PDA

View Full Version : Returning and reporting. Lecture on Nephi Johnson. Southern Utah Post Mormon, Lecture


skeptic
12th January 2006, 12:09 PM
I might mention we really had a large turn out.

Several have indicated an interest to what was presented at our Post Mormon lecture series on the History of Nephi Johnson.

The lecture was presented by a direct descendant of Nephi Johnson who is a social Mormon and wishes to remain anonymous. I personally found him to be a person of integrity who like Nephi Johnson was willing to tell the truth. It is noted in Juanita Brooks book how Nephi Johnson carried his horrible guilt to his death bed, expressing this guilt in some of his last words as Blood! Blood! Blood! Nephi Johnson was very young at the time, around the age of 18 to 24. History records indicate his participation in the massacre was to manage the Indians for the benefit of the plan initiated by the local Church leadership.

At the presentation we were also honored to have a prominent Utah historian present. He stated he got to know Juanita Brooks personally and found her to have the highest integrity. That she had an opportunity to interview Nephi Johnson at a much earlier age but she stated unfortunately she was more interested in “boys” at the time being single.

As a side note: I asked this prominent Utah Historian if he thought Juanita had destroyed any historical documents. He stated in knowing Juanita Brooks personally he did not believe this. In reading Juanita’s book it’s of my opinion that what she has already presented could not be more damaging. Recently there has been discussion about this on the rfm board.

Back to the lecture- Nephi Johnson's descendant told us because for fear of his personal safety, both from Judge Cradlebaugh and his 200 troops that were coming through the area looking participants in the massacre and from the Mormon leadership for his testimony at the second trial of John D. Lee. See his testimony below. Nephi Johnson hid out in the Kanab Utah area.

Nephi Johnson’s testimony was damaging in two ways from the aspect 1) It debunked the Mormon claims that the Indians in the Fillmore area were poisoned by members of the emigrant party. That if they were outraged they would have participated in the massacre. And 2) Johnson’s testimony helps to reveal the religious fanatical culture of fear and obedience created by Brigham Young’s Reformation teachings.

One can read about Nephi Johnson’s testimony and the MMM by reading early Utah Historian Josiah F. Gibbs research online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadowscontents.htm

Relative information from Gibbs research pertaining to our lecture posted below:

At Corn creek, fourteen miles southwesterly from Fillmore, the emigrants laid over a day or two to permit their work animals and cows which they were taking to California to graze on the then luxuriant pasturage of that locality. During their sojourn at Corn creek one of the emigrants' animals died. A portion of the carcass was eaten by some of the Pahvan Indians, who yet have an encampment near the creek. It is reported that four of the Indians died, presumably from the effects of eating the diseased meat.

That incident has been worn threadbare by Mormon and pro-Mormon historians, who charge that the emigrants poisoned the carcass for the express purpose of killing some of the Indians.

And those same historians also assert that, as an act of revenge, the Indians followed the emigrants to the Meadows and there exterminated them. Those historians also charge that the emigrants poisoned the water of a spring with the purpose, as is alleged, of killing more Indians.

(As a side note Gibbs addresses the spring poisoning claim the Mormons use to claim give reason for the Indians being upset and wanting to attack the emigrant train.)

The nearest spring is a half mile or more north of where the emigrants were camped, and twice that distance from the old camp ground of the Indians. The spring is in the nature of a slough in soil highly charged with alkali, of which the water contains an appreciable quantity. Not even an Indian would drink the water from that spring while the pure mountain water of Corn creek was within a few rods of where the Pahvans were camped. It would have required many pounds of poison to have been effective on life, and the emigrants would have poisoned their cattle, which were grazing on the bottom land near the slough.


And at the second trial of John D. Lee, in 1876, Nephi Johnson, a devout Mormon and Indian interpreter, forever disarmed the lying Mormon historians by declaring that no Pahvan Indians were present at the massacre.

Gibbs research goes on to state: The fact is, western Indians, when pressed for food, eat the flesh of diseased animals; and that the Pahvans knew that the emigrants were blameless in the matter of the death of four of their braves is abundantly proved by the fact that they did not molest the strangers.

