Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: “I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.”
Source:
Oregon Public Broadcasting
URL Source: http://www.opb.org/news/article/exp ... particular-brand-of-mormonism/
Published: Jan 4, 2016
Author: John Sepulvado
Post Date: 2016-01-04 09:24:26 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 1685
Comments: 3
“I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.” That’s how one militiaman at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge responded to OPB’s Amanda Peacher when she asked for his name. That name is not a silly response to deflect responsibility: In many ways, it encapsulates a deeply intertwined anti-federal sentiment mixed with Mormon symbolism. Captain Moroni is a crucial figure in the Church of Latter Day Saints. He’s also a heroic figure for anti-federalist extremists. In the modern day west, Captain Moroni has become one of several powerful symbols for the Bundy militia’s anti-governmental extremism. According to LDS scripture, Captain Moroni took command of the Nephites when he turned 25. Moroni innovated weaponry, strategy and tactics to help secure the safety of the Nephites, and allow them to worship and govern as they saw fit. In LDS texts, Moroni prepares to confront a corrupt king by tearing off part of his coat and turning it into a flag, hoisting it as a “title of liberty.” This simple call to arms inspired a great patriotism in the Nephites, helping to raise a formidable army. Vastly outnumbered, the corrupt king fled. According to the Book of Mormon, Captain Moroni continued to push for liberty among his people. “And it came to pass that Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country.” During an April 2014 standoff with federal officials, supporters and members of the Bundy militia cited Book of Mormon passages centering on Captain Moroni. There were also several flags quoting Captain Moroni’s own writing on his “title of liberty.” Often next to American flags, these banners read “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” Cliven Bundy - the Nevada Rancher who called on militia and anti-government forces to help him in the showdown with the Bureau of Land Management – cited his own Mormon faith as a reason for what he viewed as a favorable outcome. As quoted by the Salt Lake City Tribune: “If the standoff with the Bundys was wrong, would the Lord have been with us?” he asked, noting no one was killed as tensions escalated. “Could those people that stood (with me) without fear and went through that spiritual experience … have done that without the Lord being there? No, they couldn’t.” Those remarks represent the deep commitment to the Bundy brand of faith. Abraham Bundy – Cliven’s great-grandfather – was a deeply religious man who was driven from prior homes first by flood, and then by revolution. He settled what would become Bundyville, home to a one-room schoolhouse and a scattering of homesteads in a harsh stretch of desert. Ultimately, the small town Abraham Bundy founded would be abandoned, after the Bundy family could not secure water and grazing rights from the federal government. Bundy has previously said in interviews that relocation played a significant role in shaping his family’s outlook toward the federal government. Those views are intertwined with Bundy’s faith. Speaking in St. George, Utah, after the standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, Bundy posed these questions to a crowd of mostly conservative Mormons, as reported by the Spectrum of St. George: “If our (U.S.) Constitution is an inspired document by our Lord Jesus Christ, then isn’t it scripture?” Bundy asked. “Yes,” a chorus of voices replied. “Isn’t it the same as the Book of Mormon and the Bible?” Bundy asked. “Absolutely,” the audience answered. David Ammon Bundy – Cliven’s father – relocated the family to Nevada in the 1940s. Cliven named his third son, Ammon, after his father. Ammon is also a figure in the Mormon faith, described as a “great servant” in LDS scripture. Ammon Bundy is a self-described devout Mormon, with strong anti-federal feelings. He praises his father’s actions against the federal government, and once accused the Bureau of Land Management as using the Endangered Species Act as a type of eminent domain. “They have this quota that they meet,” Bundy told the Cultural Hall podcast. “What we start to see is them using the resources and selling the land for their own benefit!” Ammon Bundy uses much of the same language as his father, mixing Mormon religious symbolism with a disgust of the federal government. Speaking to Harney County residents last December, Ammon Bundy explained why he became involved in the Dwight and Steven Hammond case that sparked this takeover of federal property. “I got this urge that I needed write something,” Bundy said. “I asked the good Lord…I need some help. And he gave me that help. The Lord is not pleased what has happened with the Hammonds.” And Bundy justified their armed-intrusion this way to OPB’s Amelia Templeton: “The main reason we’re here is because we need a place to stand,” Bundy said. “We stand in defense, and when the time is right we will begin to defend the people of Harney County in using the land and the resources.” Meanwhile, Bundy has called for “fellow patriots” to join him at the armed occupation. That call itself closely represents what Captain Moroni told his fellow Nephites in LDS scripture. And it’s part of the reason why “Captain Moroni” came to Burns. The man identifying as Captain Moroni said he was inspired by the call, and that the inspiration was validated by God in the form of a flock of geese he saw flying. “I just knew it was the right thing [to come to Oregon],” Captain Moroni said. “I’m willing to die here.” Poster Comment: Good grief... those screwball anti-government ranchers aren't even real Christians...Explainer: The Bundy Militia’s Particular Brand Of Mormonism
Who Is Captain Moroni?
An Embrace Of The “Title of Liberty”
A New Generation Of Mormon Extremism
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Nephites are dumb. The Bundy posse is dumb and live up to their namesake.
I have a 23" Acer 1920x1080 LED widescreen desktop monitor that I choose to display at 1440x900 resolution. The full screen width distorts the initial static view for me... but the video somehow defaults to a smaller, viewable format within the larger, wider frame when I play it. Sorry it doesn't work for you... I usually just cut & paste the page source code which includes all the formatting... and when I preview, I delete all the crap that really doesn't work: sidebars, advertising, twitter quotes, java crap & stuff like that... but I don't normally tinker with or fine tune the video parameters... forgive me, I'm an old coot & there's a limit to my computer skills.
Ah, my bad. I see the error now. I thought you had manually put that 100% stuff in there. They use a width="100%" and height="315px". But they then use Javascript to resize their IFRAMEs proportionally before you ever actually see it on screen to fix the stupid problem they deliberately created. You just copied the HTML source as it was delivered to you and so it did not reflect the corrections made in Javascript behind the scenes. So it looked fine at their site but causes the wide video problem here at LF and at other sites. You'd get bad results at Facebook and other places too. In the event you get another of these width="100%" video IFRAMEs in the future, you should use something like width=640 height=315 (for wide-screen) or width=640 height=480 (for 4:3 old-school aspect ratio). The webmaster for that site is a real retard. No sane designer would have done that kind of resizing the way they did. Seriously brain-dead web design.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 
Maybe it works on your tablet but that width="100%" parameter really bollixes a larger display. Very distracting and makes the video unwatchable. Adjusting the width this way without adjusting the height guarantees it will look bad on a vast majority of displays. Apparently, you have a lo-res smartphone or tablet and that is why it doesn't look bad to you.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
#3. To: Willie Green (#2)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 3.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]