Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast, making theology central. January the 10th, 2025. It is currently 12.08 p.m. Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. I'm sorry, I'm a little distracted. I was trying to make sure my iPad was looking like it was about to delete all of my notes, and I've got So many notes here. So I'm sitting here trying to give you the day. Good afternoon, everyone. It is Friday. And then all of a sudden I'm like, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. My iPad's about to delete all of my notes. Stop, stop. All right. So let's do that again. Good afternoon, everyone. It is Friday, January the 10th, 2025. It is now 12.09 p.m. Central Time, and I am still coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. So if you have a notebook, if you have something you can take notes, I want you to write down two separate things. Are you ready? The first thing I want you to write down is this, American primeval. American Primeval. That's American. I'm pretty sure you can figure out how to spell that. Primeval, P-R-I-M-E-V-A-L. American Primeval. I want you to write that down. All right? The other thing I want you to write down is the Mountain Meadows Massacre. So the first thing is American Primeval. The second thing is Mountain Meadows Massacre. All right, one more time. American Primeval, write that down. The second thing, Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Now the first thing I gave you, American Primeval, that is a new show on Netflix. Now let me just say this right from the beginning. It is violent. It is brutal. It is a show that many will not want to watch, may even have a hard time even trying to watch it. By no means is this like a show that you're, that, hey, this is a show we should watch in church. It is adult. It is violent. It is explicit. It is somewhat disturbing. In fact, it is very disturbing, but it may be disturbing. It may be more disturbing for me for a different reason than maybe it's disturbing to you. Some of you will find the violence, the language, the brutality, you may find that disturbing. I find it disturbing for a whole different reason, because American Primeval, this show on Netflix that made its debut yesterday, January the 9th, I've watched two episodes of it so far. Well, but what disturbs me is that it is showing, at least in a fictionalized way, something that actually happened in history, which is the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Now, American Prime Evil is a fictionalized story. It has characters. It has things going on in their life. So that's fictionalized, but the backdrop of it is historical fact, at least in these first two episodes. And that is the Mountain Meadows Massacre. And the Mountain Meadows Massacre, if you've ever read about it, if you've ever studied it, it should bother you. It should disturb you. And most importantly, we should learn something from it. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you a little background of the American Primeval Show. kind of lead us into the history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, then we're going to look at, well, some lessons that I think should be taken from all of this. Now again, I am not telling you to go watch American Prime Evil. I'm not telling you to watch it. If you do, you probably definitely don't want your children anywhere around it. And if you're easily offended or you don't want to see something brutal, violent, and explicit, then by all means, do not watch it. Once you start the show, right up in the top left-hand corner, Netflix usually kind of gives you a little warning about all of the content in it. You're going to see a list of things and you're going to be like, okay, maybe not. And it's perfectly okay if you don't want to watch it, but because it's connected to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I think you need to know about it for this reason. If you know anything about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, you know that's connected to Mormonism. So then, therefore, it's connected to religion, to scripture, to God, so therefore we definitely need to talk about it on a podcast called Theology Central, all right? So are you ready? Here's a little bit about the show. Netflix knew some would refer to it as a Western show. Netflix knew drama, however you would like to classify it. I'm borrowing from two news articles. I saw two news articles this morning about American Primeval and the connection it has with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I was waiting for some article to connect it to the historical fact. The first articles I saw was just reviewing the show, and many of them did not mention the historical fact behind this. But here we go. Netflix's new show, American Primeval, takes place in 1857 Utah Territory. 1857, the Utah Territory. Now, at the time, 1857, we're still four years out from the American Civil War, and it won't be another 42 years until Utah officially becomes a state. In this lawless land, tensions don't just run high between the white colonizers and the Native Americans, but between various rival indigenous tribes, the U.S. Army, and the Mormon Church's ruthless which I think the best way to pronounce it would be the Novu Legion. All right, so let me go through this again. In this Netflix show, which is American Primeval, it takes place in 1857 in the Utah Territory. Now, once you go back to that time and we try to look at what's going on from a historical perspective, we're still four years away from the American Civil War. It will be another 42 years until Utah officially becomes a state. Now, at that time in 1857, it's a lawless land and tensions don't just run high between the white colonizers, those