New film about Mountain Meadows revives controversy over LDS role

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 1/24/06 | John Anderson

[Utah Binger]

LOS ANGELES - As 2006 dawned, Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven - about a ''divinely ordered'' double murder in 1984 by two members of a breakaway Mormon sect - was fresh off the best-seller list. Warren Jeffs, the polygamist prophet of this splinter group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was on FBI wanted lists. And the world's first-ever ''Mormon- sploitation Retrospective'' of vintage fear-mongering anti-Mormon movies had just finished at the fringy Pioneer Theater in New York's East Village.

In public relations terms, this is not the easiest time to have the words ''Latter,'' ''Day'' and ''Saints'' anywhere close together in your name. And the going may get rougher after the filmmaker Christopher Cain finishes his new movie about one of the darkest moments in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857, in which 137 pioneers from Arkansas were killed in Utah by a raiding party whose ties to the LDS Church are still in dispute.

An early look at parts of "September Dawn" - viewed in a West Los Angeles editing room with Cain and his longtime editor, Jack Hofstra - suggests that there will be fresh debate when it finally reaches the public.

[frgoff]

There is evidence for it, if you study up on the history. I'm not excusing the Massacre at all; I'm simply pointing out that it's not as simple as a bunch of bloodthirsty Mormons and Indians going out and deciding to murder a bunch of pioneers.

Along comes a religion that has more in common with paganism, led by a tyrant who has a lust for multiple wives. His doctrines & proclamations, fly from the cuff and have little basis in biblical theology. He boasts of a religious war and a desire to overthrow the US and establish himself in control.

Yeah, that was pretty much the propaganda preached from various Protestant pulpits during Joseph Smith's lifetime. It was pretty effective in whipping up crowds to go burn homes, rape women and kill Mormons. Apparently, it's still pretty effective with some folks today as well.

[frgoff]

Do you think the Mormons might have also been instrumental in creating bad blood with their neighboring Missourians.

No doubt about it. The Missouri Mormons block-voted, were anti-slavery, and generally developed their homes and lands better than their Missourian neighbors. They were also quite outspoken about how Missouri was their promised land and the Lord would eventually give all of it to them. They were chastised for it repeatedly, but didn't listen. LDS doctrine is that they lost that promised blessing of having a temple in Missouri because of their arrogance and pride.

That still doesn't excuse the rapes, pillaging and murders, just like the behavior and taunting of the pioneers doesn't excuse the Mountain Meadows massacre.

[bonfire]

Baptist is only one denomination within the Christian church.

I'm just curious as to why your church would want to call itself "Christian"? I've never heard a Mormon refer to himself as "Christian". THey use the term "Mormon" or "LDS". And the Mormons I know (I live near Kirtland so I've known quite a few) ALWAYS distinguish just which faction of Mormon they ascribe to. Around Kirtland they say "The church on the top of the hill" or "bottom of the hill" lol!

[frgoff]

Yeah, I know. I periodically get this irresistable urges to beat my head against a brick wall.

[frgoff]

If you read the entire quote, you'll find Brigham Young is talking about the Christian religions of the day.

Brigham Young did not go "astray."

I suggest you actually read some explanations of LDS doctrine from LDS scholars, not folks like the Tanners. Despite what you've probably read, LDS are pretty frank and open about their doctrines, even the ones you would consider controversial. You can find all sorts of LDS opinions on the various "bizarre" doctrines. Take a look.

[frgoff]

Baptist is only one denomination within the Christian church.

I'm using generalization, citing a specific example to underline a general concept.

I'm just curious as to why your church would want to call itself "Christian"?

Because we are.

They use the term "Mormon" or "LDS".

It's an interesting parallel. Mormon was initially a term of some derision given Mormons because of their belief in the Book of Mormon, just as Christian was a slanderous term assigned to those people who believed that this guy named Jesus Christ was the son of God. If you read the New Testament, you'll find that the church members called themselve Saints originally. Thus the term LDS, or Latter-Day Saint used to describe the followers, or Saints, of Christ in the Latter days (as opposed to the early days).

Like Christians, who gradually took the label Christian and applied it to themselves in addition to Saint, Mormons have also taken the label Mormon and applied it to themselves, in addition to Saint. If you ask a Mormon if he is Christian, he will tell you yes.

ALWAYS distinguish just which faction of Mormon they ascribe to. Around Kirtland they say "The church on the top of the hill" or "bottom of the hill" lol!

There is only one Mormon church. What your friends are telling you is which building they go to. Congregations are set up geographically and may go to different buildings or even share the same building at a different time slot, but it's all the same church.

