Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pahoran

The Mountain Meadow Massacre

Recommended Posts

Name one single argument of mine that is a straw man. Just one. I dare you.
"Are you so enissophobic that you can't even handle questions? Good grief. All this does is confirm my own suspicions that you are just trying to bash Mormonism."

No it doesn't, that's a strawman...I explained why i didn't answer your questions. Your questions are loaded and don't pertain to the topic.

You are setting up a position I never made, attacking it, and declaring victory.

"Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of. "

These are ALL examples of strawmen, that's all you do is set up strawmen.

This is just more dodging Mickey. Haven't you anything solid to present that is well thought out and intelligent?

Please, if you are going to come to our turf and bring up only what you perceive in your shallow understanding as a basis for the church to be false, then bring more to the table would you? This has been hashed and rehashed so many times it isn't even interesting anymore.

The more intelligent people have already suggested you move to a loftier turret and take aview from the perspective of those who were there and endured all the hardships of their time, but you seem stuck fast and hard in a pit of misery and pain with no understanding and no wisdom.

If we can't use everything we see and hear in the life to up lift and improve, we have nothing to live for but to wallow in misery as you have chosen to do.

Take the loftier path for a change and give the world a break, will ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Pres. Hinckley has expressed the church's great regret at what happened at MM. Even extensive research probably won't give us all the answers of what really happened or what all the motivations were. The purpose of the study should be to try to understand, not to condemn. What good does it do to condemn people who are long dead and who have already met their just desserts?

Yes, GBH has expressed his regrets about MMM, but he also has expressly refused to acknowledge and apologize for any role the Church or its leaders may have had in contributing to the massacre. I personally think he should. It's obvious from this (and many other) threads that the MMM is still a festering scab in Mormon history. Thus, it is relevant today and should be addressed by the Church institution. If an apology is in order (and I think it is), then the Church should give one. I recall not long ago hearing that GBH had tears in his eyes when he was notified that the State of Illinois planned to apologize for expelling the Mormons from Nauvoo in 1846 (I think Illinois later backpedaled a bit and simply "expressed regret" or something like that). Obviously neither GBH nor anyone else alive today had anything to do with that sordid episode in history, but Illinois's (belated) action had a tremendous positive effect on Mormons. It's never too late to apologize, imo. Not when something positive can come from it.

Share this post


Link to post
...

I dare you.

Face it Mickey, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. You're completely ignorant when it comes to the basics of logic and logical fallacies. You pretend to be knowledgable but all you offer us is Mickey Mouse logic.

...

....your bogus claim.... instead of babbling about fallacies...

Still running from the questions huh? .... You can't handle one-on-one debate because you can't handle basic questions without tearing into a rant ...

...

Since you can't argue your points intelligently, I don't blame you. You should first have a basic understanding of the terms you keep throwing around.

... Mickey Mouse logic ...

...Sounds as imbecilic ...The more you speak the sillier you sound.

That's because you are not being reasonable.

....anti-Mormons squirm and then tuck their tails between their legs and head for the hills whenever they're are faced with their own logic- or lack thereof.

So much for keeping the discussion civil.

But, aside from the venon, I have to admit, I have learned quite a lot from this thread.

What I don't understand is why those that participated in the massacre other than Lee were never brought to justice. Despite being the President of the Church, the Lord's Prophet and Governor was BY nonetheless impotent in finding those responsible for this terrible crime, and bring them to justice, or did he simply have no interest in securing justice for the victims and thier families.

Also, what happened to the children and the gold. Were the children placed in mormon familes or taken by the Indians.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you think justice hasn't been served? In my opinion the times and events of over 10 years of persecution does things to people who were never given JUSTICE for their treatment either.

Why do you want to extract what you perceive to be justice on a people who were never ever given justice for themselves. Isn't that a bit skewed thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
This is just more dodging Mickey. Haven't you anything solid to present that is well thought out and intelligent?

Sure my first post in this thread was right on topic, no one has addressed either question, my first being why Brigham Young hid John D. Lee at Lee's ferry knowing he was guilty of mass murder. And then claim Brigham Young is guilty of nothing, if anything that is an example of accomplice after the fact.