white pioneers coming across to find a new place to live, right? And you obviously have the Native American tribes who are not so happy of seeing wagon trains coming their way into their land. That would make obviously sense. But you also have rival – you have some tensions. You have some aggression happening between various rival indigenous tribes. So some different tribes are fighting each other. for probably land or whatever they're fighting over, but then you add into that the U.S. Army, and then you add into that the Mormon Church, and they have a ruthless group known as the Nauvoo Legion. Some, I think the Nauvoo, I think is probably the right way. It is spelled N-A-U-V-O-O, the Nauvoo, Nauvoo Legion. Now you may never even heard of them. I am not super familiar with them. I am super familiar with the history of this time because I love history. I'm not super familiar with the Nauvoo Legion. Now, the first episode—now, so there's a little bit of the historical context. Now, let's step back out. Let's go back to the Netflix show. In the first episode of American Primeval, it is directed and executively produced by Peter Berg. Now I'm going to give you a little bit of the story here, so I'm going to try not to give too many spoilers. I already cut some things out of how the news article describes this to try to protect the story. I'll try to be somewhat vague because I don't want to ruin it just in case someone would like to see it. In the first episode, we pick up this story of a single mother, her first name is Sarah, and her and her son, Devin, they attempt to make their way from Fort Bridger to California. So you have a single mom, you have her son, they want to get out of Fort Bridger and they want to go to California. But for some reason, they can't hire a guide. It's not working out. So they team up with a wagon train of settlers from Arkansas and kindly Mormons making their way further west. So she can't find anyone else. She finds a group of Mormons. She asks basically, hey, come on, let me and my son join you. We got to get out of here. We want to leave. We got to get out of here. I won't give you any backstory or anything there. However, before the end of American Primeval Episode 1, tensions erupt between the Pioneers briefly camping in Utah territory and the local Mormon militia. Now, this is where the show now leaves a little bit of the fiction and enters into fact. Now, the line is blurred, it's historical fiction, so obviously not everything is accurately described, but it gets us now from American Primeval to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which you need to know about. You really do. If you're a religious, quote unquote, a Christian, and I reject Mormonism already, I believe that's completely fraudulent, heretical, completely, but what happens here is so disturbing. So here's what happens. What follows that set up right there, right? Because tensions are up between the pioneers briefly camping in Utah territory and the local Mormon militia. What follows is a grotesque massacre in which the Nauvoo Legion mask and disguise themselves as one of the local tribes. They murder the non-violent settlers as they camp for the night. Men are scalped, women and children are slaughtered, and not even the Mormons amongst the group are spared. They slaughter everyone. This Mormon militia, they disguise themselves as one of the native tribes. They come in and slaughter everyone. Now, the question is, did this horrific massacre really happen? Is American Primeval based on a true story or is it all just a figment of their imagination? Well, American Primeval, is it based on a true story? Well, yes and no. American Primeval is a work of historical fiction. However, the backdrop of American Primeval is based on reality. In 1857, Mormons disguised as Pahut, that would be the name of the Native Americans, and I'm hoping, I'm trying to be very respectful, I do not want to mispronounce their names, but the Pahut, they disguised themselves as being a part of this tribe. They did massacre a group of settlers in a tragedy known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Fort Bridger did exist, and people did run afoul of Brigham Young and his ambitions for the young Mormon faith. Brigham Young is kind of a central figure here. Now, historically, we can get into what is known or not known. There's some debate here, but there's no question the massacre occurred, and there's no question that this Nauvoo Legion, this Mormon militia, was very much behind it. And they did disguise themselves as the Pahut Native American tribe, which then would put the focus on them, on all the Native American tribes. This is so twisted in the way they did this. Now, in the show, the massacre is violent and brutal and explicit. It is, man, it is powerful to watch it unfold. It's somewhat disturbing to watch it unfold. And what was disturbing to me is not just because the show was violent, and it was because I, this is historical fact. Now, how they describe what happened, you know, I think in the show it was daytime. I think in reality it was nighttime. I mean, obviously they take some artistic license with it. But here's now a more of a breakdown. Now we're leaving the Netflix show. All right, so we're gonna go ahead. I don't wanna give any more information about the Netflix show, American Prime Evil. Open up your Netflix app or subscribe to Netflix. You'll see it probably right there. It'll probably be in the top 10 shows today. May even be up to number one by Friday. by today. So you can go look for it. You can decide. You can make your own choice whether you want to watch it or not. Just remember, it's not a Christian show. It is violent. It is explicit. I cannot state that enough. But here's a little breakdown now about the historical reality. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a tragic and controversial event in American history that occurred on September the 11th, 1857 in southern Utah. A wagon train of immigrants from Arkansas, known as the Baker-Fancher Party, was traveling to California when it was attacked by a group of Mormon settlers and members of the local Pahut tribe. Now, This is where you get, just make sure you understand this. Was it Mormons disguised as members of the tribe, or did they utilize some of the tribe to assist them in the massacre? All right, now remember, we have two things going on here. The article from the news article about the show described them as disguising themselves as members of the Paiute tribe. However, other sources, and in fact, that paragraph right there comes from artificial intelligence. It says it utilized some of the local Paiute tribe. They weren't just disguising themselves. Some of them were there. The show on Netflix seems to show the way the Mormon militia disguised themselves really was wearing masks and that the Paiute tribe was actually members of the Paiute tribe. So we could get into some history trying to figure that out. The news article says they disguised themselves. AI doesn't go with that approach. Just so that you can see, sometimes when we're dealing with history, there's going to be sometimes a little difference in how the story is told. Here are some of the key details. Context. Tensions were high between the U.S. government and the Mormon community in Utah, led by Brigham Young, who was both the governor of the Utah Territory and the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm going to say this, I've said it a million times, I think there's one historical fact everyone should be able to agree on. Whenever church, whenever religion merges with state, when the state and the church merge, when there's a merging between the government and religion, the end result, people will always die. That's how it has happened throughout church history. You merge church and state, people die. That's why I can't—that's why I'm so opposed to Christian nationalism. I want the separation of church and state to be as separated as possible, because once the two merge, bad things start happening, right? Because then the church says, well, this is wrong, and this is wrong, and this is wrong, then the state will utilize its power to punish. So then, well, that sounds great if your church is in charge, but guess what? If the Presbyterians take over or merge with the state, then Baptists who won't baptize babies and believe it's wrong, we're going to get punished. And we see this throughout church history. Or if the Catholics take over, the Protestants get. If the Protestants take over, the Catholics get. That's what starts happening. People get punished. People get murdered. People get killed. People get punished. Church and state merging is the worst thing that can ever happen. And what happens here? Who's in charge? Brigham Young. What is he in charge of? A church. And he's the governor of the territory. No conflict of interest there. The Mormon community was in a defensive posture due to the Utah War, a conflict between federal troops and Mormon settlers. Rumors circulated that the immigrants were hostile to the Mormons and had ties to anti-Mormon groups. The Baker-Fancher party was besieged by attackers for several days at Mountain Meadows, a valley along their route. Now, please note, the Netflix show shows it happening one time. Many of the articles describe it as a one-time event. However, AI classifies it and describes it as there were multiple attacks. It wasn't just one. All right, so just so that you know that. The immigrants initially defended themselves, but eventually surrendered under a promise of safe passage. Now, the Netflix show does not show this happening, right? So ultimately, they surrender like, hey, hey, hey, okay, we're sorry, stop, stop. This is where the history gets really, in some ways, more disturbing. After surrendering, the immigrants were led away from their camp. separated into smaller groups, and killed. Yeah, that may be even more disturbing than what the Netflix show demonstrated. Now, approximately 120 men, women, and children were killed. 17 children, all under the age of seven, were spared and later returned to relatives. So 17 children under the age of 7 were spared. Only 17. There were more children there than that, but 17 were spared under the age of 7. So that's good that they were spared. At least that's a good thing. But 120 people, men, women, and children were slaughtered. Now, here we go. The massacre was initially blamed on the Pahut tribe, see? But evidence pointed to significant involvement by Mormon settlers. Brigham Young denied prior knowledge of the attack, and the LDS Church has since condemned the massacre. John D. Lee, a Mormon leader involved in the attack, was eventually tried, convicted, and executed in 1877 for his role in the massacre. Mountain Meadows Massacre remains a dark chapter in American and Mormon history. The LDS Church has expressed regret for the event and has participated in efforts to memorialize the victims." Hey, we're so sorry this happens, and we're going to do everything we can to memorialize the victims. I mean, we want you to remember that, well, Mormons had slaughtered them, okay? I mean, the whole thing is just horrible. And let me make it very clear. I don't want anyone to think that I'm misrepresenting history. What did I say? Whenever church and state merge, people die. Look, the church history is filled with people being killed, murdered, and dying because of, well, the involvement of religion. Now, the site of the massacre is now a National