement that you made:
“Medved showed an incredible amount of naiveté when he said, “Mormons won’t respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith’s founders.”
Medved is correct. Mormons will not blow themselves up on a bus or cut off someone’s head at the slightest perceived slight.
M2 – I must say that your post is one of the most sensible ones I have read in a very long time. I for one am always a bit skeptical of any information found on the Internet. People can even be skeptical of what I say. That’s fine with me.
Craig is correct. I don’t believe Michael Medved was saying Latter-day Saints wouldn’t protest the film “September Dawn.” He was just saying that Latter-day Saints do not react with the violence certain other groups do. The best evidence of this is that Ed Decker, Sandra Tanner, Steve Benson and many others are still alive and well, and still active in their criticism of the LDS Church. Compare this to Salman Rushdie, who was forced to go into hiding after writing “The Satanic Verses.”
In response to Bill McKeever’s question, I don’t believe anyone can answer it truthfully. It would be easy for me to say that I would demand the Fancher/Baker party leave in peace, but since I wasn’t there, and don’t understand the full tension and circumstances, I can’t give an honest answer.
What would you do if you were in Abraham’s shoes, commanded to sacrifice your only son? What would you have done if you were living in Salem, Massachusettes during the witch trials? What about if you were alive during the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? What if you were living in Europe during WWII, seeing your Jewish neighbors bullied, harrased, then taken into ghettos, where they began disappering?
Now here are a few questions. If Brigham Young was such a ruthless ruler over all the early Mormon colonies, how was he able to do this? Mormon colonies were spread over hundreds of miles and as far as I know, no one in 1857 owned a computer, fax machine, telephone, radio or automobile.
Also, why did Brigham Young allow Alfred Cumming, a non-Mormon from the south, become the new Governor of the Utah Territory, without a single shot being fired?
Finally, who is planning to see “September Dawn?” I’m not, mainly because of its rating. Also because I don’t like Jon Voight very much.
“Finally, who is planning to see “September Dawn?” I’m not, mainly because of its rating. Also because I don’t like Jon Voight very much.”
I am
“Finally, who is planning to see “September Dawn?” I’m not, mainly because of its rating. Also because I don’t like Jon Voight very much.”
I’ll be there! Can’t wait!
I’m with Bill. We, that being my husband Rocky and I, plan on going to see it. In fact, the movie poster for “September Dawn” is in the front window of the “Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center” downtown Nauvoo, IL. This poster was given to Phil Bolinger by Jon Voight at the Hollywood premier of “September Dawn” in May. It was handed to us by Phil Bolinger, President of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation, who was here on August 7, 2007 along with Ron Wright, Bob Fancher, and Scott Fancer, all descendants of the Massacre. Not only will we go see this movie but we will attend the 150th Anniversary in Utah of the slaughter that occurred at the hands of the Mormon Priesthood!
“Finally, who is planning to see ‘September Dawn?’”
I’m planning to go opening day…
I appreciate the response to my last question. Would anyone like to respond to my other questions?
Dear Clark,
You’ve asked some good questions. I firmly believe that asking one’s self questions is a good step to the goal of objectivity. It is impossible to not draw near to a certain topic without any presuppositions, even to approach a topic with the mentality of “I’m not going to have any presuppositions about this.” is in itself a presupposition. So at least by asking one’s self questions and being asked questions forces one’s self to open up within his own presuppositions in order to consider (converse with one’s self) and then reconsider one’s position on the topic. I will admit History and Archeology are very difficult fields to deal with (who’s interpretation of the evidence is more reliable?) But if we completely reject these fields of study, we will have destroyed the future. What do I mean by that? If we cannot learn from our past, we will be condemned to a life of repeating the same mistakes. So concerning the MMM, who’s story do we listen to? The LDS church, those whom are against, or those who are ‘un-biased’? If an area of study is of great importance to you I would say that one should merely look at the evidence (concerning a historical event) that is provided by the various sources and then draw upon them to come to your own conclusion. This does take a lot of time and dedication, but what’s the knowledge worth to you?
I think the most important questions concerning the MMM (personally, me myself) are:
Did B.Y. give the order?
If he did, what are the implications of such an act (with LDS Theology in mind)?
M2 – The questions you pose are very important ones. I, for one have no problem learning more about issues such as the MMM, archeology, DNA and scriptural interpretation. These issues don’t diminish my faith, but rather put it in a new perspective. And yes, there are many different sources to learn from.
In my opinion, discussion about the MMM is a good thing, so long as it is based on the facts and not on sensationalism. This is why I feel that people who go and see “September Dawn” understand that, like most Hollywood movies based on true events, what you see on the screen may not always mirror what happened in real life.