Then the statement by John D. Lee that implicates him was simply brushed aside witht he excuse it was in Lee's best interest to implicate Young. EVEN THOUGH, prior to this the SAME poster said Lee didn't implicate Young even though offered to have his life spared.

Why did Brigham Young hide John D. Lee at Lee's ferry knowing he was responsible for the murder of 140 people?

Why do you ignore this statement fromJohn D Lee himself:

"I was guided in all that I did which is called criminal, by the orders of the leaders in the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. I have never knowingly disobeyed the orders of the chrurch since I joined it at Far West, Missouri, until I was deserted by Brigham Young and his slaves"

How in one post can you use John D. Lee's words to vindicate Brigham Young, but dismiss words from John D. Lee that appear to implicate him?

Now the question is haven't you anything solid to present that is well thought out and intelligent? Instead of just judgmental and ignorant?

My first post was clearly on topic and addressing the topic at at hand you've yet to offer anything to the discussion except insulting me and damning me to hell.

Share this post


Link to post

[edited] But a side from this, I have read the posts and you are asking the same question that has been discussed to death.

But this, is unintelligible.

Sure my first post in this thread, no one has addressed either reason why Brigham Young his John D. Lee at Lee's ferry knowing he was guilty of mass murder.

What is it saying?

There is a documentary not made by the church on J.D. Lee and what he had to say on the matter. It thoroughly explains what really happened and how JDLee did, according to his family, become the scape goat. So what was your question again?

Share this post


Link to post
There is a documentary not made by the church on J.D. Lee and what he had to say on the matter. It thoroughly explains what really happened and how JDLee did, according to his family, become the scape goat. So what was your question again?

Certainly not answered by this diatribe, all you did was claim there is a documentary somewhere that may answer the question. How about you answer the question and leave the cheap shots, and eternal damnation decrees at the door?

I edited paragraph you referenced that you couldn't follow. I type at work so I have to type quickly, so errors are common. I can revise it again if you still can't follow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Mickey_D29 said: ...the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing.

This shows a general lack of knowledge of history. (Although it sounds important and really cool to say.) Here's a few more massacres on American soil to chew on, that you probably don't know about:

  • Jamestown Massacre. 347 killed, March 22, 1622. Led by Opechancanough, brother of Powohatan, local tribes attack the Jamestown, Virginia, colony destroying virtually all the settlements save the heavily fortified Jamestown.
  • Yamassee Massacre. April 1715. With Spanish support the Yamassee kill several hundred South Carolina settlers. This act would begin a violent conflict between South Carolina colonists, allied with the Cherokee, defeating the Yamassee northwest of Port Royal, South Carolina, almost a year later in January 1716.
  • Goliad Massacre. 342 killed, 1836. Mexican army executes American prisoners of war in Goliad, Texas.
  • Mountain Meadows Massacre. 120 killed, September 11, 1857. Mormon militia kill an entire wagon train of Arkansas farming families in southern Utah.
  • Lawrence Massacre. Approximately 150 killed, August 21, 1863. Confederate raiders under William Quantrill loot and burn the town of Lawrence, Kansas, killing over 150 men.
  • Fort Pillow Massacre. Approximately 354 killed, April 12, 1864. After Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest's demand of the surrender of Union Fort Pillow (Tennessee) was refused, Forrest's forces assaulted the fort defenses in a particularly violent battle until a white flag was flown by the Union defenders. However, Confederate forces continued firing upon the surrendering soldiers killing or wounding over 354 of the 580 men.
  • Sand Creek Massacre. Approximately 150 killed, November 29, 1864. US cavalry troops kill Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples in an undefended Indian village in Colorado Territory.
  • Wounded Knee Massacre. 153-300 killed, December 29, 1980. Last confrontation of US troops and the Great Sioux Nation, at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

This is not to excuse the Mountain Meadows Massacre--indeed, I included it in the above list. It is just to demonstrate that the claim that it "the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing" is not true.