Historic Landmark. So if you're ever in Utah and you want to find the National Historic Landmark, or if you're close to Utah, maybe something you want to go do, take your children to, and you can possibly explain to them how bad it is when church and state merge. Now, I know some people may not say that that's a major lesson from it, but I think it is. The massacre continues to be the subject of historical research and debate, particularly regarding the extent Brigham Young's involvement and the motivations of those who carried out the attack. There's lots of debate about that. Many scholars like Brigham Young had no idea he was not involved. Others think maybe he did. The debate will rage on. Exactly what were the motivations? Why did they do this? What led to this? These are important questions. But from a theological perspective, The attack and the killing of human beings obviously is the most disturbing part of the story. The second most important or the most disturbing part of the story is that scripture and God were used by some involved in the massacre to justify their actions which is probably one of the, at least a second or third most troubling aspect of this event. I want you to hear that. They utilize scripture, they utilize God to justify a massacre, a slaughter. The misuse of religion, the misuse of religious belief, It really serves as an example at how scripture and theology can be twisted to support violence, to support fear, to support prejudice, bigotry, hatred, to support and to really serve as kind of a prop for your political motivations. And in many cases, those political motivations, those personal bias and prejudice that you're using scripture to justify, ultimately those things take precedent over genuine faith, over a genuine concern for trying to understand the scriptures. And we can't deny that reality. We're all capable of going to the scriptures and twisting them to say what we want them to say, to justify ourselves or to condemn someone we don't like. Now, how was scripture and God used? Well, the first way it was used is the Mormons had a perceived divine mandate. Oh boy, Christians love to do this. We have a divine mandate. We're supposed to do this. We have a divine mandate. We have a divine mandate to take over. We have a divine mandate to do this. We have a divine mandate from God to take over America. I mean, how did that work out maybe in history? God has given us America. I'm sorry, Native Americans, that you're here. You've got to go or you have to die. Oh, whenever people perceive they have a divine mandate. Oh, that's always a troubling concept that can arise. Some of the Mormon settlers believed they were acting under a divine mandate to protect their community and faith. The Mormons at the time felt under siege due to the Utah War and years of persecution, leading to a siege mentality. They may have interpreted the immigrants as a threat to their survival and God's work. We have a divine mandate. Nothing can stop us. We have to defend it. And people love to say, God is telling me to do this. God is telling me, God is leading me to do this. I've always said the psychological manipulation that leads to. It's the same thing when a pastor says, God gave me this sermon. Well, then I can't criticize the sermon. God told me to do this. Well, I can't say you're wrong. If you want a divine mandate, you open the Bible, and what the Bible says, there's your divine mandate. God is not speaking to you outside of the scriptures. He's not leading you with some still, small voice. It's not a feeling. It's not anything happening in your body. That's why I cannot stand charismatic theology, where God is leading and guiding and speaking outside of the Bible, which leads to craziness. they had a perceived divine mandate. 2. Old Testament Justification The use of Old Testament narratives, such as God's commanding the Israelites to destroy their enemies, Joshua and the conquest of Canaan, may have been cited or implied to justify violence. The selective application of scripture can be dangerous, especially when used to frame violence as obedience to God. Now, let me make it very clear It may have been used. I don't know if we have any definitive historical documentation that they utilized Old Testament, but a lot of times Old Testament passages are utilized for, well, people to call for other people to be killed. How many times have you heard pastors call for homosexuals to be executed and killed because they cite an Old Testament scripture? Yeah, people will use the Old Testament to kill anyone they want killed. Number three, doctrine of blood atonement. Some leaders within the LDS church at that time had taught the controversial and now disavowed concept of blood atonement, which suggested that certain sins required the shedding of blood for forgiveness. hey, someone has to die, someone's blood has to be shed if there's going to be forgiveness. Now, we believe the Son of God, His shed blood brings forgiveness, but we don't believe someone else has to die in order to make atonement. Like, no, Jesus made the atonement. Now, this doctrine of blood atonement as taught by some, let me make it very clear, some in the LDS Church, not all, just some, This is very important. We may not have any direct evidence that this doctrine directly motivated the massacre. So again, once again, we don't have maybe some specific historical document that states it. However, many would say the existence of this doctrine may have contributed, at least in part, to an environment where violence was seen as justifiable and under certain circumstances. So at least the existence of this doctrine could have possibly given some justification to say violence is justifiable in these circumstances. religious loyalty, and