(Note: Adjacent to page 178 of Juanita Brooks book on the MMM is a picture of John D. Lee’s attorney William W. Bishop among others. Bishop asks the following questions of Nephi Johnson.)

TESTIMONY OF NEPHI JOHNSON-SECOND TRIAL OF LEE
Question by Bishop - State whether you were under any compulsion (to go to the Meadows).
Ans.- I didn't think it was safe for me to object.
Ques.- Explain what you mean, that is what I want. Where was the danger - who was the danger to come from if you objected - from Haight or those around him - from the Indians, or from the emigrants?
Ans.- From the military officers.
Ques.- Where?
Ans.- At Cedar City.
Ques.- Was Haight one of those military officers?
Aris.- Yes, sir.
Ques.- Who was the highest military officer in Cedar City at that time?
Ans.- I think it was Isaac C. Haight.
Ques.- You thought it would not be safe to refuse; had you any reason to fear danger - has any person ever been injured for not obeying, or anything of that kind?
Ans.- I don't want to answer.
Ques.- It is necessary to the safety of the man I am defending, and I therefore insist upon an answer. Had any person been injured for not obeying?
Ans.- Yes, sir, they had.

Question by Bishop - State whether you were under any compulsion (to go to the Meadows).
Ans.- I didn't think it was safe for me to object.
Ques.- Explain what you mean, that is what I want. Where was the danger - who was the danger to come from if you objected - from Haight or those around him - from the Indians, or from the emigrants?
Ans.- From the military officers.
Ques.- Where?
Ans.- At Cedar City.
Ques.- Was Haight one of those military officers?
Aris.- Yes, sir.
Ques.- Who was the highest military officer in Cedar City at that time?
Ans.- I think it was Isaac C. Haight.
Ques.- You thought it would not be safe to refuse; had you any reason to fear danger - has any person ever been injured for not obeying, or anything of that kind?
Ans.- I don't want to answer.
Ques.- It is necessary to the safety of the man I am defending, and I therefore insist upon an answer. Had any person been injured for not obeying?
Ans.- Yes, sir, they had.

Question by Howard - Were you acquainted with the Indians - the Pah Vant (Pahvan) Indians?
Ans.- Yes, sir; somewhat acquainted.
Ques.- Were any of the Pah Vant Indians down there?
Ans.- I didn't see any.
During the night of the day of the massacre President Isaac C. Haight and Bishop William H. Dame arrived from Cedar and Parowan, respectively, and camped at Hamblin's ranch. The next morning, with John D. Lee, they visited the scene of the carnage where sixty men, forty women and about thirty children were lying naked on the ground, having been stripped of their clothing and jewelry.
Haight, Dame and other leading elders made speeches, the substance of which may be gathered from answers by Nephi Johnson to questions asked by W. W. Bishop, Lee's attorney.
Ques.- Is it not a fact that after the property was all gathered up at the Meadows, and you were ready to start for Iron Springs, that speeches were made to the men present, by those in authority, in which speeches you were ordered to keep it a secret forever?
Ans.- There were a great many speeches made.
Ques.- At the Meadows, before you left there, was it not told you in a speech then made to you, that it must be kept a secret; that it would be best to keep silent? Were not you so advised by your leaders?
Ans.- Yes, sir.

Another relative side note:

Juanita Brooks in her book on the MMM reveals on page 242-243 Appendix V the LDS Church’s account of what happened at Mountain Meadows.

“Journal History of the Church”, September 11, 1857:
The following account of the Mountain Meadows affair was written by Geo. A. Smith and James McKnight at Cedar City, Aug. 6, 1858, from what they considered the most authentic sources:
On Friday evening, Wm. H. Dame, Isaac C. Haight and a party of men started out for the scene of hostilities to endeavor to put a stop to the fight, arriving there about day light on Saturday morning. The Indians had killed the entire company, with the exception of a few small children.

SoUtSkeptic

free thinker
12th January 2006, 10:00 PM
When mormons got a chance they acted just as brutally as any other religious group. See mormons are not special at all. They have killed for their religion, and I am certain that given the order many would do the same today.


ft

skeptic
13th January 2006, 12:40 PM
When mormons got a chance they acted just as brutally as any other religious group. See mormons are not special at all. They have killed for their religion, and I am certain that given the order many would do the same today.


ft
__________________________________________________
Funny how that Golden Rule and Reason seems to fly out the window at times.

