The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Zakuska]

No Bringham Young preached that it was "OK" to Kill Adulturers in Israel?

Connecting it to "other people" is a huge Leap of logic!

As our text to consider to Give BY words Context:

Num 25

1 AND Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.

5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.

6

[urroner]

My documentation is the sermon from Brigham that I cited which supports my view that he was ultimately responsible.

Nah, God is ultimately responsible. He created evil.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Many of you may be interested to know that there is currently a film being made about the worst act of domestic terrorism to occur on US soil until the Oklahoma city bombing. I am referring to the Mountain Meadows Massacre which happened in September of 1857 in Southern Utah.

You want to start a "discussion" with this piece of inflammatory tripe? Good luck.

[Edgar]

So how can BY teaching of the spilling of ones blood (note these are members not Gentiles) to pay for Adultury be construed to have any connection what so ever with MMM?

Zakuska makes a good point that Blood Atonement was preached by Brigham Young about sins committed by the Saints.

I personally think the Saints sought revenge and vengeance because of their prior sufferings and the death of Joseph Smith. Though I think that way I make no judgement about it. I can't possibly understand the circumstances.

[Pahoran]

Benji,

I suggest you take a break from posting and read through some of the threads. The MMM is a constant recurring theme on this forum; the discussion has been done to death.

But, as Dunamis shrewdly observes, you show little interest in discussing anything. Rather, you imagine you can use this forum as your bully pulpit.

But to answer your question: the responsibility rests with the perpetrators, who acted without orders and afterwards tried to conceal their misdeeds from Brigham Young. But if any more "ultimate" responsibility needs to be sought, I suggest that there was one man who did more than any other to create the circumstances that led to the massacre. The man who, on the strength of uninvestigated false reports, and to bolster his flagging popularity, ordered an invading army into Utah without informing the governor of its intentions: namely, James Buchanan, President of the United States, the first American president to go to war against his own people.

You see Benji, the point you're not getting is that there are people on this forum who know considerably more about these matters than you do, or likely ever will. It's not your "information" that is anti-Mormon--no-one ever said that it was--it is your spin; and all you do when you toe the anti-Mormon line is make a fool of yourself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[gtaggart]

Mountain Meadows Massacre: My nomination for "The most discussed and written about, yet allegedly unknown event in U.S. History."

Sally Denton, Jon Krakauer, Juanita Brooks, Will Bagley, Anna Jean Backus, Judith Freeman, Michael R. Kelsey, Anna Jean Backus, Gerald Grimmett, John Doyle Lee, Steven E. Farley, John I. Ginn, William Wise, Evelyn Measeles, Josiah Francis Gibbs, James Henry Carleton, C. P Lyford, Charles W Penrose, Charles W Penrose, T. B. H Stenhouse, Ralph R Rea, A. R Scherling, Keene Abbott, David S King, Anne Miller Eckman, Jim Lair, J. Barre Toelken, W Wyl, Douglas McEuen, Austin Edwin Fife, Richard D Sweet, . . . and on and on and on on (do you own search on Amazon.com). These are just some of the authors who have written books about Mountain Meadows. Most are devoted entirely to the massacre. Some cover it in part.

And that's just the books. Magazines, newspapers, TV, and radio have all covered MMM. Sally Denton, for one, had a four or five page piece on the massacre in American Heritage magazine about two years ago. The History Channel recently covered it as well.

And don't forget the Internet! Google returns 16,900 hits on "Mountain Meadows Massacre."

Further, it's in most every Church history I've read, whether published by the Church or not.

If someone knows little or nothing about Mountain Meadows, it is not because it hasn't been written about extensively. And guess what? No one has been able to pin the deed on Brigham Young. No one.

[charity]

Gtaggart, you don't post often, but when you do it is a good one!

[katherine the great]

I was astonished to see the name of one of my ancestors metioned as a participant in this (in John D Lee's alleged confession.) It's hard to imagine what would motivate otherwise decent, kind people to do something this horrible. All I can think is that it was much more complicated than most of us realize.

[rameumptom]

I was astonished to see the name of one of my ancestors metioned as a participant in this (in John D Lee's alleged confession.) It's hard to imagine what would motivate otherwise decent, kind people to do something this horrible. All I can think is that it was much more complicated than most of us realize.

It really was that: complicated.