obedience. The settlers involved in the massacre were influenced by a sense of religious duty and obedience to the church or church leaders. John D. Lee, a prominent Mormon leader and key participant in the massacre, claimed he was acting under orders from higher church authorities, though this remains debated. So at least one of the individuals claim, hey, I was acting on, you know, orders from church authorities. And those church authorities obviously denied it and, you know, well, you can, how did it play out? No one's going to know. But once again, when people become, when you become loyal, to a church, when you become loyal to a leader, when you become loyal to a theological system, truth gets sacrificed and crazy things can take place. And we've seen that. If you ever read the Roy's report, if she reports something negative, say, about John MacArthur, the MacArthur supporters come out like, they pull out their swords, and I'm not talking the Bible, they pull out their physical swords, okay, metaphorically speaking, they pull out their verbal swords, how about that, and they start fighting back, and they start attacking, calling, you're a woman, you shouldn't be saying anything, and you just hate MacArthur, and you're ungodly, And what about your past, Julie Royce? I bet you've done that." And then nobody wants to actually listen because they're so loyal to a man. They're so loyal to a church. They're so loyal to a theology. We can't. And that happens, it doesn't matter. If it's a charismatic leader, the charismatics come out and support the leader. And it doesn't matter if it's MacArthur. It doesn't matter whom it is. You choose your side, you choose your leaders, and then people show a loyalty to it. And that's not the way it's supposed to work. Now, what are the problems with these justifications? Well, the misuse of Scripture. They use Scripture to justify violence and ignore the broader biblical themes of love, mercy, justice. For Christians, especially for Christians, the teachings of Jesus, love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you, directly contradicts their actions. But how many times have you say, love your enemy, turn the other cheek? Well, it doesn't actually mean that. Well, in this case, I can kill someone. Well, in this case, I can kill someone. Resist not evil. Well, submit yourself to governmental authorities. Well, in this case, it doesn't count. In this case, I don't have to. We always love to have our exception, our get out of free gel card, all right? So the first problem was the misuse of Scripture. Second, the twisting of God's character. Depicting God as endorsing indiscriminate violence misrepresents His character as revealed in Scripture. While the Bible contains accounts of divine judgment, these are specific and not a blanket endorsement for human violence. I think the issue here is that it's not so much of twisting God's character. I think in many cases what they do is they take a passage that is descriptive and make it prescriptive, which we've talked about so many times. A third possible problem, now some may agree, some may disagree with this, is maybe this demonstrates an ignoring of personal responsibility. See, if you claim divine justification for violent actions, you shift the blame from a human decision to God. Undermining personal conduct. personal accountability, and any responsibility to discern right and wrong. If you say, well, God told me, God said. Now, what are some lessons we can take from this? Well, we need to be critical and critically examine any religious claims. Believers must critically examine claims that invoke God or Scripture to justify any type of action. We've got to say, wait a minute, wait a minute, what are you saying? In the sermon that we reviewed last night, the man made all kinds of accusations, accusations about lost people. In many cases, he just was factually in error. He bore false witness. Pastors, sermons, religious leaders make all kinds of claims. They make all kinds of accusations. They condemn people. They say all kinds of things. Those claims have to be clearly looked at and examined. Maybe we have to avoid extremism. The Mountain Meadows Massacre Maybe it serves as a warning against allowing fear, isolation, to foster religious extremism. Now, it's always difficult to know when you've entered into some form of extremism, some type of religious extremism. It's sometimes difficult to see because you'll be convinced that, no, I'm being more faithful to scripture. I'm being more committed to God. I'm being the right, I have God on my side. And you may have just slid over into some weird extremism and you've left God behind, but you think God is justifying what you're doing. How about love and peace? Maybe as Christians, we could possibly try to emphasize the teachings of love, peace, and reconciliation, and try to ensure that we're interpreting scripture correctly. AI summarized it this way. