The Truth about Mormons

[JakeStarkey]

On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.

The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950); (2) Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2006); and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2008). Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.

The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950); (2) Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2006); and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2008). Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.

No bias in your sources of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RGS, fair comment.

Juanita Brooks was a temple going LDS member all of her life.

Will Bagley is a 7th-generation "former member", as he calls it, and he firmly believes BY was involved in the planning of the mass murder right up to his whiskers.

Turley et al are the LDS church's picked members to write an 'objective' history. They exculpate Young and other high-church leaders in Salt Lake City from any involvement in the plotting of the massacre.

Is that fair?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is absolutely no credible evidence anywhere that Brigham Young was involved in the massacre at all. There is some evidence that he may have tried to cover it up, a natural reaction by the Church in that day and Age. Having already been driven out of every community they built in the United States by fear and armed mobs and soon to be invaded by a US Army under a lie that Brigham Young refused to give up his Governorship. And that the entire Mormon Community was in armed revolt.

 

[Truthspeaker]

On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.

I don't know why you say I have no credibility. I've only reported the facts as they stand. You fail to bring up specifics time and time again and I'll show you with your bogus book titles below.

The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950);

Look we're not going to read the book but since you have such a knowledge about it, why don't you bring up a specific point in the book that can be discussed. There's no credibility in a book just because it's a book.

(2) Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2006)

ditto above

;

and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (2008).

ditto above.

Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.

Brooks opinion is just that. Assuming he actually says what you claim. Everyone's got one of those and a brown third eye too.

Here's what the church ACTUALLY picked as the official explanation of the issue.
LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre

I demand you refute this detailed historical account. See the statement by Elder Eyering below for extra credit.

150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre - LDS Newsroom

If you refuse to accept the account i have provided then that's your decision. You will have turned it into nothing more than a he-said-she-said. It's up to everyone to study the facts and draw their own conclusion.
Part of those facts include studying the sermons of Brigham Young and deciding if a man who could teach such marvelous words of Jesus is capable of ordering such an atrocity.

"Judge ye".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Truth, you can opine and whine all day, and who cares. Read the book, check the footnotes, consider the sources. RGS, get a bit of circumstantial evidence ties BY to the planning but not the execution of the crime. Without a doubt he contributed to the emotional atmosphere of the times. And, if I were BY, I would have covered it up, too. Why? If the real truth had gotten out that first year, the U.S. Army and the California volunteers from the south would ran the LDS into the Salt Lake or into the mountains.

I will leave it at that, folks. Read the books.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Truth, you can opine and whine all day, and who cares. Read the book, check the footnotes, consider the sources. RGS, get a bit of circumstantial evidence ties BY to the planning but not the execution of the crime. Without a doubt he contributed to the emotional atmosphere of the times. And, if I were BY, I would have covered it up, too. Why? If the real truth had gotten out that first year, the U.S. Army and the California volunteers from the south would ran the LDS into the Salt Lake or into the mountains.

I will leave it at that, folks. Read the books.

I've done my reading. I know Brigham was a good man. He was not capable of such a crime. You can opine and whine all you want, but it doesn't hide your prejudice of the man.
They didn't have email, they didn't even have snail mail. It was more like horseback rider or cart and buggy mail. So don't give me that crap about him masterminding it. He responded instantly when he got the message and the message is clear, dated and documented.
Leave the Arkansas party alone. "You must not meddle with them."

The perpetrators of the act were tired of the oppression they had suffered and overreacted to the threats of the Arkansas party. They lost the spirit of God and let the Devil take over. The rest is history. Brigham Young's character could never have been capable of ordering a mass murder.

You get your facts straight. Just because a few "Mormons" who were "temple goers" opined about the massacre doesn't make them the authority.

Draw your own conclusions. Pray about it and ask God what really happened. He'll tell you if you believe he'll answer you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We can both whine and opine, truthspeaker. But, oh yes, the professional historians know far more about what happened than you or I do. Stick your head in the sand, then, but remember that your opinion is only good for you. I am disappointed to see you runaway from this issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Double post. So let me add about Mormon historians. If truthspeaker were silly enough to get up and try to debate with any of them, including the professors at Brigham Young University, they would all say, "Glad you got a testimony there, scout, but sit down and shut up. A new convert does more damage than twenty devils. Have a deviled egg! And bring me one, too."

 

[Truthspeaker]

We can both whine and opine, truthspeaker. But, oh yes, the professional historians know far more about what happened than you or I do. Stick your head in the sand, then, but remember that your opinion is only good for you. I am disappointed to see you runaway from this issue.

At what point in this brief thread have I run away from any issue. That's rich. The historians have documented what happened. You don't make sense. What have I run away from. Humor me with a specific.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Double post. So let me add about Mormon historians. If truthspeaker were silly enough to get up and try to debate with any of them, including the professors at Brigham Young University, they would all say, "Glad you got a testimony there, scout, but sit down and shut up. A new convert does more damage than twenty devils. Have a deviled egg! And bring me one, too."

Oh? is that so?

What part of the links I provided do you have a problem with? What part of the links provided would the historians have a problem with?

Humor me with an answer please.

 

[strollingbones]

okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?

i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?

 

[Truthspeaker]

okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?

i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?

No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.

 

[Skeptik]

okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?

i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?

No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.

But they can acheive godhood eventually. One of the most attractive doctrines of he church is eternal progression. We continue to learn, to improve, and to progress until we're capable of creating a world of our own and becoming like god. That sounds a lot better to me than sitting asround on a cloud singing praises for eternity.

We ask ourselves where we want to be in ten years. If you believe in eternal life, then you need to ask yourself where you will be in ten million.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
President, LDS church

 

[Avatar4321]

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
President, LDS church

It was true then, it's still true today.

 

[froggy]

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
President, LDS church

It was true then, it's still true today.

God was never a man, and man will never be a god.

 

[Avatar4321]

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
President, LDS church

It was true then, it's still true today.

God was never a man, and man will never be a god.

So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.

 

[froggy]

It was true then, it's still true today.

God was never a man, and man will never be a god.

So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.

Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man. My brother passed away the first of the year, my thinking still off a little.

 

[Avatar4321]

God was never a man, and man will never be a god.

So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.

Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man.

So Christ was a man, are you saying that He wasnt God? Was John lying when He said that the Word was God?