- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Featherina wrote:Old-Timer wrote:
Hogwash
“Hogwash”???Nice “moderating”, Ray.
🙄 If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will.
If not, they won’t.
Simple.
I’m curious. You quoted some very strong accusations against the LDS of 1850s Utah in your previous post. What are the source’s sources?
I’ve never heard of this before and, if verifiable, I would have thought the antis would be over it like a rash. I’ve read a lot of their stuff and I’ve never come across it before.
I’m not saying it’s not true, but I’d be interested if there’s evidence that it is.
Mackay, If you want to research it further, there are many resources online.
History is always one-sided, either side. But I trust you’ll figure it out.
Here’s a start:
1. “
Although the rhetoric of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and others contained the promise ofaccommodation and respect for the Indians, at that moment Young was
pursuing a policy of extermination against the Utes of Utah Valley.
Under his direction, and extending well beyond his tenure as superintendent,
the Mormons continued to crowd the Indians off choice land,
using force as necessary, until 1869 when the Utes were finally relocated
to the Uintah Reservation and the other Indians were expelled from the
territory or confined to its remote corners.”
http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/USHSArchPub/id/7266/filename/7301.pdf 2. “
The gruesome beheadings of some 40 Ute corpses in 1850, heads stacked in boxes, and hung by their long hair from the eves of buildings at Fort Utah, has long been ignored…What was the motivation behind such barbarianism? Money? Indeed, the severed heads were shipped to Washington and sold for ‘scientific examination.'”
http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/ 3.
“Smithsonian continues racism and morbid disrespect harboring Indian remains in violation of federal law…The Smithsonian is not the only US museum that harbored large collections of Native American skulls.”4. “
The Native American version contrasts. The incident at Manti was not the single cause of the war but rather was the last of a string of events that had built up anger and frustration of the natives since 1848. Some of these events included the murder of Black Hawk’s family at Battle Creek 1849, the killing of 70 of his kin and the beheadings at Fort Utah in 1850, the Bear River Massacre in 1863, the “Squaw Fight” Grass valley massacre in 1865. In 1864 there was a local drought, and the food shortage in Mormon settlements and the US Indian agent’s failure to provide enough supplies to Utes on the new Uintah Reservation brought many bands to the brink of starvation. Ute leaders, especially Chief Nuch (Black Hawk), were fully aware that life as they knew it was about to end. Chief Nuch’s personal agony was due to his people becoming increasingly famished, sick, and their alarming death rate.Black Hawk had personally experienced the settlers’ distrust and contempt for his people. He had been beaten for a supposed theft with a bucket, family members had been shot, and heads taken as trophies in the Fort Utah War.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_War_(1865%E2%80%931872) 5. “
The valleys that were the focus of Mormon settlement, as well as the mountainous areas that would later become part of the Uinta National Forest, had provided the Utes with game to hunt and clean water to fish in for centuries before the settlers came to Utah. The loss of these areas to Mormon settlement was disastrous and led to a period of conflict between the settlers and the Native Americans in and around what are now Forest lands. In some cases, the mountains of the Uinta provided the Utes with a refuge from Mormon expansion and occasional hostility…All told, the Black Hawk War resulted in the activation of about 2,500 militiamen, the loss of approximately 5,000 head of cattle, the deaths of as many as ninety settlers and militiamen, and untold numbers of Utes dead or wounded (Metcalf 1989).”
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/uwcnf/learning/history-culture/?cid=stelprdb5052888 To me, the most obvious truth is the striking decline of the Native Ute Indians population.
It speaks for itself.
The persecution of Utes by Mormon settlers is occasionally brought up in anti-Mormon lit. and forums, but as you mentioned, not often.
The focus with anti-Mormon comments, is generally self-centered, what bothers
THEMmost. It seems there are none or few Native American Utes in the anti-Mormon crowd.
Mormon delusion is deep… and infinite, it seems, sometimes.
We are all fooled at times – C’est la vie.
Featherina wrote:
If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will.If not, they won’t.
Simple.
Yes on the surface it seems simple, but how do we know when we are truly willing to overcome our existing prejudices? How do we know we aren’t just trading an old prejudice for a new one? Our current interpretation of “truth” will attract supporting evidence like a magnet through dirt draws iron.