Mickey_D29 said: Would you accept if 9/11 was brushed under the carpet in a similar fashion? Of course not, people want the truth, and that hasn't been sufficiently answered...

Have you had "sufficient" answers about all the above massacres? If so, what determined your sufficiency? If not, why do you single out the Mountain Meadows Massacre from all the other historical massacres?

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
But, aside from the venon, I have to admit, I have learned quite a lot from this thread.

The following is from my memory, rather than looking at the sources first, so I apologize for any mistakes:

What I don't understand is why those that participated in the massacre other than Lee were never brought to justice.  Despite being the President of the Church, the Lord's Prophet and Governor was BY nonetheless impotent in finding those responsible for this terrible crime, and bring them to justice, or did he simply have no interest in securing justice for the victims and thier families.

I think the primary players went on the run for quite a while (Dame, Haight, Lee, Klingensmith, etc.). Some were ultimately ex'ed from the Church. I'd have to go back and look at Bagley's book to get the details about why others weren't brought to justice.

Also, what happened to the children and the gold.  Were the children placed in mormon familes or taken by the Indians.

All surviving children were placed in LDS homes, I believe. Two or three years later they were returned to Arkansas relatives (I think one was not, who grew to adulthood among Utah Mormons). Different stories about the gold. Some say it ended up at the tithing house; others that the Indians got it; others that Lee and other participants took it. In the end, I don't think it was ever accounted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Why do you think justice hasn't been served? In my opinion the times and events of over 10 years of persecution does things to people who were never given JUSTICE for their treatment either.

Why do you want to extract what you perceive to be justice on a people who were never ever given justice for themselves. Isn't that a bit skewed thinking?

I do not believe justice was served because only one man was arrested and convicted of a terrible crime in which many, many others participated.

And no, I don't believe that refusing to excuse criminal behavior, because the perpetrator may have been the victim of a past injustice renders my thinking skewed.

Let me ask you this question, do you believe that the LDS men that participated in the massacre should have been excomunicated? Were they?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if anyone remembers history enough to remember this was the untamed west where the US really didn't even have jurisdiction, legally. It was still part of the territory of Mexico when the Saints first arrived here.

It was a crazy time to live. No where had the Saints been that the government of the US didn't come and hunt them down.

Their people had illegally been persecuted and chased out of three of the cities they built. Why would they give a tinkers dam what was considered legal or illegal except by there own conscience and experience?

I would wish to Heaven that all who think they know what it was like to live back then as a Latter-day Saint, would really experience such a life for even a year, let a lone many many years.

Think of your children freezing in the river as you try to escape the mobs burning your home you spent everything you had to build.

Think of those children surviving just long enough to suffer and die in make shift shelters. Or being the children who lost their parents, being left alone. What would be your frame of mind? You can't even think that deep. You get in and out of your cozy bed every day and flip a switch to get warm. You have your family all safe from the governement and people who don't like you and life is good.

How can you even think to judge these people on any level?

Women who are battered for years finally break and murder their assailants. We as a country have finally, after eons, recognized justified killing.

But, when it comes to the LDS, we are supposed to be made of stone and just keep taking it and taking it because you say so?

Share this post


Link to post
This shows a general lack of knowledge of history. (Although it sounds important and really cool to say.) Here's a few more massacres on American soil to chew on, that you probably don't know about:

Have you had "sufficient" answers about all the above massacres? If so, what determined your sufficiency? If not, why do you single out the Mountain Meadows Massacre from all the other historical massacres?

-Allen

I said American on American massacre, not Mexican on American, or Spanish on American, Indian on American, or Crimes during War between the States. The Confederacy seceeded from the Union.

Yes it was the worst American on American massacre until the Oklahoma City Bombing.

I don't know what this has to do with the topic but O.K.

Again these are strawmen, start another topic if you want my input on the tragedies you referenced. You have no idea what my stance is on any of them.