The Arkansans were dealing out threats to both the Indians and Mormons. One claimed to have the gun that killed Joseph Smith, while others said they had been involved in the shooting of Parley P Pratt. The Missourians in the group were insisting they were going to retrieve an army from California to annhilate the Mormons once and for all.

During this time, Johnston's army was in the area. There were threats from all sides.

And this was a people that had been driven from state to state, lost many lives on the Plains, and now were trying to eke out an existence in the desert.

Communications were poor. It took almost a week by swift horse to get a message one way from St George to SLC.

I believe the people of Mountain Meadows were under tremendous stress and felt they had no other choice. They had no place else to go. And so they did something extreme. It is definitely a tragedy from all sides of the account. I see nothing but victims on both sides, including John D Lee.

Had the Southerners behaved themselves, and had there not been the previous persecutions, things would have definitely gone differently. Am I excusing the murders? Of course not. The murders were wrong. But as there are studies showing how victims of abuse often end up being abusers themselves, I see the same thing going on here.

[Rollo Tomasi]

No one has been able to pin the deed on Brigham Young. No one.

True enough, but Brother Brigham himself let his true feelings on the massacre be known. According to Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young visited the MMM site on May 25, 1861. Brigham looked at the monument erected a few years before by Carleton's men, which had the inscription, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." According to Woodruff, Brigham "said it should be 'vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.'" (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenney, vol. 5, page 577, Signature Book 1983).

[Scott Lloyd]

No one has been able to pin the deed on Brigham Young.  No one.

True enough, but Brother Brigham himself let his true feelings on the massacre be known. According to Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young visited the MMM site on May 25, 1861. Brigham looked at the monument erected a few years before by Carleton's men, which had the inscription, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." According to Woodruff, Brigham "said it should be 'vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.'" (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenney, vol. 5, page 577, Signature Book 1983).

Even assuming that it was remembered and reported accurately, this is, at best an enigmatic comment.

I am not as quick as Rollo and others to jump to the conclusion that it reflects Brigham Young's "true feelings on the massacre."

[Deborah]

Benjy,

You really need to get a real life. Do you not have anything better to do than search for "proof" of how wrong Mormonism is? Most of the devout believers have heard all this trash before. So you certainly aren't giving us anything new. And anything we present will be rejected out of hand, so what's the point. (Rhetorical question, I don't need an answer).

[awyatt]

Benji said: the worst act of domestic terrorism to occur on US soil until the Oklahoma city bombing.

It may be trendy (and catchy) to repeat, but it just ain't true. Here's a few more to chew on that you haven't heard about on US soil:

• 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.
  

-Allen

[charity]

This is the kind of thing that drive me bonkers! A bald faced statement "The worst act of domestic terrorism on U.S. soil before Oklahoma city" when it obviously was not even close! Just stuck out there as a bold assumption, in the hopes that someone will swallow it.

edited to include more of the quote

[Meta]

My documentation is the sermon from Brigham that I cited which supports my view that he was ultimately responsible.

Nah, God is ultimately responsible. He created evil.

Your avatar is strangely amusing...did you do it yourself?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Even assuming that it was remembered and reported accurately, this is, at best an enigmatic comment.

I am not as quick as Rollo and others to jump to the conclusion that it reflects Brigham Young's "true feelings on the massacre."

I'm willing to give Wilford Woodruff the benefit of the doubt that he got Brother Brigham's words right. And Brigham's words, in conjunction with his party's destroying the Carleton monument during their visit, seem to say it all (Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 183, Stanford U. Press 1950).

[Rollo Tomasi]

It may be trendy (and catchy) to repeat, but it just ain't true. Here's a few more to chew on that you haven't heard about on US soil ....

I have heard the MMM described as "the greatest massacre of Americans by Americans until the Oklahoma City bombing." This statement refers to civilians, and obviously excluded any massacres that involved Indians, soldiers or foreign powers (such as you cite).

[gtaggart]

Even assuming that it was remembered and reported accurately, this is, at best an enigmatic comment.

I am not as quick as Rollo and others to jump to the conclusion that it reflects Brigham Young's "true feelings on the massacre."

I'm willing to give Wilford Woodruff the benefit of the doubt that he got Brother Brigham's words right. And Brigham's words, in conjunction with his party's destroying the Carleton monument during their visit, seem to say it all (Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 183, Stanford U. Press 1950).