SoUtSkeptic

nate
13th January 2006, 02:49 PM
When mormons got a chance they acted just as brutally as any other religious group. See mormons are not special at all. They have killed for their religion, and I am certain that given the order many would do the same today.

ft

Given Hinkley's quotes during conference regarding the current war....aren't they doing so now?

miss taken
13th January 2006, 03:01 PM
What interests me about this is the way this man sublimated his own conscience for the needs of the group and to remain accepted within it.

I suppose that there is strong precedence biblically and within many religions for doing this.

Ironically Jesus didn't represent conformity to the needs and general beliefs of the orthodox (if there was one!) Jewish sects.

His message seemed to be one of rebelling against what he saw as hypocracy and bad religion within his own faith and culture. His views on the Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots are perhaps an indication of this. (If we have his life accurately presented within the NT)

He seemed to have been willing to conform where necessary but also to stand against, where he saw injustice??

It would have been great if Nephi J had had the guts to say no. One must never give up ones conscience even within strongly authoritarian organisations?????

Mary

elder_nomo
13th January 2006, 04:29 PM
Ironically Jesus didn't represent conformity to the needs and general beliefs of the orthodox (if there was one!) Jewish sects.

His message seemed to be one of rebelling against what he saw as hypocracy and bad religion within his own faith and culture. His views on the Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots are perhaps an indication of this. (If we have his life accurately presented within the NT)

He seemed to have been willing to conform where necessary but also to stand against, where he saw injustice??

Mary, I like your view of Jesus. I do not consider myself a Christian, but I respond to this message and attitude. It's so different (and much more appealing) than the Jesus presented by Mo'ism and many others.

miss taken
13th January 2006, 05:04 PM
I think maybe the church (someone correct me if I am wrong) underplays the more 'rebellious' aspects of Jesus because it is basically an authoritarian structure (again someone correct me if I am wrong) and it wants to promote obedience. I often heard fellow members state that the first law of heaven was 'obedience'.

Of course the arch rebel was Satan, and as LDS we are(were!!) often reminded of that fact.

But in my opinion Jesus was a rebel too, a very clever and subtle one..

Just my opinion.

Mary

Born Free
13th January 2006, 06:52 PM
I think maybe the church (someone correct me if I am wrong) underplays the more 'rebellious' aspects of Jesus because it is basically an authoritarian structure (again someone correct me if I am wrong) and it wants to promote obedience. I often heard fellow members state that the first law of heaven was 'obedience'.

Of course the arch rebel was Satan, and as LDS we are(were!!) often reminded of that fact.

But in my opinion Jesus was a rebel too, a very clever and subtle one..

Just my opinion.

Mary

Most the scriptures are one huge 'Rorschach' Test IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test

People and groupS project onto the bits that best suit their values and emphasis.

You want liberal progressive, love-based stuff, go for Christ.
You harsh, B&W, rules-based, go for the OT.

I am reminded of the joke of the psych doing a Rorschach test with a client, who kept seeing sexual content in every pattern.

The psych eventually said to the client 'Does it strike you that in every image I show you, that you see sexual content?', to which the client responded:

'Hey! Its you who keep showing the dirty pictures mate, not me!'

Daryl

peter_mary
13th January 2006, 08:30 PM
Most the scriptures are one huge 'Rorschach' Test IMO.

Daryl
I absolutely agree. In fact, I believe the BEST scriptures for this purpose are the ones that are kind of hard to understand, or that don't otherwise make sense, (like the Bible and the BOM) because they really could mean ANYTHING. That makes them a nice, big projection screen upon which we shine our life and see what we're looking for, all in the context of what we BELIEVE to be right. That helps us feel good about the life we lead...it's justified by the scriptures!

But truthfully, REALITY is so ambiguous, so fraught with layers and layers of interpretation, that I think you could argue that virtually EVERYTHING in our life is a projective exercise, a Rorschach test on a cosmic scale. Show me the man or woman who has seen reality with the cold objectivity of the universe, and I will show you God. But being the athiest that I am, I guess I've tipped my hand as to what I think the liklihood is of THAT every happening! With all due respect to Jesus and Buddha...

