Jaye wrote:
JLD wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
The Churches Modus operandi (M.O.) seems to have worked more successfully in the Inter-Mountain West then it did in Missouri, where they actually got the United States government to massively murder American Native people (Bear River Massacre) and eventually protected the Mormons squatter rights in assuming control of the many fertile valleys and main water sources (Las Vegas and etc.)of the far West.

This is in contradiction to your past comments about ownership of land, and the native american belief that you don't believe you own the land. So how can you say that your land was taken, if you don't own it to begin with?


And the church got the US government to murder people? Come on James, your getting ridiculous now, the US government disliked the Mormons in those days, there is no way they would murder people for them.

Here is a quote from Brigham Young on the subject...

"A significant policy established by Brigham Young at the time recommended that the Mormon settlers establish friendly relationships with the surrounding American Indian tribes, particularly with a policy to "feed them rather than fight them" Shoshoni Frontier, p. 17


Your view of history is a bit of Jame

The Native American belief regarding ownership of land was this:

They believed that the earth was their mother, and that rather than believing that the land belonging to them...they believed that THEY belonged to the land.

This did not stop some rivalry between bands regarding hunting territories...but this rivalry was necessary for survival, and to prevent decimation of their prey through over hunting.

Most of the Natives were nomadic, and didn't settle in one area for 12 months out of the year, but would follow the buffalo herds to hunt, and jerk meat and harvest and cure hides...and would then travel back to their winter campgrounds...although there were tribes in certain areas who were not nomadic, because the area they lived in provided for their needs year round.

As far as what James said about the Mormons influencing the government to murder Native Americans at Bear Creek...he was partly correct.

Even though the government had no great love of Mormons, and even though Brigham Young had announced that he would rather feed the Indians than to fight them...the Mormon settlements and other white settlements put a great strain upon the resources of the land, and resulted in the unrest of the local tribes.

And with the murder of a son of a local Shoshone chief who happened to be fishing in the wrong place at the wrong time and was suspected of the theft of a Mormon settler's stray horse...hostilities commenced, and the federal government was ordered to settle the issue.

You would do well to do some research on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_River_Massacre

I have read that, and it in no way says the Mormons influenced the government to attack and kill the indians, if YOU read the link you gave, you would see there was many things that influenced the attack. The Mormons influenceing them to attack as not mentioned. Nice try jaye, but you need to take your own advice and do some research yourself.

Take a deep breath and try to think for a moment.

Smithfield was a Mormon settlement. It was a Mormon settler who after missing a horse, accused the young son of a Shoshone chief of stealing his horse. This lad had been fishing at Summit Creek right about when the Mormon discovered his horse to be missing.

Robert Thornley, an English immigrant tried to defend the lad, by pointing out that he had quite a line of fish on a line, and could not have been stealing a horse, but to no avail. A jury of Mormons tried the youth and hanged him.

This angered the Shoshone Chief, and he retaliated by making a raid and killing a couple of the Merrill family's sons as they were out gathering wood.

There were a number of attacks on settlers and immigrants.

George A. Smith, in the official Journal History of the LDS Church, wrote:

"It is said that Col. Connor is determined to exterminate the Indians who have been killing the Emigrants on the route to the Gold Mines in Washington Territory. Small detachments have been leaving for the North for several days. If the present expedition copies the doings of the other that preceded it, it will result in catching some friendly Indians, murdering them, and letting the guilty scamps remain undisturbed in their mountain haunts."

Good...so Smith realized that all tribals were not guilty...some were friendly.

"On the other hand, the Deseret News in an editorial expressed:

"...with ordinary good luck, the volunteers will 'wipe them out.' We wish this community rid of all such parties, and if Col. Connor be successful in reaching that bastard class of humans who play with the lives of the peaceable and law abiding citizens in this way, we shall be pleased to acknowledge our obligations."

As I said Dubbs...even though there was no real love lost between Mormons and the Federal Government...the Mormons were involved in this fray...from the moment a jury of Mormons tried and hanged that Shoshone boy.

If you truly believe that the Mormons cared one whit about the welfare of the Natives...you are more deluded than I originally understood you to be.

The Mormons set the Natives up right and left...and the Mormons were also party to murdering immigrants.

Do you understand that the federal army wasn't just interested in quelling the tribal attacks? But also in discouraging any further attacks on emigrant trains at the hands of the Mormons?

Keep in mind Jaye that when you are talking about "the Mormons" it must be understood to mean some of the Mormons. Certainly not every Mormon felt the same way about the native Indians, or had the same experiences with them. Lately I'm reading a lot of posts on this thread that lump all the Mormon's into one group that is doing this or that. I think it worth noting that no group has ever existed in human history that felt universally, or acted universally, about a given event. Wouldn't it be the same as saying all Nazi's hated the Jewish race, or all Russian's embraced communism?

I think it is safe to assume that all Nazis hated the Jewish race.

Or is it possible that you believe that every German was a Nazi?

Yes, I could have said something to the effect of "All members of the German population hated the Jewish population", I suppose. It would have been a better example, to be sure.

On the other note,

As far as all Nazi's hating the Jewish population, I think the the vast majority would (and do) as racism is a part of Nazism. However, some of the more rational of Nazisms prescriber's may have felt a superiority of race without personally hating the "lesser" of the races...I imagine there is always going to be the one cog that doesn't quite fit the mechanism. I think some that prescribed to the Nazi party didn't fully realize what they were doing - it was a chaotic time. I don't think that that in any way excuses their behavior though.