What a suprise! Does that benefit of a doubt happen to sustain your argument?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Does that benefit of a doubt happen to sustain your argument?

In this case, yes -- that BY personally agreed with what occurred at Mountain Meadows.

[rameumptom]

No one has been able to pin the deed on Brigham Young.  No one.

True enough, but Brother Brigham himself let his true feelings on the massacre be known. According to Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young visited the MMM site on May 25, 1861. Brigham looked at the monument erected a few years before by Carleton's men, which had the inscription, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." According to Woodruff, Brigham "said it should be 'vengeance is mine and I have taken a little.'" (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, edited by Scott G. Kenney, vol. 5, page 577, Signature Book 1983).

How Brigham's statement is to be understood, we can't say. Did he mean God had taken a little vengeance? Or was he sarcastically referring to the MMM murderers who believed vengeance was theirs to take, and had taken a little?

[awyatt]

It may be trendy (and catchy) to repeat, but it just ain't true. Here's a few more to chew on that you haven't heard about on US soil ....

I have heard the MMM described as "the greatest massacre of Americans by Americans until the Oklahoma City bombing." This statement refers to civilians, and obviously excluded any massacres that involved Indians, soldiers or foreign powers (such as you cite).

I, too, have heard it characterized that way. However, I disagree with the characterization because it presumes too many things not in evidence. For instance, it can be argued that the killing was not done by "civilians," but by a militia. You can argue that the milita (or civilians) were renegade, but how does their status differ, say, from how the Union soldiers viewed the Confederate soldiers during the Civil War? (The Union viewed the entire Confederacy as renegade, and events such as the Lawrence Massacre reinforced that view.)

It can also be argued that the killing was done in a time of war. The massacre of Indians (or by Indians) at various times in history is never cited as "massacres" because the Indians were never historically viewed as "human" or "civilized." (Therefore, they "don't count.") The Mormons were viewed, by many, in the same way during the mid 1800s--they were "savages" and not part of civilization. (Remember the famous "twin relics of barbarism?")

The fact is, the US had sent an Army westward to put down the "Mormon problem" (even this wording is reminiscient of putting down "Indian problems" at the time.) With an army moving against them, are you seriously going to argue that the Saints didn't consider themselves at war? History doesn't bear that out.

This is not said to justify the Mountain Meadows Massacre; I don't believe that such acts can ever be justified. They can be analyzed, they can be somewhat better understood, but they cannot be condoned or excused. I'm just pointing out that it is not the "worst" of such abberations in history, but far from the worst.

-Allen

[awyatt]

No one has been able to pin the deed on Brigham Young.

[Rollo Tomasi]

How Brigham's statement is to be understood, we can't say.  Did he mean God had taken a little vengeance? Or was he sarcastically referring to the MMM murderers who believed vengeance was theirs to take, and had taken a little?

Because Brigham was modifying a statement of the Lord, I took Brigham to mean (as I think most do) that the Lord had taken some vengeance. In other words, that the Lord (and Brigham) agreed with what had happened to the Fancher party. I don't see any indication that Brigham was being sarcastic or referring to the collective murderers taking vengeance. Of course, the destruction of the monument after Brigham's words would suggest that Brigham's party was not at all sympathetic with the victims of the massacre.

[katherine the great]

There's no way with the information available to know the extent (if any) of Brigham Young's involvement. Learning about this event expanded my mind in a couple of ways though.

1. Never say never. None of us think that we could ever be capable of such a senseless atrocity. Under certain conditions though, we really don't know what we are capable of. I still don't think I could ever kill another human being unless it was immediate self defense or defense of another, but they probably didn't either.

2. Since there was obviously a series of events (and persecutions) that motivated otherwise wonderful people to do such a heinous thing, who knows what motivated their previous persecutors? This had never occured to me before, but maybe the Missouri mobs had heard rumors of the "Mormons" threatening to kill them, or raping their women, or some such nonsense. I was always taught that the people of Missouri were a lawless bunch in general, but now I'm not sure. Maybe they were also basically decent people who did horrible things in reaction to an imagined threat.

3. These are just random thoughts running through my mind on this topic. It seems like there has to be a lesson for me here somewhere.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Or did he mean that he (Brigham) had taken a little vengeance against those who had perpetrated the MMM?

I don't think so. BY made the statement in 1861; he did not begin excommunicating MMM perpetrators until 1870 (according to Wilford Woodruff's journal).