The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

Just searching for truth.

[awyatt]

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).

So you are basing your rejection of that interpretation solely on the timeline and on the feeling that the only acceptable "vengeance" is excommunication? Hmmm.

Whoever put the carrion together in the first place quoted "Vengeance is mine." That statement would have been directed toward retribution for the act of the MMM--toward those responsible.

When Brigham had the sign taken down and said that he had taken some vengeance, it is entirely possible that he was referring to him (Brigham) as the Lord's representative, taking a little vengeance against those who perpetrated the massacre.

Of course, we don't have enough information to favor this interpretation over any other interpretation of the statement. Thus, the interpretation we personally chose reflects our own feelings about Brigham and his involvement (or lack thereof) in the event.

-Allen

[Pace Nielsen]

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

Just searching for truth.

A worthy goal. I truly hope you find what you seek. (Just be careful about how you go about searching. Sometimes a "search" becomes a "witch hunt".)

[Rollo Tomasi]

Given what the saints went through an angry statement with a bit of emotional relishing is not any indication that Brigham was behind it.

...

Also, let's add up all the LDS who were killed, tortured, raped, died crossing the plains as a result of the Missourians and those in Illinois as well as the inactionof the US givernment. My guess is this act of civilian terrorism is more in deaths then MMM was. Just add Haun's Mill to the Martin Hand Cart group and there is more then 120. And yes, driving the LDS out and the resulting deaths, everyone of them, can be laid at the feet of the citizens fo Illinois and Missouri.

1. I didn't say Brigham's comments at the monument proved (or even indicated) that he was behind the massacre -- just that they revealed how he personally felt about the massacre of 120 men, women and children.

2. Are you arguing that the persecutions experienced by Mormons in Illinois and Missouri somehow justified the wholesale slaughter of the Fancher party?

3. The 1856 debacle of the Martin & Willie handcart companies was not caused by Haun's Mill or any other persecution some 20 years before -- it happened because the companies left too late in the season and winter came unexpectedly early. Besides, this excused the murders of 120 Fancher emigrants, how?

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Oh, there's plenty of blame to spread around. I just think Brigham ought to be included for his role in setting the stage.

[Zakuska]

Setting the stage?

And how was that exctly?

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

" 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)."

I'm not God, and I don't give a rats a-- about peoples "feelings". Show me what you DO and I'll know what you believe.

BY DID NOT stir up hysteria. He told them to leave them alone. Acting as Governor he conducted an investigation. People lied. When the truth finally came out some 20 years later. He personally signed the EXECUTION ORDERS for his SON.

[Rollo Tomasi]

When Brigham had the sign taken down and said that he had taken some vengeance, it is entirely possible that he was referring to him (Brigham) as the Lord's representative, taking a little vengeance against those who perpetrated the massacre.

I was simply basing my observations on YOUR argument that Brigham was referring to himself as he who "had taken" vengeance on the MMM perpetrators -- why would he use this past tense in 1861 if he didn't punish the perpetrators until 1870? (the only evidence we have of punishment by BY is the excommunications in 1870). I was simply pointing out this basic fallacy in your argument. Or are you arguing that Brigham's "vengeance" against the MMM perpetrators was to destroy Carleton's defenseless cairn? (which threatened the perpetrators with vengeance in the first place). Seems to me that BY's destruction of the cairn was supportive of the MMM perpetrators, not some form of punishment.

[Edgar]

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

Wasn't Wilford Woodruff the Church Historian at the time? Didn't he complete the History of the Church? Dean C. Jessee wrote an article about the journals and record keeping ability of Wilford Woodruff in the July 1993 Ensign.

A few quotes from that article: I [Woodruff] seldom ever heard the Prophet Joseph, or Brigham Young, or the Apostles teach, preach, or prophesy or perform any official act but what I have recorded it in my journals unless some other persons were recording the same, and I could not feel easy until I had accomplished it.

A few years earlier he had observed that

[Scott Lloyd]

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."

Someone convinced in his mind (as you are, by the way) that blame for the killings extends to Brigham Young might, by extension indict the Mormon people as a whole and might not hesitate to mount or support a mob action against the Mormons, which had been their unhappy lot for almost the entire less-than-40-year history of the Church. This, according to a mobber's twisted reasoning, might constitute God taking "vengeance."

Again, given the rampant prejudice and tenor of the times, destruction of the cairn was justifiable.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Wasn't Wilford Woodruff the Church Historian at the time? Didn't he complete the History of the Church? Dean C. Jessee wrote an article about the journals and record keeping ability of Wilford Woodruff in the July 1993 Ensign.

A few quotes from that article: I [Woodruff] seldom ever heard the Prophet Joseph, or Brigham Young, or the Apostles teach, preach, or prophesy or perform any official act but what I have recorded it in my journals unless some other persons were recording the same, and I could not feel easy until I had accomplished it.

A few years earlier he had observed that “a great portion of the Church history has been compiled from my journals, and some of the most glorious gospel sermons, truths, and revelations that were given from God to this people … could not be found upon the earth on record only in my journals.” For example, of sixteen discourses of Joseph Smith recorded by Wilford Woodruff in his diary, nine are exclusive reports preserved by no one else.