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is a tragic example of how religion can be misused to justify violence. It underscores the importance of approaching scripture with humility, a commitment to context, and a heart aligned with God's justice and mercy. So I asked AI this. I said, hey, can you give me some just general principles and lessons that we can take away from the Mountain Meadows Massacre? What are some general ones? This is what AI gave me. Number one, the danger of groupthink and blind obedience. I can't stand groupthink. I cannot stand blind obedience. I cannot. Now, I may go the opposite direction. If the group thinks A, I'm going with B. I'm going the opposite direction, and I can't stand groupthink. And I think groupthink is very common in Christianity. When individuals prioritize loyalty to a group leader, They may commit or justify atrocities. Now, I'm not saying it's always going to go that far, but many Christians, it's like, we all have to think this way. We almost look at it this way. We almost do. And it's like, if anyone says, no, no, no, not going to go that way, going to think differently, you're immediately like, you're thrown out of the group. It's, you know, quoting the famous lyric, you know, conform or be cast out. Christianity is all about group think. And if you're a Christian and let's say you don't support Trump or you don't support Republicans, uh-oh, you're possibly in trouble. If you're a Christian and you're like, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, I think the text could do, you start challenging maybe certain interpretation, you're in trouble. You gotta pick a team, you gotta wear the colors of that team, and you gotta color within the lines, and there is no room, there's nothing allowed for you to possibly, I don't know, think, A second lesson AI pointed out is the consequences of fear and prejudice. Fear and prejudice can lead to dehumanization. you begin to dehumanize people. And I point this out in sermons sometimes. It's always them, them, them, they, they, they, they, they, the lost this, they, they, they're all the bad people. Be worried about them, fear them. And that we almost dehumanize them. And we create almost some kind of, you know, image of the lost people being this way, but we're all the good guys. You begin to dehumanize them and you begin to justify your judgmental, condemning, bearing false witness. We have to avoid making assumptions about other people based on rumors or stereotypes. How about we seek understanding? How about, I don't know, I know, now there was a time a couple of years ago where Christians were debating this. How about we have empathy? I know we were being told that empathy is sinful, but I think I'm gonna go with understanding and empathy, even in times of conflict. Now, I'll be honest with you. I sometimes do much better in seeking understanding and empathy for the world, for the lost. My problem is I sometimes don't have much empathy or seek understanding amongst Christians that I think sometimes are whacked out of their minds and they say some of the most ridiculous things and I get very frustrated with it. I need to seek understanding and empathy with everyone. So the danger of groupthink and blind obedience. Number two, the consequences of fear and prejudice. Number three, the corruption of power. When religious or political leaders hold unchecked power, it can lead to abuses, including the manipulation of followers. Power must be held accountable and no leader should be above scrutiny or criticism. Christians love to talk about, we need accountability. And it's always funny. They always want to assign accountability to that person. But with the leaders that they love and adore, they don't care. They'll say that there's accountability there. But in many cases, you can demonstrate, is there really any accountability there? I think the main lesson is not about accountability. I think the main lesson is, it's about the corruption of power. power, position, political influence. When we get, we crave power, we crave position, we crave control. I'm gonna skip some, AI gives me like 15 things here. I'm gonna skip down to this one. the importance of historical reflection. Understanding and acknowledging past wrongs helps prevent repeating them in the future. We should study history with humility and a willingness to learn, even when it reveals uncomfortable truth. When we study church history, we should not just try to study church history to find people who seem to agree with us so that we can tell everyone, hey, the early church thought. In many cases, we just misrepresent the early church. How about we study church history and acknowledge the problems, the failures, the sin, so that we can learn from it and that we can see our own failure and our own sin? should study the things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, know what happened, remember the people who died, and be bothered by it. See, by reflecting on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, if we reflect on it, we can be reminded of the importance of vigilance against the forces of fear, prejudice, and power that tends to lead to such tragedies. These principles challenge us to foster justice, compassion, and accountability in our communities and within institutions. And the Mountain Meadows Massacre, as horrible as it was, I can't help but it reminds me of what happened in Salem. Fear, prejudice, groupthink, lose all form of rationality, utilizing God, utilizing scripture to kill innocent people, falsely accuse people, bear false witness, all because Satan is out to get us. So, on Netflix, right now, you can look up American Primeval. The first two episodes are intense. They're brutal, they're violent, they're explicit. By no means am I telling you should watch it, but you can look it up if you so desire to. As you watch the first two episodes, especially I think it's episode one, you're going to see at least their depiction of the Mountains Meadows Massacre. It's not completely accurate the way it went down. There was a series of attacks. Finally, they surrender and then they're let off and killed. That's not exactly the way it goes down in the Netflix show, but the Netflix show is not purporting to be historically accurate. I am grateful that the show brings to mind, to light in 2025 what happened in the Mountain Meadows Massacre because we can learn from it and be bothered by it and consider many of the lessons that should come from it. All right, I'll stop right there. Thanks for listening, everyone. Have a great day. God bless.