Born Free
13th January 2006, 09:26 PM
I absolutely agree. In fact, I believe the BEST scriptures for this purpose are the ones that are kind of hard to understand, or that don't otherwise make sense, (like the Bible and the BOM) because they really could mean ANYTHING. That makes them a nice, big projection screen upon which we shine our life and see what we're looking for, all in the context of what we BELIEVE to be right. That helps us feel good about the life we lead...it's justified by the scriptures!

But truthfully, REALITY is so ambiguous, so fraught with layers and layers of interpretation, that I think you could argue that virtually EVERYTHING in our life is a projective exercise, a Rorschach test on a cosmic scale. Show me the man or woman who has seen reality with the cold objectivity of the universe, and I will show you God. But being the athiest that I am, I guess I've tipped my hand as to what I think the liklihood is of THAT every happening! With all due respect to Jesus and Buddha...

Great PM! As usual you put it superbly!

The two positions one can adopt are:

1. The meaning of scriptures is fixed, and I have to find that out and live it (or have to trust someone else to interpret its meaning - a position which Luther challenged of course).

2. The scriptures (great literature/art) are Rorschach Tests, and with the right skills, when we scrutinize what we project onto them, and compare notes, we come to understand ourselves and each other better. In effect, as we evolve, the material we use, continues to serve us in our open-ended evolution.

The latter also means that I can return to great material time and time again, and each time discover another level of meaning/insight. Even the dullest student of the scriptures experiences the latter. This should alert them to the fact that if the scriptures have not changed, clearly our interaction with them is expanding as we expand.

To my way of thinking, this reinforces the latter model as what happens anyway.

So we are left with material as a catalyst. And in that role, even a 'faulty' story (such as the BoM) might have utility, provided we are clear about how we are using it, and not taking it literally (as all fundamentalists do).

In menswork, several African and Indian stories are used, old stories, but powerful and time-transportable stories, that continue to work because they are about timeless human challenges. I am mindful as I write of one I heard about the need of a man to separate from his mother emotionally and move his primary emotional attachment to his wife. This story was ancient, but absolutely up to date in its relevance. I remember sitting debriefing that story in 1995 with 8 other men, and for each of us, our mothers had been a major factor in the failure or near-failure of our marriages.

Daryl

free thinker
14th January 2006, 02:13 PM
What interests me about this is the way this man sublimated his own conscience for the needs of the group and to remain accepted within it.

I suppose that there is strong precedence biblically and within many religions for doing this.

Ironically Jesus didn't represent conformity to the needs and general beliefs of the orthodox (if there was one!) Jewish sects.

His message seemed to be one of rebelling against what he saw as hypocracy and bad religion within his own faith and culture. His views on the Sadducees, Pharisees and Zealots are perhaps an indication of this. (If we have his life accurately presented within the NT)
He seemed to have been willing to conform where necessary but also to stand against, where he saw injustice??

It would have been great if Nephi J had had the guts to say no. One must never give up ones conscience even within strongly authoritarian organisations?????

Mary


Mary

I wonder how Christ would feel about this financial empire mormons have built. I cant help but think he would be appalled.

I just can't see Jesus in a finely tailored suit, sitting behind a desk, in the corner office at 50 E North Temple.

ft

miss taken
14th January 2006, 02:42 PM
There were three statemen over here discussing spirituality the other day and they all agreed that dogma was the death of spirituality. I think I can understand where they are coming from.

I dunno, I see people who are incredibly good and spiritual and have found that through the LDS path.

I couldn't find that path myself as an active member. I can't see God in a lot of the doctrines or the cultural practices. I just can't. But hey, that's just me. I also can't see God in a lot of the doctrines and practices of the C of E either....but again loads of the people within the group are really really good people.

ho...hum...sigh...

I just can't seem to find a place with any one organised religion.

I do agree about the Freudian stuff to a good extent though. People say they know Jesus. How can we really know Jesus??? I wasn't there, I don't know what he really did and didn't say, and so forth. I guess I just selectively pick out the bits that fit with my idea of what God might be like. (or at least a pretty good example of what God might be like...)

Mary