I know some Latter-day Saints have expressed worry that the showing of “September Dawn” will lead to acts, such vandalism of LDS chapels. I’m not ready to say that just yet, but I am concerned the movie may hinder any honest, heart felt discussions about MMM. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I attended BYU in the early “60’s. I remember a Utah History class where I learned about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was not whitewashed in any way. They church has never tried to keep this horrible event a secret.
I talked with Sister Snow (approx. 22 yrs old) at the LDS (Nauvoo) Temple Visitors Center last year. She grew up in St. George, Utah, not far from Mountain Meadows. She told me she had learned about the Massacre in school. I asked what she had learned and she told me (to the best of my recollection), “Not much, just that pioneers passing through Utah were killed by Indians.”
Clark – When you say ‘sensationalism’ in what sense do you use the term? In a philosophical sense or a journalistic sense?
In a philosophical sense I would say that Mormonism is highly sensational in orientation. The first thing a ‘contact’ is encouraged to do is to pray for a feeling/emotion of the burning in the bosom after reading the BOM, and then all further revelations are revealed accordingly.
If you mean ‘sensationalism’ in the journalistic sense, of hype and persuasion I would have to agree with you. Considering Hollywood’s reputation, I don’t think I’ve ever taken a Hollywood ‘flick’ seriously, but for some reason unfortunately the media is the major persuader in the educational community. But it would be a logical error to say “If Hollywood makes it, it’s necessarily a lie.” I have decided to reserve judgment concerning ‘Sept. Dawn’ until I see it and finish researching MMM for myself.
When it comes to heart felt discussions about MMM, I do agree that it may become more difficult. But then again that “could” be a good thing in the long run (who knows). The people that slam the door in the face of any religion will continue to do so just because of their prejudices. We know that when a person wants an excuse to demean and disrespect anything they will find it.
I cannot wait for the movie to open, I really believe it will open doors for more believers to share Jesus with the LDS. Sadly I know many Believers even in my own Church who could care less that mormons believe and teach a false gospel.
I hope this movie brings more believers into sharing Christ, and opens they eyes of the LDS to look deeper into their church and beliefes and not simply believe everything they are told and not look into it for themselves. Rick b
I am looking forward to the movie. I’m a relatively recent convert (about 2 and a half years) to the LDS faith, and I’m not ashamed in the least of the history of my church. Oh yeah, since no one has gone here:
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but with LDS belief, all these men who committed this atrocity will be sent to ‘outer darkness’.”
You’re wrong, an ordinary melchizedek priesthood holder wouldn’t be sent to outer darkness for that. According to my stake president, that’s reserved for serious loss of testimony. For example, if President Hinckley had an affair and didn’t repent, or if he were to openly renounce his faith and say there is no God, he would go to outer darkness. Sorry I can’t explain this better, but I can’t remember where there is scripture or counsel on the subject, or I would provide it.
Sad that the President will go to outer darkness for cheating on his wife, but not for telling people to kill others. Rick b
Angelica – I have no doubt your stake president is a good man, but he only got it half right.
Going to outer darkness has nothing to do with adultery or refusing to repent of one’s sins. Simply put, outer darkness is reserved only for those who have a perfect, unbreakable, 100% knowledge that God is our Father in Heaven, and that Jesus Christ is our Savior, but that instead of following them, one chooses to follow Satan. It is something that goes much deeper than sins like adultery or even murder. From my perspective, it seems inconceivable that anyone would choose Satan over God, especially if they have a perfect knowledge of God and Jesus Christ.
M2 – Yes, I would say that I was referring to the type of sensationalism you referred to as journalistic.
Sharon — PLEASE! you said:
I talked with Sister Snow (approx. 22 yrs old) at the LDS (Nauvoo) Temple Visitors Center last year. She grew up in St. George, Utah, not far from Mountain Meadows. She told me she had learned about the Massacre in school. I asked what she had learned and she told me (to the best of my recollection), “Not much, just that pioneers passing through Utah were killed by Indians.”
Let me talk to any number of kids about some subject they learned about at school some years ago and see what they remember — this now passes for valid criticism? Give me a break.
Whoa, Neal, relax. My personal story about talking with Sister Snow was merely a different perspective added to that of the previous commenter, Karin, who told her personal story about BYU in the 60s. Not a criticism, just an experience.
