Mountain Meadows Masscre, part 2
I finished the MMM book. While a have a few minor complaints with her work, Brooks did a pretty good job. Most importantly, she touched a part of history that others before her were either reluctant to investigate, or as she suggests, pressured to stay away from. I had already read her No Man Knows My History about Joseph Smith, and appreciated her refreshingly non-supernatural interpretation of his life.
This is my favorite paragraph from MMM:
"It seems that, once having taken a stand and put forth a story, the leaders of the Mormon church have felt that they should maintain it, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary. In their concern to let the matter die, they do not see that it can never be finally settled until it is accepted as any other historical incident, with a view only to finding the facts. To shrink from it, to discredit any who try to inquire into it, to refuse to discuss it, or to hesitate to accept all the evidence fearlessly is not only to keep it a matter of controversy, but to make the most loyal followers doubt the veracity of their leaders in presenting other matters of history."
Amen. That statement, written in 1950, is amazingly applicable to the church in 2006. Not just to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but also to any bit of history the church ignores, hushes up, covers up, equivocates about, or downright lies about: The first vision; the origins of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price; the formation of the priesthood; the reasons why JS was jailed and murdered; the entire life and persona of Joseph Smith; changing doctrines including Adam-God and blood atonement; polygamy; racism; anti-homosexual activity; anti-equal rights activity; sexual and ecclesiastical abuse within the ranks. The full list is longer, and frustratingly so.
4 comments:
I still need to read this book. I've read other people's account, and journal entries online. I've read some snippets from John D. Lee's book. It's gut-wrenching to learn that those mormon leaders felt they were "doing their duty" by killing innocent women and children. Very cult-like behavior if you ask me. Thanks for the thoughts on the book!
It's disheartening that the MMM is just scratching the surface. When there is so much evidence and information out there that points one way in regards to the MMM, and you have a whole church pointing the other way with their eyes closed, there is little hope that all of the other issues will ever be handled head on. That's the reason people like us can't go back. All we want is consistency and to make sense of the past. The prophets, seers and revelators of our day are unable to make sense of or clarify anything.
We just have to be thankful for knowing the truth ourselves. It's all a bunch of bullshit.
What Simeon said. Yep.
Z- I can't claim I know what Bushman, Peterson, and Flake are thinking. There could be multiple explanations of why they read the same history we do and not decide to leave the church.
1) They won't let fall those walls that surround "The church is true" idea. They won't let evidence fall where it may, but instead, make it all fit into "The church is true." I did that for a while.
2) They let the evidence fall where it may, but let the church leaders and members be imperfect. "Okay, MMM happened, it was terrible, but as long as we're not doing it now..."
3) They don't have a problem with the covering history for the sake of the myth. The problem for me is not that bad stuff happened in the history of the church (no institution is perfect), but that the church fails to reevaluate its past, apologize, and admit that they make mistakes and they are always trying to be better. Maybe that doesn't bother some people, but it bothers me. I'm much happier with the Community of Christ, for example, for admitting that the BofA is not what JS claimed it was, and for opening the priesthood to women. They have the same early history, but at least they admit it. You won't find a church that didn't at one time withhold leadership from women and blacks--but as long as they have changed those policies, admitting they were mistaken, I'm okay with their history.
4) They are okay with some of the modern practices and policies that I'm not okay with, so it's worth staying, even if there is some ugly history. Policies on women and homosexuals, for example.
I don't think that Bushman, etc are stupid. I do think they interpret things differently and have different opinions. I also won't leave out the possibility that they just won't take down those walls that guard their testimony, because they are afraid of (and know) what will happen.
Post a Comment