The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

Then I suppose it's possible at that juncture Brigham did not have all the facts. Perhaps he believed, wrongly, that the wagon train consisted largely or entirely of Missouri mobbers who were boasting of their part in the killing of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Or it's possible Brigham had reference to the destruction of the cairn, not approving of its presence, even though he did not condone the massacre.

As I say, an off-hand comment reported in a journal is a tenuous basis on which to draw a definitive conclusion. I can see, though, how it would be easy to jump to such a conclusion for one already disposed to believe the worst.

[gtaggart]

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.

I apologize. I guess I didn't have the volume turned up high enough on my sarcasm for you to notice.

[katherine the great]

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).

It's also possible that Brigham Young did feel some responsibility for this. Even if he wasnt' involved directly, he could probably see how his teachings may have been influential. John D. Lee was like a son to him, and he probably didn't want to excommunicate him, and hoped for some reason not to.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Then I suppose it's possible at that juncture Brigham did not have all the facts.

...

Or it's possible Brigham had reference to the destruction of the cairn, not approving of its presence, even though he did not condone the massacre.

...

As I say, an off-hand comment reported in a journal is a tenuous basis on which to draw a definitive conclusion.

...

I can see, though, how it would be easy to jump to such a conclusion for one already disposed to believe the worst.

1. Brother Brigham had this fact -- that 120 men, women and children were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows, their bodies left to the animals and elements. There is no justification for such wholesale slaughter, no matter how you want to spin it.

2. Are you suggesting that Brigham's reference to "vengeance" was aimed at the poor indefensible cairn he was about to have demolished? That's quite a stretch, even for you, Scott.

3. Didn't sound "off hand" to me. Wilford Woodruff was there. What do you find "tenuous" about his recordation of the event? And the comment preceded the destruction of the monument at Brigham's direction. I realize you find this episode embarrassing, but let's call a spade a spade.

4. I am not "disposed to believe the worst," just reality. You are the one having the problem seeing the obvious.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then I suppose it's possible at that juncture Brigham did not have all the facts.

...

Or it's possible Brigham had reference to the destruction of the cairn, not approving of its presence, even though he did not condone the massacre.

...

As I say, an off-hand comment reported in a journal is a tenuous basis on which to draw a definitive conclusion.

...

I can see, though, how it would be easy to jump to such a conclusion for one already disposed to believe the worst.

1. Brother Brigham had this fact -- that 120 men, women and children were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows, their bodies left to the animals and elements. There is no justification for such wholesale slaughter, no matter how you want to spin it.

Maybe he was referring to Missouri mobbers in the party, not to the innocent.

2. Are you suggesting that Brigham's reference to "vengeance" was aimed at the poor indefensible cairn he was about to have demolished?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Another case of jumping to a conclusion.

The words "Vengenace is mine, and I will repay" were clearly directed toward the Mormon people. Given the tenor of the times, and considering that the Mormons had so recently been the victims of persecution, mobbing and murders themselves, destruction of such a "monument" seems justifiable under the circumstances.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Can you cite anything in all of recorded history that indicates, definitively, that Brigham felt the Mountain Meadows victims got what they deserved?

...

People are subject to human foibles and remember details inaccurately.

...

For example, on another thread, you cited someone who asserted, quite wrongly, that Mark E Petersen was editor of the Church News in 1982.)

...

I find the episode somewhat inscrutable -- far less definitive than you are insisting. Again, do you have anything else from history that signifies Brigham thought the victims got what they deserved?

1. I did cite something definitive -- Brigham's own words, which indicate that a "little" vengeance of the Lord was visited on the massacre victims.

2. BY surely evidenced "human foibles" when he made that incredibly insensitive comment at the MMM monument. And that's been my point all along.

3. I never said Petersen was the editor of the Church News, but by your own admission he was the editorial writer at the time (and until his death in 1984).

4. John D. Lee recorded in his diary that, during the same visit of BY to southern Utah, BY told him that the Fancher party constituted the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and relatives of those who had killed Joseph and Hyrum, and thus, deserved their fate. Brigham also said that the murders of the women and children troubled him, but that it couldn't be avoided (Juanita Brooks & Robert Cleland, A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 1, pp. 313-14, U. of Utah Press 1983).

[Zakuska]

Correction:

You sighted Willfords recollection of Brighams words.

