Was the massacre at Mountain Meadows the only massacre of Mo

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Witch of Hope

Was the massacre at Mountain Meadows the only massacre of Mo

Post #1

Post by Witch of Hope »

I went to an internet page of former members of the LDS yesterday. One of them has translated the books from J. & S. Tanner into German for years. Unlike the Tanners he is not a Christian but what I mention a "freethinker".
There was a link to a web page on this internet page which reported of further massacre, of which 26 people were the victim. Only two boys and a girl survived. All of them was cut the throat. Here now the report of the original web page:

http://www.blackhawkproductions.com/circleville.htm

I quote:
The captured Indians, 26 in all, showed a lot of unrest, then on the evening of the following day some of the Indians were able to cut themselves loose from their bindings and make a break. In the excitement the two Indians trying to free themselves were shot and killed by the guards. The remainder of the Indians were then taken to a nearby underground cellar and imprisoned there. The captured Indians knew they were going to be killed, they could feel it.
The settlers had another meeting and it was decided among them to kill the remaining captured Indian people. And so it was one by one they were led out of the cellar, 24 in all.
There were women, men, and children, and they were first struck from behind on the head to stun them, then their throats were cut and their bodies held to the ground until they bled to death. A terrified mother of two young boys and one girl, seven or eight years of age, told her crying children to run for their lives, and when the door was opened for the next victim to be killed the three made a break and forced their way past the guards and ran. In the dark of night the guards fired several shots at the three but were unable to hit them. One was shot in the
side but the bullet barely grazed his rib, not enough to stop him. It is safe to say the mother never knew if her children had managed to escape.
It was a cold-blooded execution. As each person sat in line waiting for their death to come. And what state of mind dose one have to be in to carry out such a heinous deed, resisting the cries and pleadings of each poor sole as they beg for their life to be spared? And what kind of person could run his blade across an innocent child's throat? It's reaches far beyond anyone's ability to fully comprehend the dark evil of that night in Circleville. (...)
When Brigham Young heard of the details of this heinous crime he was upset, but did nothing more than verbally chastise the murders. Later they were praised by other members for having done their dirty deed well. The saints at Circleville did all they could to cover up the tragic event, saying that they acted in self defense when the Indians attacked the guards. But in time the event leaked to the news, but curiously none of the aggressors were prosecuted. (...)
A day following the killings, two Indian boys and one girl were found hiding in a nearby cave, where taken to the nearest town Marysvale, Utah. Jackson Allred then took one of the boys, who may have been 8 or 9 years of age at the time,
to Spring City. There Allred spoke with a family who was interested in taking care of the boy, and said to them, he would trade a horse for the boy, otherwise he would just kill him. Allred agreed to the payment of a horse and a bushel of wheat, and the Monson family took the boy in and raised him. He was given the name David Munsen. The spelling of the last name was changed as the Monson family, I was told, didn't want their name in connection with an Indian.(...)
And members of the LDS had tried again to cover-up something. This draws himself by ecclesiastical history like a recurring theme: cover-up and the fault then giving the to the victims.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #11

Post by Nickman »

In a debate you must provide evidence. You have not. I did. You dismiss it without any counter other than your prejudices toward the issue.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by Nickman »

Also if Lee was a traitor why was he reinstated posthumously by the Church in 1961 as a member? You should learn more about the facts and not your prejudices

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #13

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

Nickman wrote: In a debate you must provide evidence. You have not. I did. You dismiss it without any counter other than your prejudices toward the issue.
The Holy Ghost gave me a testimony about this; when I had prayed about it. I do not need more evidences

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #14

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

Nickman wrote: Also if Lee was a traitor why was he reinstated posthumously by the Church in 1961 as a member? You should learn more about the facts and not your prejudices
If the church has reinstated again, then perhaps; because the spilled blood was not innocent? People came from Arkansas. Reconciles even from Illinois, perhaps were there some the murder of brother Joseph? I think these were bad people. People who perhaps would have earned the death. But by the law and not by bloodthirsty Indians.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #15

Post by Nickman »

The Mormon wrote:
Nickman wrote: In a debate you must provide evidence. You have not. I did. You dismiss it without any counter other than your prejudices toward the issue.
The Holy Ghost gave me a testimony about this; when I had prayed about it. I do not need more evidences
Im sorry but the Holy ghost lied to you and is a horrible way to find truth. Your basically believing against true evidence to the contrary because you have a feeling. Thats intellectual dishonesty at its best. Im sure thats how you came to know that the BoM was the word of god too? Or that JS was a prophet? Good luck with that erroneous type of way to get truth.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #16

Post by Nickman »

The Mormon wrote:
Nickman wrote: Also if Lee was a traitor why was he reinstated posthumously by the Church in 1961 as a member? You should learn more about the facts and not your prejudices
If the church has reinstated again, then perhaps; because the spilled blood was not innocent? People came from Arkansas. Reconciles even from Illinois, perhaps were there some the murder of brother Joseph? I think these were bad people. People who perhaps would have earned the death. But by the law and not by bloodthirsty Indians.
The Baker-Fancher party were immigrants who were innocent by passers. They went to Cedar City prior to their murder to get supplies from the local mormons, but they were denied. They left with less than adequate supplies for their journey to California. Along the way they were ambushed by Mormons and Indians working together. They were told to surrender and they would be ok. So they did surrender and were murdered instead. This is the truth and a good portion of this truth comes from the fact that the LDS church writes down everything.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #17

Post by Nickman »

It seems that the Holy Ghost does not like truth. Here is the perfect example of religious indoctrination and the fallacy of appeal to emotion.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #18

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

Nickman wrote: It seems that the Holy Ghost does not like truth. Here is the perfect example of religious indoctrination and the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
Unbelieving atheists and former members of the church have one thing in common: They hate the church mated with the distortion of the facts. And this does not make it very credible for me.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #19

Post by Nickman »

The Mormon wrote:
Nickman wrote: It seems that the Holy Ghost does not like truth. Here is the perfect example of religious indoctrination and the fallacy of appeal to emotion.
Unbelieving atheists and former members of the church have one thing in common: They hate the church mated with the distortion of the facts. And this does not make it very credible for me.
The reason I left was because of evidence. I didnt leave out of hatred. I left because I looked at facts instead of invoking the HS to tell me whats true. When I did an experiment on the HS he told me that the Book of Abraham was true. When I tested that HS, I found that the BoA was actually false. Its that simple. Think for yourself not for your church.

Regardless of what the HS told you about the MMM, there are huge amounts of evidence againt it. You decide if the HS is true or if the facts are true.

User avatar
The Ex-Mormon
Apprentice
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:53 pm
Location: Berne

Post #20

Post by The Ex-Mormon »

In accordance with your story, I suspect; that your inspiration did not come from the HS but from the opposite direction. The devil can deceive us and appear even as an "angel of light".

Post Reply