Posted on 07/12/2011 12:17:04 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
Sorry, no, the situation is actually the other way ‘round.
The Utah war started in late May, 1857, when Buchanan decided to send troops west.
Young heard of the troops’ approach by 24 July, 1857. He mustered the Nauvoo militia on 1 August, 1857. The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened on 11 September, 1857. ie, the federal troops were already nearly upon the Utah territory before the Massacre occurred.
The dispatch of troops from the east to the Utah territory contributed to the atmosphere of Mormon paranoia in which the MMM happened. Viz:
http://www.historynet.com/utah-war-us-government-versus-mormon-settlers.htm
Buchanan was ridiculed for the outcome of sending troops against the Mormons in the end of the operation.
It doesn’t sound to me as though you aren’t for polygamy.
What are the federal laws on marriage and homosexual marriage that you are referring to? What actions are being taken at the federal level, what federal law was enshrined?
I did not know this before today, but Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabitation while married to someone else:
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_07_010100.htm
76-7-101. Bigamy — Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.
I find it a little disturbing that you justify the cold blooded murder of unarmed men, women and children who has surrendered to mormons - by "paranoia". Facts of history are that the "indians" were mostly painted up mormons and any 'real' indians were recruited by the mormons - and left early.
Further, this wasn't the only wagon train that was harassed by mormons.
Government forces were moving in from the north - to reinstall federal judges and other agents - after all, it was still US territory - who were deposed and chased away by Young. Imagine that.
Quite frankly, you’re nothing but a bigot.
____________________________________________
Yeah youre right
I object to deviant sex...
Homosexuality or Polygamy...
Thanks.
I guess you learn something new every day. I had no idea of that law. That must have been the reason they had to split UT.
Do they all live in the same house? I really don’t watch the show so I don’t know.
Get off the couch and away from that TV and get back in the kitchen and cook your husband some dinner.
_________________________________________
Your husband got a broken arm ???
Why cant he cook his own dinner ???
The Utah war started in late May, 1857, when Buchanan decided to send troops west.
_______________________________________
Yes those non-mormon judges and settlers and the wagon trains begged for help for some time before Buchanan did send in the troops to help them and to support the legal government in Utah...
Before that people were turning up dead in strangers back yards...
“We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him...”
- Apostle Jebediah M. Grant, Deseret News, July 27, 1854
“I would have a tendency to place terror on those who leave these parts [Utah], that may prove their salvation when they see the heads of thieves taken off, or shot down before the public... I believe it would be pleasing in the sight of heaven to sanctify ourselves and put these things out of our midst.”
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 73
“In the excavations made within the limits of Salt Lake City during the time I have resided there, many human skeletons have been exhumed in various parts of the city…. I have never heard that it was ever the custom to bury the dead promiscuously throughout the city; and as no coffins were ever found in connection with any of these skeletons, it is evident that the death of the persons to whom they once belonged did not result from natural causes, but from the use of criminal means.”
- R.N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah, 1914, pp. 154-155
“It was one of the hot-beds of fanaticism, and I expect that more men were killed there, in proportion to population, than in any other part of Utah. In that settlement it was certain death to say a word against the authorities, high or low.”
- DaniteWilliam Hickman, Brigham Young’s Destroying Angel, 1964, p. 284
Concerning two captured Confederate commissioners in Utah, Brigham Young said he: “would put them where they would never peep. He [Brigham Young] uttered this sentiment with such a wicked wording of the lower jaw and lip, and such an almost demon spirit in his whole face, that quite disposed to be incredulous on those matters...”
- New York Tribune, July 15, 1865
I don’t watch the show, either, but I assume they do all live together.
That's BOTH reductionistic AND revisionistic of history to the core, NVDave.
How is it revisionistic?
(1) Polygamy wasn't the #1 concern of Buchanan at the time re: the Mormons.
What were Buchanan's concerns?
* "With increasing brazenness, [Brigham] Young flaunted his long-standing secessionist convictions, whipping his audiences into an antigovernment frenzy." (Sally Denton, American Massacre p. 108, Vintage Books 2003 ) [Potential secession was key]
* And, of course, then -- the need to replace Young as territorial governor was potential messiness for the new governor. A defense on the gov's behalf would be needed, especially in light of the murder of Gunnison & his party [see below]
(2) The way NVDave tells it, Buchanan was playing "offense" when he ordered troops West in May, 1857. But initially it was for defensive purposes only:
"General orders were issued on May 28 for the troops to be dispatched from Fort Leavenworth, with Harney specifically instructed not to attack any citizens but to act only in self-defense." (Sally Denton, American Massacre p. 109)
Q Now why would defense be necessary?
A Mormons were already linking up with a few Native Americans to kill govt reps like Gunnison & his party, who was surveying the territory as engineers. Gunnison had provoked the Mormons by being the first one to highlight Mormon polygamy to the world. He had been in Utah Territory, went back East, wrote an 1852 book that advocating a hands-off approach to the Mormons...but they didn't like it that he had exposed their polygamy to the world.
Gunnison's book, in fact, then forced the Mormons for the first time to publicize its Doctrines & Covenants 132 on polygamy.