I am convinced the more we believe our own story the higher the chance that we’re wrong – at least on some element of it.
Orson wrote:Featherina wrote:
If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will.If not, they won’t.
Simple.
Yes on the surface it seems simple, but how do we know when we are truly willing to overcome our existing prejudices? How do we know we aren’t just trading an old prejudice for a new one? Our current interpretation of “truth” will attract supporting evidence like a magnet through dirt draws iron.
I am convinced the more we believe our own story the higher the chance that we’re wrong – at least on some element of it.
Yes, good point, Orson.Truth is in perspective, and generally, the more perspectives, the more truthful.
Truth is that which causes influence.
There is talk of “the book of life.”
There is no hiding with God. As JS said, eventually, “the truth will carve itself.”
Some truths take longer to be discovered, though – due to our tendency to delude ourselves with a limited self-affirming focus.
Quote:If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will.
If not, they won’t.
Simple.
and
Quote:Mormon delusion is deep… and infinite, it seems, sometimes.
[
Admin Statement: KNOCK. IT. OFF.
You have leveled that exact charge againg people here about other issues when they disagree with you. Stop it. Now. It is not appropriate for this site. We aren’t here to call each other ignorant, blind sheep. It’s why I intentionally responded more forcefully than I ususally do. It was MUCH more about the tactic and the sweeping, extremist charge than about anything else. Don’t take that approach or make those types of charges here. Period.]
Personal note:
You don’t realize this, but I’ve read as much as, if not more than, you about Mormon history – including the Black Hawk War. The accounts are numerous and contradictory, depending on the bias of the author – and even from sources that are as unbiased as it is possibloe to be. The overwhelming evidence does not support a claim of attempted extermination, except perhaps in the very limited context of actual war – and there is no evidence that total extermination, including women and chlidren, was attempted even then. Even the quotes you provided don’t point to extermination; they point to continued conflict (including “injustices” on both sides) and relocation, which is very, very different than extermination.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will.
If not, they won’t.
Simple.
and
Quote:Mormon delusion is deep… and infinite, it seems, sometimes.
[
Admin Statement: KNOCK. IT. OFF.
You have leveled that exact charge againg people here about other issues when they disagree with you. Stop it. Now.
Ray, I was simply trying to stay “on topic” – I was afraid we were getting off topic, so I thought I’d bring around by incorporating the THREAD TOPIC.Why did you allow such a thread topic, “Mormon Delusion,” if it were just the comment I made (& not the commentor) that you were so upset about?
:problem: Quote:Why did you allow such a thread topic, “Mormon Delusion,” if it were just the comment I made (& not the commentor) that you were so upset about?
Because it’s a valid topic, if handled in a way that follows our rules – and because I am an admin and have a responsibility to keep the threads in line with our mission. We smply won’t let this site veer off into the type of dismissive, accusatory nature of so many others. There is lots of disagreement here, but there aren’t sweeping charges of ignorance, blindness and delusion – especially of those who participate there, but even of those who don’t.
Also, this isn’t about you. I’ve added moderator comments to others’ comments, as well – and I haven’t added moderator comments to lots of yours. A lot of you comments are wonderful and totally in line with our mission (a very high majority of them); a few aren’t. I don’t moderate most of your comments; I moderate some. That’s not unique – as others can attest.
The difference in this case is that the comment was made explicitly to say that your view was correct and others who don’t accept or agree simply aren’t open to understanding – that they are delusional.That message is undeniable, and it is against the mission of this site. [Admin Voice: Now, let’s drop this.]
just for clarity…if the offending statement was prepended with “In My Opinion” then it would have been fine? Yes, John, if the other wording was changed to reflect that; no, as worded in the actual comments.“In my opinion” works perfectly if the statement then focuses on the opinion. Almost all of us do that regularly. This is different, since the statements don’t focus on sharing an opinion; rather, they state clearly and unequivocally that there is only one valid opinion and anyone who doesn’t see it that way is blind and delusional. We do not allow sweeping condemnation of people who see things differently than we do, particularly in cases where the topic being discussed is not crystal clear – even among scholars who have studied historical issues extensively and reached different conclusions. That is the case here, and it is not in harmony with the purpose of this site.