Thats two very different things.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The words "Vengenace is mine, and I will repay" were clearly directed toward the Mormon people. Given the tenor of the times, and considering that the Mormons had so recently been the victims of persecution, mobbing and murders themselves, destruction of such a "monument" seems justifiable under the circumstances.

The inscription was directed at those who had perpetrated the wholesale slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless men, women and children. And that somehow justified the destruction of the monument holding the bones of some of those people? Pray tell, did the previous "persecution, mobbing and murders" of Mormons you cite (and which you claim were "recent," when in fact it had been over a decade) also "justify" the slaughter of the Fancher party? It seems that is where your argument is headed ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

Correction:

You sighted Willfords recollection of Brighams words.

Thats two very different things.

You're right ... just like the scriptures, Church magazines, class manuals, etc. cite the recollection of the words of God, prophets, other faithful members, past and current Church leaders, etc. Let's get rid of them all, eh?

[Zakuska]

Why not... Martin Luther threw quite a bit of it out.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

MMM was a horrorible event. I can barely get my mind around how ordinarilly very good people could do such a thing.

But to impune BY and by extension the Church is a huge leap in innuendo.

[Zakuska]

I agree. I don't see Rollo Impuning Jonah nor the church for his contempt and blood lust.

[Rollo Tomasi]

MMM was a horrorible event. I can barely get my mind around how ordinarilly very good people could do such a thing.

But to impune BY and by extension the Church is a huge leap in innuendo.

I'm only pointing out the evidence we have of how Brigham personally felt about the massacre, which I find abhorrent. I think Brigham did play an indirect role in all this by setting the stage for the hysteria that allowed otherwise good men to butcher unarmed and defenseless men, women and children. And, then, to read of his grossly insensitive remarks at the site of the massacre itself (along with his role in destroying the monument containing the victims' remains) upsets me beyond words.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't see Rollo Impuning Jonah nor the church for his contempt and blood lust.

Was this thread about Jonah?

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you cite anything in all of recorded history that indicates, definitively, that Brigham felt the Mountain Meadows victims got what they deserved?

...

People are subject to human foibles and remember details inaccurately.

...

For example, on another thread, you cited someone who asserted, quite wrongly, that Mark E Petersen was editor of the Church News in 1982.)

...

I find the episode somewhat inscrutable -- far less definitive than you are insisting. Again, do you have anything else from history that signifies Brigham thought the victims got what they deserved?

I did cite something definitive -- Brigham's own words, which indicate that a "little" vengeance of the Lord was visited on the massacre victims.

Stop the game playing. The journal entry is a long ways from definitively saying what you want it to. I think you know that.

BY surely evidenced "human foibles" when he made that incredibly insensitive comment at the MMM monument.  And that's been my point all along.

See above

I never said Petersen was the editor of the Church News,

Of course you didn't. The person who wrote the article to which you linked us did. I simply used that as an example of a person giving a false recollection and being quite certain of her misconception.

but by your own admission he was the editorial writer at the time (and until his death in 1984).

An editorial writer is not the equivalent of an editor. I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but I'm happy to explain it to you since you appear to be unaware of the fact.

John D. Lee recorded in his diary that, during the same visit of BY to southern Utah, BY told him that the Fancher party constituted the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and relatives of those who had killed Joseph and Hyrum, and thus, deserved their fate.  Brigham also said that the murders of the women and children troubled him, but that it couldn't be avoided (Juanita Brooks & Robert Cleland, A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, vol. 1, pp. 313-14, U. of Utah Press 1983).

John D. Lee is far from an unimpeachable source; I think most people recognize this. It strikes me as -- well -- interesting that you give his words such credence.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

Before the introduction of the telegraph and modern transportation it was several days hard ride on horseback from SLC to Cedar City. BY told them to leave the wagon train alone. By the time the message COULD get there to deed was done.

[Scott Lloyd]

The words "Vengenace is mine, and I will repay" were clearly directed toward the Mormon people. Given the tenor of the times, and considering that the Mormons had so recently been the victims of persecution, mobbing and murders themselves, destruction of such a "monument" seems justifiable under the circumstances.

The inscription was directed at those who had perpetrated the wholesale slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless men, women and children.

Back then, even moreso than today, rampant prejudice was such that it was common to blame the entire Church for the actions of a relatively few locals who acted on their own volition. I find your statement unpersuasive that the threat implied by the Bible quotation was directed just toward those who had perpetrated the violence.