Since Buchanan had to present to Congress the "why" of sending troops, "particularly incendiary were the supporting documents Buchanan provided Congress, including Judge Drummond's allegations that Gunnison had been murdered 'under the orders, advice, and direction of the Mormons.'" (Sally Denton, American Massacre, p. 109)
Brigham Young body guard and mass murderer Wild Bill Hickman had been id'd as one of nine Mormons in good standing in the Mormon church who had murdered Gunnison & their party as they camped. The one who committed the most apparent brutality in the attack was a Native American id'd as "Eneis." (Sally Denton, American Massacre, pp. 88-89). Eneis had apparently "cut...Gunnison's body open and took out his heart while he was yet alive, and the heart so full of blood that it bounded on the ground after being taken out" -- and then cut out Gunnison's tongue. [Perhaps payback for "tattling" on Mormon polygamy]
How is it reductionistic?
In a nutshell, NVDave makes absolutely NO mention of Brigham Young himself as the provocateur!!!
As mentioned above, not only had Young whipped up secessionist and anti-government frenzies, but Buchanan recognized Young had way too much concentrated power that he was exercising in "a despotic and absolute power over the dominion" by holding the tri-offices of territorial governor, superintendent of Indian affairs, and head "prophet" of the Mormon church. (Denton, American Massacre, p. 109)
NVDave was clearly peddling nonsense, you could see it in his slippery postings.
Not just slippery postings, but flat out misrepresentation. Mountain Meadows Massacre was not due to the mormons being 'worried' about the feds moving in. How could it? Facts are that after the fake 'indian' raid, the mormons offered the settlers a truce option and SAFE passage - only to have the now unarmed men, women and older children massacred in cold blood. Perhaps nvdave should read his history more objectively.
Well, let’s take this one step at a time. Polygamy is worth supporting if you can persuade Muslims and Mormons into thinking you are getting their rights back for them, but then again, even that is a serious gamble being taken.
Wasn’t this abolished more than a hundred years ago. My Mormon neighbors tell me that if any member is engaged in polygamy they are excommunicated.
All the more reason for some groups to be interested in polygamy. It allows them to take a strike at the Mormon Church politically. If it was at least decriminalized, couldn’t that be a persuasive tool to convince Mormons to support a change in stance about not allowing polygamy, because it isn’t so criminal anymore? How about the thought of getting Mormons to rethink their stance on future equivalents of Proposition 8? I can see some potential reasons why some groups would be interested in legalizing polygamy, specifically for trying to gain support of a group, but then again, it’s hard to say how likely this is that this would happen.
Wasn’t this abolished more than a hundred years ago. My Mormon neighbors tell me that if any member is engaged in polygamy they are excommunicated.
All the more reason for some groups to be interested in polygamy. It allows them to take a strike at the Mormon Church politically. If it was at least decriminalized, couldn’t that be a persuasive tool to convince Mormons to support a change in stance about not allowing polygamy, because it isn’t so criminal anymore? How about the thought of getting Mormons to rethink their stance on future equivalents of Proposition 8? I can see some potential reasons why some groups would be interested in legalizing polygamy, specifically for trying to gain support of a group, but then again, it’s hard to say how likely this is that this would happen.
I doubt NV Dave is justifying anything, or saying it was right, he is, however, paraphrasing an outside source, that doesn’t sound as if it was written by a Mormon either. Just because some exceptional bad things happen isn’t the heart of what’s wrong with Mormonism. The heart of the problem, as I have previously emphasized, was the fact that The revelations didn’t really come to the Smith guy, their Book isn’t real, they bothered practicing polygamy when it was illegal and would have repercussions at the time, and more problems besides. But as for me, I’d be wasting time to assume some random mob of Mormons are really going to chase me out of town anytime soon, and that’s the problem, NVDave made it pretty clear that there are exceptionally bad occurrences, but they’re not as troublesome as base doctrines. I mean, I could spend all day listing all the preachers who felt that I had some need of excorcism for some odd reason, or all the wierd talk on FR, but why should I care, much less fear some of those things over some real agendas that are going to put some serious price tags on the rest of us (Same-Sex Marriage, hint, hint) The founding doctrines are wrong, and that should be about all there is to it.
Don’t forget Martha Hughes Cannon, which some pro-polygamy advocates have to bring as an argument to the table sometimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Hughes_Cannon
Even wikipedia acknowledges her, strangely enough. However, my real issue with polygamy is the whole business that has been going on and on with associating marriage as something that everyone should accept. I find that notion rediculous. I don’t have to morally approve of what my neighbors do. As for some relationships, people need a few brief pointers about what is the rule and what is the exception. Thankfully, I don’t have to believe in any of the Mormon stuff about marriage, they don’t sue me for it, and I am fine with that.
It has been my experience that some will defend the massacre of the innocent settlers at Mountain Meadows on the grounds that the mormons were ‘under attack’ - note the specific language nvdave used. I wanted to make sure the record was straight.
I agree with your views of mormon doctrine in general.
But regarding the topic at hand, even former apostle Bruce McConkie notes that its resumption is expected in the future (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 edition). And their scripture that commanded it (D&C section 132) has never been repealed or removed from their canon.
Good, it’s nice to see that we understand what’s being said here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.