Oregon Standoff

[Chesterton]

No, you do more than that. You want to blame it on Islam, Muhammad and the Qur'an itself something I pointedly did not do.

Are you sure you didn't? Re-read your post #36. And then why did you put this in a religion forum anyway?

 

[smaneck]

Are you sure you didn't? Re-read your post #36. And then why did you put this in a religion forum anyway?

To suggest that the Church send someone out to resolve this situation. There are a lot of Mormons here and some of them are Church leaders. And no, post 36 does not do what you have done in relationship to Islam. I have not made a single attack against the LDS in this thread.

 

[Ironhold]

If people will go back to the start of the thread, they'll see my post with a link to an official statement made by the church.

The church is completely disavowing the group involved in the standoff and has made it clear that what they're doing is in violation of the church's teachings.

In that sense, the church has intervened and told these people to knock it off.

 

[smaneck]

In that sense, the church has intervened and told these people to knock it off.

I'd just like to see them go there tell them to leave on pain of excommunication. Of course that will only work if they put the authority of the church above their own personal 'revelations.'

 

[dlamberth]

The terrorist (can you tell how I feel about them) and those supporting them at Mahleur Wildlife Refuge are really big on "God told me to do this".

When it comes to Mahleur and what's happening there, I'm pretty upset about the whole thing. My wife and I have spent time at Mahleur and lately since the occupation I've gone to rallies supporting Mahleur. It's sacred ground to us and a lot of others. But I don't get the "God told me to do this" thing. When hear it said, I get this feeling of God being cheapened.

Today out of curiosity of what the the terrorist were saying I listened to the Pete Santilli Show. He's the militia's media guy. I couldn't believe the number of people calling in saying that God told them to go to Burns to support the occupation. Or God told them this or that. As I was telling my wife, until today I've never understood the depth of their intense focus on Bible, Guns and Flag. For these folks, it all comes in one trinity package with no separation between any of it. But back to the "God told me to do this"...how does one separate ego from the voice of God? When one needs to back up God's word with guns, that tells me it's ego and not God.

What the Bundy gang is trying to do is destroy years of work that all parties put into a working agreement as can be seen at this web site: http://highdesertpartnership.org/

 

[smaneck]

The terrorist (can you tell how I feel about them) and those supporting them at Mahleur Wildlife Refuge are really big on "God told me to do this".

I was not willing to call them that at first but the more I hear about death threats made by these militia gunman the more I'm starting to believe the term is appropriate. One of my colleagues from Oregon told me that her father who was a judge had received numerous death threats from these guys over the years.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It seems most of the participants in the Oregon standoff are Mormons. Now I'm not suggesting that the Mormon Church is responsible for its wingnuts, but the Church does have a lot of power and authority in relationship to its membership. I would think it would be helpful at this point if the Church were to send in one of their Bishops or higher-ups there to mediate a solution. Perhaps tell them to stand-down on pain of excommunication?

I would suggest that people who have issues with authority might not have a boundary on that issue.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

The terrorist (can you tell how I feel about them) and those supporting them at Mahleur Wildlife Refuge are really big on "God told me to do this".

When it comes to Mahleur and what's happening there, I'm pretty upset about the whole thing. My wife and I have spent time at Mahleur and lately since the occupation I've gone to rallies supporting Mahleur. It's sacred ground to us and a lot of others. But I don't get the "God told me to do this" thing. When hear it said, I get this feeling of God being cheapened.

Today out of curiosity of what the the terrorist were saying I listened to the Pete Santilli Show. He's the militia's media guy. I couldn't believe the number of people calling in saying that God told them to go to Burns to support the occupation. Or God told them this or that. As I was telling my wife, until today I've never understood the depth of their intense focus on Bible, Guns and Flag. For these folks, it all comes in one trinity package with no separation between any of it. But back to the "God told me to do this"...how does one separate ego from the voice of God? When one needs to back up God's word with guns, that tells me it's ego and not God.