But if you must know they are horrible, although neither of them can really be used as a compass with regards to the MMM, because the MMM was carried out by members of Church which may have recieved orders from higher up in the church to carry it out. The referenced massacres were carried out during a time of war, by soldiers. They shouldn't be brought into the argument, they don't do anything to credit, or discredit either side.

Share this post


Link to post

Were we really Americans at the time? We had left the country by force. We had an execution order from an american governor Boggs to kill our leader.

jDid this country bring HIM to trial?

Share this post


Link to post
Why do you think justice hasn't been served? In my opinion the times and events of over 10 years of persecution does things to people who were never given JUSTICE for their treatment either.

Why do you want to extract what you perceive to be justice on a people who were never ever given justice for themselves. Isn't that a bit skewed thinking?

I do not believe justice was served because only one man was arrested and convicted of a terrible crime in which many, many others participated.

And no, I don't believe that refusing to excuse criminal behavior, because the perpetrator may have been the victim of a past injustice renders my thinking skewed.

Let me ask you this question, do you believe that the LDS men that participated in the massacre should have been excomunicated? Were they?

No I don't believe they should have been excommunicated. Why? Because the ones who were there made the decision according to what they knew, which was a heck of alot more than we know.

You want to go back in history and right all of your perceived wrongs? Start with the revolutionary war where people were threatened with their lives if they didn't join and support the war against England. Many were murdered by their countrymen along with their wives and children.

American against American.

Share this post


Link to post
Mickey_D29 said:Again these are strawmen, start another topic if you want my input on the tragedies you referenced.

Actually, they are not strawmen. You made the assertion that the MMM was the worst "American on American" massacre until the Oklahoma City bombing. I pointed out you were wrong. And, you continue to be wrong because you completely ignored Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, neither of which involved Spanish or Confederates. It was Americans attacking Americans, and more were killed than at MMM.

Mickey_D29 said: But if you must know they are horrible, although neither of them can really be used as a compass with regards to the MMM, because the MMM was carried out by members of Church which may have recived orders from higher up in the church to carry it out. The referenced massacres were carried out during a time of war, by soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Were we really Americans at the time? We had left the country by force. We had an execution order from an american governor Boggs to kill our leader.

jDid this country bring HIM to trial?

Yes, the Church members living in the Great Basin settlements were indeed Americans. They were residing in a United States territory. Under the leadership of Brigham Young, they had been seeking statehood almost from the moment the Salt Lake Valley was settled. The pioneers hoisted the Stars and Stripes on a "liberty pole." A reverence for the Constitution of the United States was mandated in revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith that are part of our scriptural canon.

There are good defenses to counter false accusations regarding Mountain Meadows, but suggesting that Church members were not Americans is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
How can you even think to judge these people on any level?

Nice speech, but justice means being brought to trial by a jury of peers, not a jury of modern day internet historians. Fact. Aside from Lee, the men were never brought to justice. Is so, I suppose their attorney could have played up the mormon victim card, like you are doing.

The question I asked was whether this was the case because Young had no interest in securing justice for the victims or was he impotent.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither. You want to catagorize something you have proven you just don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Were we really Americans at the time? We had left the country by force. We had an execution order from an american governor Boggs to kill our leader.

jDid this country bring HIM to trial?

Yes, the Church members living in the Great Basin settlements were indeed Americans. They were residing in a United States territory. Under the leadership of Brigham Young, they had been seeking statehood almost from the moment the Salt Lake Valley was settled. The pioneers hoisted the Stars and Stripes on a "liberty pole." A reverence for the Constitution of the United States was mandated in revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith that are part of our scriptural canon.

There are good defenses to counter false accusations regarding Mountain Meadows, but suggesting that Church members were not Americans is not one of them.

I didn't say that. You like to make something out of nothing. I said they had left the country and were not in the country of America when they first came to Utah. It was Mexican territory.

They wanted statehood, but do you even know why? It was several years past the MMM which took place in 1857. They were still trying for statehood in 1862.

Share this post


Link to post
"the Church must be involved." Then, when no official involvement in the massacre is found, say "there must be a cover-up." I get the feeling that critics will never, ever be happy until they discover the link they know must exist and must be covered up in some conspiracy. Nothing but guilt will satisfy the inquisitors.

