Sir John the Apostate wrote:
myomyomy wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Lovie wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
myomyomy wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
myomyomy wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
myomyomy wrote:
You say you are bashing the actions of these men. Are you aware of how many "of these men" were involved in MM? It wasn't just two or three. We're talking about a religion that were bound together who's leaders taught principles that created an environment rippened to commit such an act. I am sorry that you feel you need to use language like you do. I only want to express my opinions based on study and research. Wouldn't you agree it would be tragic if truth were never allowed to surface because we become ignorant of fact based reasoning? I think constructive analysis is beneficial for all involved.


You are quite full of yourself. And no, I can't stand self-righteous know-it-all jerks like you.

Those men were evil. Their acts were evil. You don't think so, that's your problem.

ThomasK,
Have you read the new book on MM that the church historians, Turley et. wrote? I am surprised of your ignorance in the MMM. Have you read Jaunita Brooks or Wil bagley, Sally Denton? If you have, I am wondering why you are so adamant in contradicting even what the church historians have to say, which is only part of the historical epilogue. I am also ashamed that you are speaking so..... as a member of the Church. Not a real good example. I too am a member just trying to encourage the right thing in regards to Mountain Meadows. I for one, think its wise to learn from past history to avoid future pitfalls, and go through life without blinders, not always defensive at anyone who may have a different point of view. Calm down!

You really need to get over yourself. Your self-righteousness is nausiating.

What part am I "contradicting even what church historians have to say"? You keep make false accusations. Put up or shut up.

You havn't read the book have you? You were bashing John D. Lee without including others. The Church says Isaic C. Haight had the most responsibility for Mountain Meadows. He planned the attack with his fellow counselors and then called Lee into the middle of it all. Lee was wrong for participating, he did so because of loyalty and faith in his superiors and religion. He had no other motive to particpate. Why would any of the Southern Utah members participate? If it wasn't out of loyalty to their religion and the teachings of BY and others at the time. John D. Lee has borne the majority of responsibility for MM on behalf of the church for all these years, as have the Piute Indians. If history shows if shouldn't have been this way, why not correct a wrong and do the best we can to correct inaccurate past LDS teachings on the subject.

So Haight commanded them to stick a gun to women and children's head and blow it off? OK throw Haight in with this hateful bunch. Feel better?

The truth can sometimes be messy.



I'm sure this messy group isn't enjoying eternity.

your right, BY G A Smith are a bit toasty about now.

I wouldn't know. But it's a safe bet Lee and his cronies that blew little children's brains out are, wouldn't you agree?

The lawn can wait a bit. At least Lee was executed for the crime, everyone else got off scotch free for 150 years.(an indictment is not the same is being brought to trial.) One thing in Lee's favor he could have incriminated BY or George A. and he could have saved his own life. But sacrificed all indefending and building up th kingdom of God, even his own life if necessary. Think about it. What would have happened to the church if they would have gotten to BY?

In the end the LDS Church would have been better off.

In the end...'they' would have only had about 5 months to get to B.Y.

Wren wrote:
ThomasK, I understand your horror. I have seen soldiers do things I could never comprehend. Only God can judge the heart. All we can do is judge the actionsl.

Wren, TRUE STORY!

Dubbs wrote:
Lovie wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
[b]You all seem to have a problem about me condemning the actions of these men. That's your problem, not mine.

It is odd, until you realize Dovie earlier said she feels God ordered this to happen through Brigham, I guess it's her way of condoning what her relative did, and not making her look so bad as a relative of John lee, cowardly murderer.

John d Lee isn't my ancester. where did you get that from?

I didn't say God order it go back and read.


Heres your quote

BY ordered it, therefore God ordered it.

again you bare false wittness heres what I said...
Page 56 oh I brought up the whole page so ther wouldnt be any question

"I can only answer you, by asking you, a question. Do you believe that BY was a prophet of god. Dubbie if you answer yes, you then must believe he acts in the name of god therefor your answer is yes it was form god. If you answer no, BY wasn't a prophet then the anwswer is no! he acts as a man. In your very own word you state that a prophet speaks FOR god. you can't have it both ways, ether he is..... or he isn't a prophet. ether he speaks for... or he don't speak for god."

Please dont miss quote me again.

Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
myomyomy wrote:
I apologize for my misspellings, I think I got my point across. I am sure you "know it alls" will get the message.

Ya, it came through loud and clear, you're an #$%hole.

That's just a bit uncalled for Thomas...especially from an LDS man who bears the priesthood.

Behavior I would expect from Dubbs...but not from you.

You need to lay off the dubbisms also. I'm not a prissy little mormon boy. And if a smart aleck cold cocks me I hit back. I didn't deserve the things this jerk said to me that led to this post.

You all seem to have a problem about me condemning the actions of these men. That's your problem, not mine.

1. You are allowing people to push your buttons Thomas, and by reacting with anger...you have given people a certain level of power and control over you.

2. I didn't expect this from you. What have I said to you that reeks of a Dubbism?

3. What makes you think I have a problem with you condemning the actions of the Iron County militiamen?

You're preaching to the choir there Thomas.

What I do have a problem with is all the profanity which has run so rampant on this forum as of late.

And you are clearly following Dubbs lead here, in that you have referred to a woman as an asshole.

Whether a prissy Mormon boy, or calloused man of the world...it is disappointing at the very least.
Jaye, Thank You for saying what I was thinking and where I did not care enough to say something.

Here if any one is interested. dubbs again has falesly acused me and took my quote out of contex. dubbs...you are a sinfull man and you are in need of repentance.


again you bare false wittness heres what I said...
Page 56 oh I brought up the whole page so ther wouldnt be any question

"I can only answer you, by asking you, a question. Do you believe that BY was a prophet of god. Dubbie if you answer yes, you then must believe he acts in the name of god therefor your answer is yes it was form god. If you answer no, BY wasn't a prophet then the anwswer is no! he acts as a man. In your very own word you state that a prophet speaks FOR god. you can't have it both ways, ether he is..... or he isn't a prophet. ether he speaks for... or he don't speak for god."

Please dont miss quote me again.