Comments on: Mormon Pioneers and their Modern-day Counterparts http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pioneers-and-their-modern-day-counterparts Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:07:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: James http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pioneers-and-their-modern-day-counterparts#comment-64755 James Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:51:58 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=1858#comment-64755 Connor, The problem with the 11th LDS article of faith is that it sounds different when read by non-LDS people. Lds political activities often appear to interfere with other peoples 'moral agency'. Although I am sure you have a different understanding. Governor Boggs’ extermination order is an interesting topic. Upon reading about it from a third party account, it sounds like the LDS people were in conflict with a lot of people in the state of Missouri. The account made mormons sound very dangerous, and threatening to Missouri residents. Its probably difficult to appreciate because history only occurs once. The LDS church is a different body now then it was then, so is with the state of missouri, the country and the world. What is often overlooked in this story of the LDS migration westward is the displacement of Native American people. A brief commentary is mentioned in the Huffington post article link. "...Their joy at being able to claim a secure home (as its only other inhabitants were Native Americans whom they had few qualms about displacing..." Online there is an article by Sondra Cosgrove detailing LDS conflict with Native American tribes in Utah." Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical Overview". Its interesting and sad to read. Connor,
The problem with the 11th LDS article of faith is that it sounds different when read by non-LDS people. Lds political activities often appear to interfere with other peoples ‘moral agency’. Although I am sure you have a different understanding.

Governor Boggs’ extermination order is an interesting topic. Upon reading about it from a third party account, it sounds like the LDS people were in conflict with a lot of people in the state of Missouri. The account made mormons sound very dangerous, and threatening to Missouri residents. Its probably difficult to appreciate because history only occurs once. The LDS church is a different body now then it was then, so is with the state of missouri, the country and the world.

What is often overlooked in this story of the LDS migration westward is the displacement of Native American people. A brief commentary is mentioned in the Huffington post article link.

“…Their joy at being able to claim a secure home (as its only other inhabitants were Native Americans whom they had few qualms about displacing…”

Online there is an article by Sondra Cosgrove detailing LDS conflict with Native American tribes in Utah.” Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical Overview”. Its interesting and sad to read.

]]> By: Jim Davis http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pioneers-and-their-modern-day-counterparts#comment-64753 Jim Davis Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:34:29 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=1858#comment-64753 Tolerance vs Intolerance. This battle has taken on so many different players and meanings that it's hard to keep track of what people are talking about when they refer to it. Many in the older generations bring a person down to the level they esteem their behavior to be at. Many in the younger generations elevate someone's behavior to the level of love, "tolerance", that they have for that person. Both are in the wrong. We need to separate the person from their behavior when we refer to tolerance. In other words- "Love the sinner, not the sin." Tolerance vs Intolerance. This battle has taken on so many different players and meanings that it’s hard to keep track of what people are talking about when they refer to it.

Many in the older generations bring a person down to the level they esteem their behavior to be at. Many in the younger generations elevate someone’s behavior to the level of love, “tolerance”, that they have for that person. Both are in the wrong. We need to separate the person from their behavior when we refer to tolerance.

In other words- “Love the sinner, not the sin.”

]]> By: Charles http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pioneers-and-their-modern-day-counterparts#comment-64746 Charles Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:01:51 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=1858#comment-64746 Elder Ballard was quite correct that "Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. They experienced extraordinary hardship and persecution because they thought, acted, and believed differently from others. " The reason that those neighbors were uninformed and intolerant was because of their religious beliefs, particularly their belief that marriage was ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. The mid-19th century saw the rise of a wide variety of religious sects but most were tolerated, but the early Mormons "threatened" the "sanctity of marriage" with their doctrine of plural marriage. The parallels of that intolerance and that of today's Christian's toward homosexual marriage are inescapable. From the earliest Colonial times, the freedom of religion sought by early European settlers was for the most part a freedom they were unwilling to extend to others. Certainly there was never any tolerance for the religions of the native peoples of the Americas, and the Salem witch trials, the anti-Papist laws, and the banishing of religious dissenters were as much a part of our national fabric as the high-minded freedoms enshrined in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. If we only had less ignorance and intolerance now than we had in the 19th century, but unfortunately that does not appear to the case. Elder Ballard was quite correct that “Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. They experienced extraordinary hardship and persecution because they thought, acted, and believed differently from others. ”

The reason that those neighbors were uninformed and intolerant was because of their religious beliefs, particularly their belief that marriage was ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. The mid-19th century saw the rise of a wide variety of religious sects but most were tolerated, but the early Mormons “threatened” the “sanctity of marriage” with their doctrine of plural marriage. The parallels of that intolerance and that of today’s Christian’s toward homosexual marriage are inescapable.

From the earliest Colonial times, the freedom of religion sought by early European settlers was for the most part a freedom they were unwilling to extend to others. Certainly there was never any tolerance for the religions of the native peoples of the Americas, and the Salem witch trials, the anti-Papist laws, and the banishing of religious dissenters were as much a part of our national fabric as the high-minded freedoms enshrined in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights.

If we only had less ignorance and intolerance now than we had in the 19th century, but unfortunately that does not appear to the case.

]]> By: Ryan Smith http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pioneers-and-their-modern-day-counterparts#comment-64741 Ryan Smith Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:55:49 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=1858#comment-64741 Well said, Connor. What a weak connection and argument by Holly. Well said, Connor. What a weak connection and argument by Holly.

]]>