What the Bundy gang is trying to do is destroy years of work that all parties put into a working agreement as can be seen at this web site: http://highdesertpartnership.org/

People have used the God they have produced in their own image for a very long time. th idea of mixing guns with God is simply them stating that they believe in God. They just don't think he will protect them, so they grab their guns. The flag is used just like God it to these people.

 

[smaneck]

I would suggest that people who have issues with authority might not have a boundary on that issue.

Good point. That is a problem when individuals claim revelations. It is too easy for each makes oneself the ultimate authority which can lead to endless fragmentation. That is why Gnostic Christians did not remain dominant, they fragmented endlessly. When I think about it it is rather surprising that the LDS Church has managed to remain more or less united for so long.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Good point. That is a problem when individuals claim revelations. It is too easy for each makes oneself the ultimate authority which can lead to endless fragmentation. That is why Gnostic Christians did not remain dominant, they fragmented endlessly. When I think about it it is rather surprising that the LDS Church has managed to remain more or less united for so long.

I think the LDS has remained together because of what many other Christian sects think about them.

 

[smaneck]

I think the LDS has remained together because of what many other Christian sects think about them.

Well, they have had splits, as the existence of the FLDS shows. But the main church is pretty formidable. And that is at least partially because of their superb organization.

 

[withwonderingawe]

This article may explain some of the anger

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-brings-howls-of-complaints-against-feds.html

 

[smaneck]

This article may explain some of the anger

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-brings-howls-of-complaints-against-feds.html

What I don't understand is why these rangers think they are entitled to use federal lands?

 

[withwonderingawe]

“Almost exactly two-thirds of Utah land—66.5 percent—is federally owned, making it second only to Nevada's 81 percent.” wik

Wonder how New Yorkers would feel if the feds owned more than half of their state?

See a long time ago their great great grand fathers ran their cattle there and then one day the feds said it belongs to us. So they started paying a fee to run their cattle there,(and the price of beef went up) they have some sort of guarantee leases with rights to water etc. Then some environmentalist came in and claimed they were hurting the land (they had only been there over a hundred years ago) so they reduced their herds and tired ever which way to comply but they kept making new rules, without anyone voting on them. So many regulations were made by different agencies that the laws crossed over each other and they would get find without warning and pretty soon they owed more money to the government than their herds were worth. That has been the whole point in the first place.

When it comes to shooting the deer, the herds are large and cross over into the rancher’s fields of hey and corn, they eat lots of it. We have friends who had an orchard, the deer came in and ate the apples, then in the winter they strip off the bark from the trees. They have the right to shoot the deer if they are on their property so one day they did. They can’t eat the deer they have to let them waste, so they buried them and turned the proper reports. One day some Federal management guy shows up and wants to see the deer, they showed him where they were buried and handed him a shovel.

My family has camped Sataquin Canyon for years, over the last five years the forestry service has been placing large rocks in the way of the areas we camped in. Everyone is forced to camp in the $20 camping site which run by a private company. Even the different fishing holes have had rocks placed so you can’t find a parking place. One has to be very fit and able hiker to reach the different fishing areas. No one voted for this, it was a deliberate slow action so no major complaints were made.

Public lands are no longer public!

Here’s one from Wyoming and this is his own land!

http://watchdog.org/235785/epa-lawsuit-pond-fines/

“A rancher is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to federal court, asking a judge to stop the agency from fining him more than $16 million because he built a small pond on his property.

Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond. After all, this is America in the 21st century, and nothing done on your own property — certainly when it involves the use of water — is beyond government concern.

Johnson is facing millions in fines from the federal government after the EPA determined his small pond — technically a “stock pond” to provide better access to water for animals on his ranch — is somehow violating the federal Clean Water Act.

“We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I’m proud of what we built,” Johnson said. “The EPA ignored all that.”

In a compliance order, the EPA told Johnson he had to return his property — under federal oversight — to conditions before the stock pond was built. When he refused to comply, the EPA tagged Johnson with a fines of $37,000 per day.

Dismantling the pond within the 30-day window the EPA originally gave him was “physically impossible,” Johnson said.

Yeah people out west are angry.

 

[smaneck]

“Almost exactly two-thirds of Utah land—66.5 percent—is federally owned, making it second only to Nevada's 81 percent.” wik Wonder how New Yorkers would feel if the feds owned more than half of their state?