Brigham Young hid John D. Lee at Lee's ferry for years, did nothing to assist in bringing to justice the hundreds of men involved, despite his ENORMOUS influence in the region.

Is this an example of accomplice after the fact, or does it show any culpability in a cover-up?

Let's stop with the back and forth I could easily do the same by asking YOU:

Do the American Indians have no right to demand accountability from the U.S. government for the attrocities commited agaisnt their people? Or should they just accept that those incidents were commited by rogue commanders and the orders were never given from the U.S. Government to commit massacres? I could but I won't because it's loaded and not fair. Or Serious would you just call the American Indians "Anti-Americans, or American Haters"?

Notice NO ONE has taken any shots at the LDS religion, rahter than an occurence and the actions of early leaders of the Church.

Share this post


Link to post

What do you get out of this? It makes no sense. Maybe you should watch Lion King again. It is in the past.

It will NOT CHANGE. If everyone got what they really diserved, Mickey, including you, I don't think you would like what you would have.

Share this post


Link to post

Serious:

No I don't believe they should have been excommunicated. Why? Because the ones who were there made the decision according to what they knew, which was a heck of alot more than we know.

You want to go back in history and right all of your perceived wrongs? Start with the revolutionary war where people were threatened with their lives if they didn't join and support the war against England. Many were murdered by their countrymen along with their wives and children.

American against American.

What could they possible know the we don't know that would justify, excuse or mitigate the killing of unarmed men, women and children under false pretense?

I have not asked to right any wrongs. I simply asked question to help me understand better what occurred.

BTW, thank you Rollo for your response. I will take the information with the caveat provided.

Share this post


Link to post
"the Church must be involved." Then, when no official involvement in the massacre is found, say "there must be a cover-up." I get the feeling that critics will never, ever be happy until they discover the link they know must exist and must be covered up in some conspiracy. Nothing but guilt will satisfy the inquisitors.

Brigham Young hid John D. Lee at Lee's ferry for years, did nothing to assist in bringing to justice the hundreds of men involved, despite his ENORMOUS influence in the region.

Is this an example of accomplice after the fact, or does it show any culpability in a cover-up?

Mickey_D29,

I think you are conflating the issues. There are two separate things here--the massacre itself and the cover-up that followed.

1. There is no existing evidence that shows the Church was involved in the massacre itself. Period.

2. This is good evidence that the Church participated in a cover-up. (Indeed, I made this very point earlier in the thread.)

Which do you want to talk about, the massacre or the cover-up? We apparently agree on point #2, and we may agree on point #1.

But what do we do with that information? Do we declare the early Church leaders morally bankrupt and say that they were wrong? I don't think so. Why? Because the Church wasn't responsible for the massacre, and they participated in the cover-up to protect the Church from those who wouldn't accept that they weren't responsible.

Then, just as today, there are those who think that anything "Mormon" is evil and needs to be stamped out by any means possible. When faced with that mindset, what would you have done if you were Brigham Young? Are you even capable of putting yourself in his shoes and asking what you would have done differently?

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Serious:
No I don't believe they should have been excommunicated. Why? Because the ones who were there made the decision according to what they knew, which was a heck of alot more than we know.

You want to go back in history and right all of your perceived wrongs? Start with the revolutionary war where people were threatened with their lives if they didn't join and support the war against England. Many were murdered by their countrymen along with their wives and children.

American against American.

What could they possible know the we don't know that would justify, excuse or mitigate the killing of unarmed men, women and children under false pretense?

I have not asked to right any wrongs. I simply asked question to help me understand better what occurred.

BTW, thank you Rollo for your response. I will take the information with the caveat provided.

Are you serious? What do you know goes on between the separate Congressmen? What do you know goes on behind any closed doors?

Not everything is written down or passed on. Many things have gone to the graves with the men and women living back then which we will never know.

What justified the men in the revolution to kill un armed men, women and children?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...