Also, there is a history of that exact same charge being leveled against people who don’t agree with other views. My moderation might have been “lighter” if it had been directed at something someone else without such a history had said in a similar vein, so “the person” does play a role – but I still would add a moderator comment if anyone else had made such a claim (and I have done so more than once to others).
So, in the end, no – it’s not about the disclaimers; it’s about the actual charge.
I’ll just throw this out as an example of how we all have our own perspectives: When I read a statement that states clearly and unequivocally that there is only one valid opinion and anyone who doesn’t see it that way is blind and delusional — I usually take it as a naive and self-exposing claim. That goes for both inside and outside the church. Thankfully there are people like Ray around that remember these statements can actually impact some unsuspecting observers. Does one really have to start EVERY single post with “In my opinion” for people to understand that it’s that person’s opinion? Don’t most people realize that when someone is posting, that post is coming from that person?
Ray, I don’t appreciate your rudeness – adhominem attacks, like “Hogwash” or implying things about my post that are NOT in my post.
Ironically, it’s as if YOU are the only one who has an understanding of TRUTH, and anybody who violates YOUR idea of truth is in trouble.
There are many valid perspectives – some are healthier than others, but many are still valid.
It was my understanding that the main purpose of this forum is to RESPECT many different ways of staying LDS, while realizing and working through unique issues we each may have regarding it.
Yes, it is about respecting others in their position, and while none of us are perfect (yes Ray included 😆 ) the intent is to watch out for our tendency to disrespect those who really go against our grain – while also upholding the mission of this site.Featherina, from my perspective I see most members of this site willingly admit when they crossed a line; knowingly or not, intentional or not. Your recent comments come across to me more as denial/justification instead of seeking a more complete understanding of our united mission here. We all like “I’m sorry if I was wrong but my intention was…” but instead of that I see mostly defensiveness coming from your comments. In saying this my only conscious objective is to state my observations – so you may or may not gain some introspection.
FYI
On another note I think it is a good habit to continually state “it is my opinion that…” simply because it reminds us that all we can give is our opinion, nobody has a corner on absolute truth.
Orson, I appreciate your respectful manner.
No doubt I could always phrase things better & I apologize.
I want you to understand where I am coming from.
Ray seems to have a problem with me – & it is obvious when he gets mad at ME for quoting the thread topic that HE has allowed.
I didn’t put anybody’s post down, calling it “hogwash,” like he did… And uh oh – he forgot to precede it with “in my opinion.”
:eh: But he can get away with it, because he’s a “moderator.”
The other thing he took offense to is when I briefly mentioned about truth.
Of course truth is based on perpsective & the more perspectives, the more truthful.
Yet, this idea of finding truth is central to Mormonism. Joseph Smith taught to search for truth wherever it’s found and that the truth will carve itself.
In my opinion, mentioning truth in this thread as I did, (& not connotations that Ray added) was in line with the mission of this forum, and even fitting for this thread topic, “Mormon Delusion.”
Inappropriate moderation may make some of us shy away from this place, defeating the purpose here.
Featherina wrote:The other thing he took offense to is when I briefly mentioned about truth & it is in line with what Joseph Smith taught…
That the truth will carve itself.
I believe bringing this up the idea as it was, (& not connotations that Ray added) was in line with the mission of this forum, and even fitting for this thread topic, “Mormon Delusion.”
As an observer to this conversation I think the offending statement was: “If anybody is interested in realizing truth, they will. If not, they won’t. Simple.”
:wtf: I also agree that if anyone else were to play the “hogwash” card then they might end up being moderated.
:silent: I see your point that the title “Mormon Delusion” is in and of itself implying that Mormons are deluded.
:crazy: Can we agree that some church members did some horrible things to the native tribes and that the church as the only institution of any real influence in that time and place should shoulder some of the blame
:Hi Roy, Thank you for moderating.
Yes, I do think that is reasonable about the church’s responsibility.
I’ll add that I don’t worry too much about history except when people assume they know it all when they don’t, and when such history STILL affects prejudices today.
Regarding what I mentioned about truth, I meant, often what “deludes” us is not really wanting to know truth, but wanting to have our ego supported by supporting notions we’ve held.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.