And that somehow justified the destruction of the monument holding the bones of some of those people?

[Rollo Tomasi]

An editorial writer is not the equivalent of an editor. I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but I'm happy to explain it to you since you appear to be unaware of the fact.

...

John D. Lee is far from an unimpeachable source; I think most people recognize this. It strikes me as -- well -- interesting that you give his words such credence.

1. Petersen wrote the editorial on the last page of the News that represented the position of the Church on certain matters, right? Sounds pretty darn influential to me.

2. I never said John D. Lee was unimpeachable or credible -- you asked for any other statements attributed to BY on the matter, and I gave you the only other one I knew of. Here's the irony: John D. Lee's recollection of what BY expressed about the massacre is more sympathetic (i.e., at least BY expressed some regret for the murders of the women and children) than Wilford Woodruff's recollection (i.e., no carve-out for women and children).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Before the introduction of the telegraph and modern transportation it was several days hard ride on horseback from SLC to Cedar City. BY told them to leave the wagon train alone. By the time the message COULD get there to deed was done.

I agree. But I have been referencing Brigham's personal feelings on the massacre after the fact (as well as his role before the fact, in stirring up the hysteria that may have led to the massacre).

[Pace Nielsen]

Before the introduction of the telegraph and modern transportation it was several days hard ride on horseback from SLC to Cedar City. BY told them to leave the wagon train alone. By the time the message COULD get there to deed was done.

I agree. But I have been referencing Brigham's personal feelings on the massacre after the fact (as well as his role before the fact, in stirring up the hysteria that may have led to the massacre).

The country was sending an army to wipe out the Mormons and you think Brigham was stirring up hysteria??? LOL!

By the way, do you view your own role here as stirring up contention or striving for understanding?

[Scott Lloyd]

An editorial writer is not the equivalent of an editor. I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but I'm happy to explain it to you since you appear to be unaware of the fact.

...

John D. Lee is far from an unimpeachable source; I think most people recognize this. It strikes me as -- well -- interesting that you give his words such credence.

1. Petersen wrote the editorial on the last page of the News that represented the position of the Church on certain matters, right? Sounds pretty darn influential to me.

As it happens, I am in a position to use myself as an example for the purpose of comparison to explain this.

Currently, I write the editorial on the back page of the Church News about once a month. Thus, I and a few others perform the duty that Mark E. Petersen once did with regard to writing the editorial. Yet I am not, nor have I ever been the editor of the Church News. An editor is one who selects and controls the content of the publication and acts in a supervisory capacity over the writing staff. Those are not the responsibilities of an editorial writer. Surely you can see the difference.

By the way, the editorial represents the position of the publication, not necessarily the position of the Church. You have expressed a misconception that I wish you would not perpetuate.

2.

[Teancum]

How Brigham's statement is to be understood, we can't say.

[Confidential Informant]

I think Brigham did play an indirect role in all this by setting the stage for the hysteria that allowed otherwise good men to butcher unarmed and defenseless men, women and children.

Why not blame Buchanan and the other Federal officials who left Utah and returned to D.C., with patently false stories of insurrection and uprising in Utah? It was their lies that prompted the dispatch of Johnson's Army to the Utah Territory.

If that army had not been sent to Utah, the Massacre never happens.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Back then, even moreso than today, rampant prejudice was such that it was common to blame the entire Church for the actions of a relatively few locals who acted on their own volition. I find your statement unpersuasive that the threat implied by the Bible quotation was directed just toward those who had perpetrated the violence.

...

An inscription bearing a barely veiled threat against a body of religious people does not deserve respect. By contrast, the monument that is present at the site today does deserve respect.

1. I guess you can assume anything you want, but I don't recall any evidence that Carleton or his men were referring to vengeance on the Mormon people as a whole. In fact, only John D. Lee was ever punished for the massacre. Inasmuch as the cairn included the inscription that the victims "were massacred in cold blood," it seems reasonable to conclude that the accompanying "vengeance" scripture was aimed at those who murdered the emigrants "in cold blood."

2. Btw, GBH's comments at the last dediction of the MMM monument seem to indicate that he doesn't disagree with the "vengeance" statement as it relates to the perpetrators of the crime. As part of his dedicatory comments, he said, "It is time to leave the entire matter in the hands of God." In a 2000 interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, when asked who was to blame for the massacre, GBH responded, "Well, I would place that blame on the local people." And so it is left up to a just God to punish those responsible.