[af_vet_rr]

This is a touchy subject in Utah

It's also a touchy subject in Arkansas and among descendants of some of those that were murdered.

I have a cousin-in-law who had hit a few brickwalls in his genealogy research - he had some ancestors that kind of dropped off the face of the earth,and one of his ancestors would have been a small child when it happened - he only had two letters from the 1860s to go on, plus some scattered records (marriage and birth - and I'm not talking full-blown birth certificate, I'm talking a few lines in a country doctor's journal), plus some census information, and a will.

All of the information was there for him to figure it out, but he knew nothing about the Massacre (this was before genealogy on the internet really got going). It took him quite a while to put together what he had, and we made a trip up to Arkansas, and a kind old lady in a library there overheard us talking to a librarian about records of that time. What caught her ear, was him telling the librarian that it was almost like they had both just up and left, and were never heard from again, or had been murdered somewhere, and he never could explain how their child came to be raised by their aunt and uncle. She caught our attention and started drilling him for details - she turned out to be a very distant cousin of his, and had a lot of the information he needed (including living relatives that were descended from the same line as he).

He, to this day, has no desire to ever go near Utah, and doesn't care for Mormons - very irrational, but I guess he had spent so much time trying to find out what happened, that it became personal. I think he should have went to the site in 1999 or whatever, with other descendants, but he just wouldn't go.

The ironic thing is, nowadays we can plug in a few names and pull up the Mountain Meadows Massacre Association's Genealogy site and a few minutes later have a lot more information that connects the dots, so to speak. I don't recommend that for anybody that hasn't already researched as much as possible - way too many people these days pull anything and everything out of genealogy sites, but if you already have a solid foundation, sites like that can nudge things along.

[Bear_Slayer]

The history is always right when it is pro-mormon, wrong when it is anti-mormon.

Howabout we let the history speak for itself and judge the events.

[Utah Binger]

Well Well!

[bonfire]

I'm talking about the Missouri Mormons and the Utah Mormons. The top of the hill is the original temple which I believe is owned by the Missouri group. I can't keep the names straight as now the Missourians call themselves something different.

[bonfire]

http://www.kirtlandtemple.org/

"The Community of Christ"

[colorcountry]

I can be wrong! ;-)

[af_vet_rr]

The controversy is whether Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

And you've hit the biggest nail sticking up, right on the head. Even if Young wasn't responsible, the overzealous manners and actions of some Mormons over the years have led many to conclude that he was, and that pretty much convicted him in many peoples' eyes.

A lot of people refuse to look at if from both sides. The fact is, a lot of people were murdered by a group of Mormoms, including children down to around 7 or 8 years old, and there have been some coverups and/or denials over the years, and all of this mixed together with eyewitness accounts of children, and information about the bodies, etc. has created a problem.

If Young were involved, and if the Church said "yes, he was involved", I'm not so sure that some people from both parties would accept it anymore - the anger or denial has been with them too long.

[Bear_Slayer]

I have no idea who the Tanners are. I've done my own study, including Mormon publications.

Are you familiar with Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie?

There is so much antibiblical heresy, I don't need the Tanners or anyone else to show me.

Blood Atonement
Adam did not sin
"Not always sin to transgress"
&etc.

Mormons are as bad as Muslims in revision and support of a false religion

The LDS is so full of holes, it amazes me that anyone would bail that sinking ship out.

[Utah Binger]

Thread will be pulled if this keeps up.

[af_vet_rr]

But I don't think the Pope should have issued a blanket apology for the Crusades.

I think a big difference though, is very few of us can trace our ancestors back that far, with any degree of certainty (at least about who they are).

With Mountain Meadows, you have plenty of descendants (thousands literally ), you have people who know the names of their ancestors, and so it's personal (like I mentioned with my cousin-in-law).

150 years may seem like a long time, but in a genealogical sense, it's not that far back - you could literally have people alive, right now, who are only four generations removed (and a case could be made for three but that's stretching it) - they would be elderly, but they would have grown up on stories of what happened to their GGrandparents or GGGrandparents.

[colorcountry]

You started it....:-0

(innocently looks at tops of shoes)

[wolfcreek]

I don't appreciate being 'preached to' by anyone. I had a Baptist preacher come come to my door one day and had to tell him to get lost! Same goes for any other religion. I spent my youth studying various religions and came to the conclusion, I would practice MY religion in the privacy of My church, MY HOME!

[rwfromkansas]

The Mormons slaughtered innocents. Period. The evidence is quite strong.

There is a reason why the governor of Utah does not allow anybody there.

[colorcountry]

Amen! Or in the surroundings of the Beautiful, Natural World in which we live!