In most states where this is the case, that was the deal when they asked for statehood. Utah didn't have to join the Union if they didn't want to. But it is because of all tat marvelous federal land that people want to come to Utah. Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon, etc. Who wants to see that countryside ruined by ranchers?

See a long time ago their great great grand fathers ran their cattle there and then one day the feds said it belongs to us.

Here is the thing. The ranchers never purchased that land. The US got the land either by purchasing or taking the land that became new states. Of course they mostly took it from Native Americans. Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. Eventually very little lands east of the Mississippi remained in the hands of the federal government but as they went further west the arid land made for better herding than farming, so the practice of homesteading largely came to a standstill. Ranchers were left free to herd but they didn't have homesteads or formal title to the land they were using. When homesteading programs came to an end, the government set up more formal methods of land management for that land they still owned.

So they started paying a fee to run their cattle there,(and the price of beef went up) they have some sort of guarantee leases with rights to water etc. Then some environmentalist came in and claimed they were hurting the land (they had only been there over a hundred years ago) so they reduced their herds and tired ever which way to comply but they kept making new rules, without anyone voting on them. So many regulations were made by different agencies that the laws crossed over each other and they would get find without warning and pretty soon they owed more money to the government than their herds were worth. That has been the whole point in the first place.

If it were too high, wouldn't they use private lands instead? My understanding is that the usage fees charged by the government are much lower than that of private lands.

My family has camped Sataquin Canyon for years, over the last five years the forestry service has been placing large rocks in the way of the areas we camped in. Everyone is forced to camp in the $20 camping site which run by a private company. Even the different fishing holes have had rocks placed so you can’t find a parking place. One has to be very fit and able hiker to reach the different fishing areas. No one voted for this, it was a deliberate slow action so no major complaints were made.

Public lands are no longer public!

Just because lands are public, doesn't mean they are free. To say no one voted for this is like saying no one voted for a traffic stop on a particular street. Voters don't get to micromanage such things. We vote for the elected officials who then hire people to take care of such matters.

Here’s one from Wyoming and this is his own land!

http://watchdog.org/235785/epa-lawsuit-pond-fines/

Where did the water come from?

 

[He is Risen 72]

“Almost exactly two-thirds of Utah land—66.5 percent—is federally owned, making it second only to Nevada's 81 percent.” wik

Wonder how New Yorkers would feel if the feds owned more than half of their state?

Did new Yorkers ever commit genocide on unarmed women and children passing through like the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows? No?

Was the US Army ever sent to destroy New York City like they were sent to eliminate a Godless polygamist cult of murders? No?

 

[smaneck]

Did new Yorkers ever commit genocide on unarmed women and children passing through like the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows? No?

Was the US Army ever sent to destroy New York City like they were sent to eliminate a Godless polygamist cult of murders? No?

Now, that's a weird post. First you suggest that Mormons committed genocide, then you turn around and say the US army committed genocide. Maybe both things are true, but it doesn't make the US Army look better than the Mormons responsible for this massacre. And what would a bunch of unarmed women and children be doing passing through the middle of nowhere without an armed escort? That story doesn't make much sense. I never heard anyone suggest that only women and children were victims of the Mountain Meadow massacre. In fact, I was under the impression that the children were spared and adopted by the locals.

 

[Ironhold]

Did new Yorkers ever commit genocide on unarmed women and children passing through like the Mormons did at Mountain Meadows? No?

Was the US Army ever sent to destroy New York City like they were sent to eliminate a Godless polygamist cult of murders? No?

Stop.

Right there.

In order to understand what happened in 1858, you need to understand what happened in 1838.

Back when the LDS faith was headquartered in Missouri, tensions were high between the membership and the locals. A major part of this came from the fact that the church's rapid growth meant that in a few years the church would represent the majority population of the state, thereby allowing the church the opportunity to take control at the ballot box and thereby control the state by fiat. In particular, the locals were concerned that the church - whose members largely opposed slavery - would use their majority to push through abolition.