Clark’s right. To put it another way, “outer darkness” is reserved for those who “in good conscience” (okay, that’s an oxymoron) and with “knowledge aforethought” sell their souls to the devil. Just being really, really bad won’t cut it.
how will it open doors rick b?? you think every mormon is going to go see this movie? besides, i did research into this movie and found that the writers and producers all have a bias against the church….all evangelical. and look, evangelicals discussing it on this blog. i mean, if you think this movie is a tool for you in preaching a christ mormons already believe in..
mormons already know about this event…we have dedicated a site in utah to their memory. no one in the church covers this story up…we have a MEMORIAL bringing attention to the travesty…the rest of the claims are mere speculation.
i’m not surprised though, this is just another attempt to “grasp at straws”
**you think this movie is a tool to preach a christ mormons already believe in?
correction, sorry
No Amanda, Mormons follow a false Christ.
We have been over this before, Mormons say God was once a man, Christians say He was always God.
Mormons Believe god the father is married, Christians do not.
Mormons believe the trinity is 3 seperate gods, Christians believe 1 God in 3 people.
Mormons believe they can become gods, christians believe we will never be gods.
That is just a few things Amanda, that is a different gospel than what we believe. If you believe we are both Christians and believe the same gospel then something is wrong. I have pointed this out to many LDS who were at least honest enough to admit we do not have the same beliefe.
They said their’s was the correct beliefe but at least admited a different one.
Then when I said it will open doors, It will get Christians who normally avoid speaking with mormons to maybe think about speaking with them.I notice that the More a group gets attention in someway, then Christians tend to notice them and hen start talking with them. Rick b
rick…where in our doctrine does it say God is “married”?…”marriage” is a phrase coined by man. and you are inaccurate in just about every other statement you made about mormon belief. i think you are scared to actually do REAL research into our beliefs. that means reading the book of mormon, going to lds.org and read what the prophets have said and are saying in these latter
days
and i don’t apologize for the points in which we differ..i rejoice in them. and our beliefs ARE biblical–even evangelicals differ in how they see the bible and how they interpret it-how can they therefore say that the bible isn’t up for interpretation? ridiculous.
besides, you are off topic.
my comment to you was simple…your idea that somehow this anti-mormon film (that is NOT based in fact- where brigham young is taken out of context–and is starting to lack credibility among intelligent well-read americans) will give evangelicals a foot-in in saving us mormons, is laughable at best.
this movie is a work of fiction. and anyone on this site who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.
Amanda said
Amanda, are these sources by your Standerd works inaccurate?
Let’s start with God or gods.
Mormon Doctrine Teaches: There is more than one God.
Mormon Doctrine pg 576-577
Teachings pg 370.
Mormon scripture says there is only one God.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:19,28
Alma 11:21-41
2 Nephi 31:21
3 Nephi 31:21
Final line of the testmony of three witness in Book of Mormon.
A of F.1
Bible teaches there is only one God.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39 6:4
Exodus 34:14
Isaiah 42:8 43:10-11 44:6,8 45:14,18,21,22,23 46:5,9 48:11,12
John 10:30
1 John 5:7,
James 2:19
Mormon Doctrine teaches that God was once a man:
Teachings pg 345-346.
Mormon scripture teaches that God has always been God in:
Mormon 9:9-11,19
Moroni 7:22
The Bible teaches that God was not a man:
Psalm 50:21
Numbers 23:19
Romans 1:22-23
That is just a start, Sorry I dont know the LDS belife as well, as you. Please correct me if your sources I quoted are incorrect. Rick b
It’s interesting when someone writes an off-topic rebuttal and then at the end says hey, your off topic anyway, what I say is the last that can be said about it.. Reminds me of a child who states their opinion and then puts their fingers in there ears and goes “la-la-la-la I cant hear youuuuu!”
Just my two cents..
lancaster, “Clark’s right. To put it another way, “outer darkness” is reserved for those who “in good conscience” (okay, that’s an oxymoron) and with “knowledge aforethought” sell their souls to the devil. Just being really, really bad won’t cut it.”
please explain to me why “in good conscience” is an oxy-moron…i’m anxiously awaiting 🙂
you haven’t heard of the mormon doctrine of the different kingdoms in glory? that might help you understand, lancaster.
let me give you the biblical reference:
1 Corinthians 15:41 (king james version)
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
this scripture in the BIBLE is interpreted, by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints, to mean that after the resurrection, the Lord will restore each individual to their respective kingdoms based on their faith until that point in time. and it is HIS sacrifice that makes this all happen.
Amanda said
I will list the sources, you must look into them as their is not enough space to quote them all.