Lovie wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Lovie wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Lee and his cronies that did this were pathetic excuses for human beings.

Thomask I will ask you, like I Did Dubbs. Sign off, read a book on the subject, and then come to the table with some real food. You kinda look silly. almost like Dubbs, now isn't that sad.

Hope your having a great afternoon!!!

There's nothing "silly" about these pigs slaughtering 120 men, women and children. And that's the truth.

wow thomask, How do you really feel???

Since you asked. Lee and his band of butchers paraded 120 men, WOMEN and CHILDREN out and massacred them. If these idiots had one ounce of belief in Christ they never would have done it. Their true nature came out. They were nothing more than mass murderers, without a conscience.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
3. The article I posted did answer Lovie's question...and quite a number of questions which have been posed in the past. If someone asks a question...I am not above checking out the available resources and offering suggestions and assistance.

No, it did not, just as your post about my comments you said were incorrect you still have not answered how.

Proof is dovie is still wondering if gaurd means danite, your long winded diatribe clifford clavin-esque post DID NOT answer that question. You are not an honest person with your claims of answering questions, when in fact they don't answer a thing.

1. The article answered the question. You simply did not catch the answer.

2. You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

3. Her moniker is Lovie...not dovie.

4. You are bearing false witness against me Dubbs. I advise caution in further lies.

Prove it, post the part that answers her question or shut your yapper cliffy.

Her question was, and needs to be repeated since I know you like to post long diatribes about other none related subjects, was...

does being a gaurd equal being a danite.

You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

If you wish to discuss the issues...please leave off with your emotionally abusive behavior and we shall discuss the issues.

Deflection.

Fact is, you don't have an answer for her question, nor did your long winded diatribe. that is a fact.

ThomasK wrote:
Lovie wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Lovie wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Lee and his cronies that did this were pathetic excuses for human beings.

Thomask I will ask you, like I Did Dubbs. Sign off, read a book on the subject, and then come to the table with some real food. You kinda look silly. almost like Dubbs, now isn't that sad.

Hope your having a great afternoon!!!

There's nothing "silly" about these pigs slaughtering 120 men, women and children. And that's the truth.

wow thomask, How do you really feel???

Since you asked. Lee and his band of butchers paraded 120 men, WOMEN and CHILDREN out and massacred them. If these idiots had one ounce of belief in Christ they never would have done it. Their true nature came out. They were nothing more than mass murderers, without a conscience.

Read Bagley and Bigler's Innocent Blood, a documentary history of MMM. It gathers in one place all of the documents not previously published in the previous works on the massacre.

They, indeed, were mass murderers. They also had consciences (most of them) that were suppressed by religious conviction and what they believed was their call to priesthood duty. That does not excuse any of them in my book. But the documents indicate that most, if not all, later realized the enormity of what they did and feared for the immortality of their future souls.

Nephi Johnson, an old man interviewed by Juanita Brooks, and a butcher of the wounded in his wagon, died screaming, "Blood, Blood, BLOOD!!!"

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
3. The article I posted did answer Lovie's question...and quite a number of questions which have been posed in the past. If someone asks a question...I am not above checking out the available resources and offering suggestions and assistance.

No, it did not, just as your post about my comments you said were incorrect you still have not answered how.

Proof is dovie is still wondering if gaurd means danite, your long winded diatribe clifford clavin-esque post DID NOT answer that question. You are not an honest person with your claims of answering questions, when in fact they don't answer a thing.

1. The article answered the question. You simply did not catch the answer.

2. You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

3. Her moniker is Lovie...not dovie.

4. You are bearing false witness against me Dubbs. I advise caution in further lies.

Prove it, post the part that answers her question or shut your yapper cliffy.

Her question was, and needs to be repeated since I know you like to post long diatribes about other none related subjects, was...

does being a gaurd equal being a danite.

You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

If you wish to discuss the issues...please leave off with your emotionally abusive behavior and we shall discuss the issues.

Deflection.

Fact is, you don't have an answer for her question, nor did your long winded diatribe. that is a fact.

Shut your yapper, Dubbs. The question has been answered, and your blather is the defection. Pull your head out of your ass.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
3. The article I posted did answer Lovie's question...and quite a number of questions which have been posed in the past. If someone asks a question...I am not above checking out the available resources and offering suggestions and assistance.

No, it did not, just as your post about my comments you said were incorrect you still have not answered how.

Proof is dovie is still wondering if gaurd means danite, your long winded diatribe clifford clavin-esque post DID NOT answer that question. You are not an honest person with your claims of answering questions, when in fact they don't answer a thing.

1. The article answered the question. You simply did not catch the answer.

2. You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

3. Her moniker is Lovie...not dovie.

4. You are bearing false witness against me Dubbs. I advise caution in further lies.

Prove it, post the part that answers her question or shut your yapper cliffy.

Her question was, and needs to be repeated since I know you like to post long diatribes about other none related subjects, was...

does being a gaurd equal being a danite.

You are still actively engaged in disobedience in disregarding the admonitions of the late President Hinckley.

If you wish to discuss the issues...please leave off with your emotionally abusive behavior and we shall discuss the issues.

Deflection.

Fact is, you don't have an answer for her question, nor did your long winded diatribe. that is a fact.

Dubs I got it and if you had the gift of discernment you would have too! He has answered my question. If you missed it, you weren't listening to the spirit.

At this point, Jaye, any other answer would be casting pearls! This was my gem, and I got it.... thanks