Outbursts of mob violence had taken place just a few years earlier, during which a printing press used to publish church documents was destroyed in an effort to keep the church from spreading its message. As such, both sides were already on edge. The locals again resorted to mob violence in 1838, this time in an effort to keep Mormons living in Gallatin County from voting during election day. When Mormon reinforcements resulted in the mob being chased away, other mobs sprang up. In short order, Mormon settlements were getting raided left and right. Appeals to the local, state, and federal governments all fell on deaf ears, forcing the Mormons to form militias of their own to protect against the mobs.

This led to the Battle of Crooked River, where one such militia encountered a mob that was resting by said river. What the militia didn't know was that the mob included a state militiaman who had deserted his post to join the fighting. The person in question was killed during the exchange, leading to Governor Boggs receiving false reports that the church was in open rebellion against the state government. In response, Boggs issued the "Extermination Order" requiring that the state militia kill any Mormon who refused to leave the state.

That's right, folks: we Mormons were on the receiving end of state-sanctioned religious pogroms.

Not long after the order was issued, a group of state militia rode into the Mormon settlement of Haun's Mill and shot the place up. Not satisfied with just killing all of the adult men in town, the militia shot one boy as he was trying to run away and executed a second boy in front of his mother.

Fast forward 20 years.

A corrupt federal official was run out of Utah after his servant bushwhacked a Mormon who had been a vocal critic of the official. In retaliation, he wrote a false report back stating that Utah was in open rebellion. For reasons that have never been explained, President Buchanan took him at face value and ordered 1,000+ soldiers sent into the territory. In his haste, Buchanan never issued notice of intent. Given what had happened in Missouri and Illinois, when the church found out about the incoming army a panic set in across the territory.

As part of the panic, people across the territory began to hoard supplies. This left the Franchers - who had not taken enough supplies for the full trip to California - trapped without enough goods to get them the rest of the way. The Franchers traded some of their cattle to the local Paiute band in exchange for food, but disease quickly tore through the Paiutes shortly thereafter, leading the Paiutes to believe that the Franchers had deliberately poisoned them. The local militia leader and a local religious leader were already looking for an excuse to justify whacking the Franchers because they came from Missouri and Arkansas (popular church leader Parley Pratt had just been lynched in Arkansas after winning a rather sensational court case). When they found out that there were now dead Paiutes, they reached out to the band and struck an unholy deal.

A local political leader had sent word to Brigham Young informing him that the Paiutes believed the Franchers tried to poison them. Young responded by issuing an order for the local militia to stand down and let the Paiutes do as they pleased. However, the order arrived a day too late; by then it had already happened. The local leadership officially put out a story saying that the Paiutes had descended upon the Franchers, leaving only some young children alive. Young believed this story, and was so confident that the militia was innocent he offered to use his position as head of the church to compel people to testify when the government first launched an investigation in 1859. This investigation was abruptly halted, and would not resume for another 20 years.

In that sense, whatever you were told about what happened was likely just so much bupkis.

 

[He is Risen 72]

Now, that's a weird post. First you suggest that Mormons committed genocide, then you turn around and say the US army committed genocide. Maybe both things are true, but it doesn't make the US Army look better than the Mormons responsible for this massacre. And what would a bunch of unarmed women and children be doing passing through the middle of nowhere without an armed escort? That story doesn't make much sense. I never heard anyone suggest that only women and children were victims of the Mountain Meadow massacre. In fact, I was under the impression that the children were spared and adopted by the locals.

The army did not commit the genocide; they were stopped because they don’t have “blood vengeance” as part of their tradition.


And because the children of murdered parents were adopted, everything is ok. Gotcha ya. When are you going to tell the Native Americans everything is cool now?

 

[smaneck]

The army did not commit the genocide; they were stopped because they don’t have “blood vengeance” as part of their tradition.

Neither does Mormonism.

And because the children of murdered parents were adopted, everything is ok. Gotcha ya.

Nope, it just means they weren't massacred like you said. Sending in the US Army to wipe out "a Godless polygamist cult" is not okay either. But it does explain why some Mormons feel so hostile towards the government.