I’ll give just one,
J.o.D vol 9, pg 286
then Mormon Doctrine 1966 edtion pg 516
gospel through the ages 1958 pg 98
Amanda, let me again say I am really sorry for not doing my homework as well as you think, I quoted sources and own all the books I quote from, If you dont happen to own these old rare books I would glady scan them onto my blog just for you to read. Again I did read all 4 standerd works, but the LDS.org will only give so much info, in order to get the full story I read your books and get what LDS.org does not give. Again Forgive me for not doing my research. I promise to do better. And correct me if I am wrong. Rick b
rick, we don’t believe God is man. men are mortal, God is eternal.
and i would be careful putting “false” and “christ” together. not a good idea.
JEFF, i was merely responding to his off-comment statement..your metaphor was actually indicative of what rick or you are doing by expecting me to not respond to your comments…get a clue.
and rick…i don’t think it is appropriate for me to respond to every single one of your supposed references to your inaccurate conclusions on this particular subject…it’s unfair to the others who actually want to discuss the original topic.
in terms of the movie, you have yet to substantially refute the article in usa today. possibly because you are incapable of refuting common sense.
ps. rick…you are inaccurate simply because you read these doctrinal references (that i do not disagree with) and expect to understand it in context. you are reading it with an evangelical paradigm…which is probably why you come to inaccurate conclusions…because it takes years of studying the gospel to understand those concepts. don’t try to tackle it in one sitting.
i only said god is not “married” i didn’t say that we don’t believe in a heavenly mother.
marriage is a mortal word. an institution formed by god for man
i know you cannot find anything in the bible suggest specifically that God is lonely in the universe.
Amanda, that kind of word game only exacerbates the susupicion outsiders have for Mormons. Given that the Mormon God was once a man who, as a man, was subject to “eternal laws,” he apparently was married for time and eternity; hence, the term “married” is not entirely incorrect.
OK, let’s all get back on topic. Amanda, would you agree to kill innocent men, women, and children on the orders of a stake president?
Amanda – If Heavenly Father has a Father whom has a Father ad infinitum… which Heavenly Father instituted Celestial Marriage? If the doctrine of exaltation is truly an eternal mandate, wouldn’t our Heavenly Father had to have fulfilled such requirements before being exalted? If you say that ‘marriage’ is a mortal word but God instituted the word, wouldn’t that mean that the word originated from God, thus becoming a ‘Celestial mandate’ and therefore would be God’s word and not just a mere mortal word?
i would like to respond to the original question posed by the author of this subject.
would i have killed those innocent victims? definitely not. this was obviously an atrocity committed by wicked men..i don’t care what religion they claimed.
the issue isn’t whether they were justified in killing, they most certainly were NOT.
the issue is whether the church ordered the killing. there is no evidence that Brigham Young ordered this killing, in fact there is evidence to the contrary. and no, the movie isn’t evidence. 😉
If they were wicked, why were they not punished?
who was supposed to punish them? the law? or the church?
it is God who decides the true fate of these people, in that i am sure. in terms of temporal punishment…they should have been punished by the law..in terms of the church, the church had no legal authority to do anything other than excommunicate, and to that effect i do not know. i think we look at this through a vacuum of modern day convenience. they did not have the ability to validate or resolve these kinds of problems in the same way we do now. you have to recognize that.
Amanda, why was Brigham Young involved in the cover up when he knew the murderers should have been brought to justice by the government? That is a fact that few dispute.
Exactly. Even if we set aside the civil law, Brigham Young had eccesiastical authority to punish these men, but he chose not to. He sat quietly by knowing full well what happened and who was involved.
Amanda said
So tell me amanda, After a prophet speaksat a general conference, you guys must spend years studying what the prophets said to fully understand the concept? What about People who are told to pray about the BoM to know if it is true or not, most if all never spent years studying it first before believing it, And I quoted from the BoM in part. Your smoke and mirrors just shows you cannot reply with truth and honesty.
Now I also dont expect you to start repling off topic and get in trouble, my point issimply we both know you cannot answer the points I brought up. at least be honest enough to admit that, instead of saying in order to understand you must first have years of study, but then teach people, read and pray and you will recive an answer that the BoM is true, but by pass the years of study point. Rick b
Amanda said
One problem I see Amanda is this, in the Article it says,
The LDS seem to be fine with the Movie, why do you have issues with it.
Then you want me to try to substantially refute parts or all the the article, like I said the LDS seem happy with it, then the article says
Anyone with a little common sense knows this movie is not 100 percent pure fact. So some of the issue raised about the movie would be us arguing over is it fact or not. Either way, in my mind the MMM is not a well know fact to everyone, I honestly do not know as much as others about this issue, but not once did I claim to. So I put my thoughts in on this here and their, and people can do what they wish with them. Rick b
The evangelical faith-promoting rumor out on the street is that MRM prophet Bill McKeever will be writing a review of the film. After the MRM Correlation Committee reviews it, we’ll publish it. Until then, everything is just speculation.