In 1852 he [Woodruff] was appointed clerk and historian of the Quorum of the Twelve. Four years later he began thirty-four years of service as a historian in the Church Historian’s Office. As he began his new assignment, it became his responsibility to write the history of the Church during the last days of Joseph Smith’s life. This was a challenging task due to the lack of firsthand information, but by soliciting accounts from widely scattered eyewitnesses and carefully analyzing their contradictory reminiscences, Elder Woodruff was finally able to complete the history through the end of the Prophet’s lifetime."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am surprised the journal entry of the official church historian is being dismissed so quickly. Isn't Woodruff noted because of his journals and record keeping?

The comment may not fit with your point of view but I encourage you to reconsider the validity of Woodruff's journal.

My quarrel is not with Wilford Woodruff but with Rollo's interpretation of a quotation in his journal. I don't buy it that President Woodruff's intent was to portray Brigham Young as someone who rationalized atrocities against innocents. I don't accept that Wilford Woodruff believed that about Brigham Young.

[Pahoran]

Rollo,

you sanctimoniously intoned:

Just searching for truth.

Excuse me while I go barf.

If you were really "searching for truth" you would not be so quick to dismiss anything that is contrary to the propaganda you are trying to propagate.

As it is, you know perfectly well that your "searching for truth" slogan is just a cover-up.

You subsequently wrote:

Oh, there's plenty of blame to spread around. I just think Brigham ought to be included for his role in setting the stage.

His "role in setting the stage" was to prepare the people to defend themselves against an unprovoked attack. Since the attack fully justified the defense, he did nothing that any reasonable person would find blameworthy, although rabid anti-Mormon fanatics would undoubtedly disagree.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

Setting the stage?

And how was that exctly?

In brief, Brigham prepared Utah for war with the coming U.S. Army, including stirring the people into a state of frenzy. One way was to send Apostle and 1st Pres. counselor George A. Smith on a tour of southern Utah to stir up the folks to resist the soldiers. A good synopsis of this is in Juanita Brooks's John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat, pages 200-03, and Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, pages 81-87 (there are many other sources, of course, but these are the only two I have on hand at the moment).

[Edgar]

My quarrel is not with Wilford Woodruff but with Rollo's interpretation of a quotation in his journal. I don't buy it that President Woodruff's intent was to portray Brigham Young as someone who rationalized atrocities against innocents.

Thanks for clarifying about Woodruff. What is your view of Young's words?

This is from one of Rollo's posts: 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.'"

Specifically, what do you think Brigham Young meant with the words "and I have taken a little" and for whom was he speaking?

[Scott Lloyd]

My quarrel is not with Wilford Woodruff but with Rollo's interpretation of a quotation in his journal. I don't buy it that President Woodruff's intent was to portray Brigham Young as someone who rationalized atrocities against innocents.

Thanks for clarifying about Woodruff. What is your view of Young's words?

This is from one of Rollo's posts: 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.'"

Specifically, what do you think Brigham Young meant with the words "and I have taken a little" and for whom was he speaking?

Please take a moment to read through the posts on this thread. I believe you will find your questions already answered therein.

[Rollo Tomasi]

He personally signed the EXECUTION ORDERS for his SON.

Judge Jacob Boreman sentenced John D. Lee to death. John D. Lee chose the mode of execution -- firing squad. The execution order was signed by Utah Governor George Emery.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I find it unseemly to compare President Hinckley with prejudiced Mormon haters of the 1860s.

You brought up today's monument, and my quotes from GBH relate to that monument. Like Carleton's men, GBH placed blame squarely with the local Mormons who participated in the massacre. Was GBH mistaken?

[Rollo Tomasi]

His "role in setting the stage" was to prepare the people to defend themselves against an unprovoked attack. Since the attack fully justified the defense, he did nothing that any reasonable person would find blameworthy, although rabid anti-Mormon fanatics would undoubtedly disagree.

Did that "defense" include the wholesale murder of 120 unarmed and defenseless men, women and children?

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it unseemly to compare President Hinckley with prejudiced Mormon haters of the 1860s.

You brought up today's monument, and my quotes from GBH relate to that monument. Like Carleton's men, GBH placed blame squarely with the local Mormons who participated in the massacre. Was GBH mistaken?

How do you know that's what Carleton's men were doing?

The context of the times would not lend themselves to that conclusion.

And even if they were, the potentially inflammatory nature of the slogan on the cairn, given the tenor of the times, would be enough to justify its removal.

[Rollo Tomasi]

How do you know that's what Carleton's men were doing?

The context of the times would not lend themselves to that conclusion.

The Carleton cairn also contained the statement of the date and numbers of folks "murdered in cold blood." Thus, I think it is very reasonable to conclude that Carleton's men were swearing (or praying for) vengeance against those who had perpetrated the referenced "cold-blooded murder." The context and circumstances of this particular episode, indeed, do lend themselves to this conclusion.

EDITED TO ADD:

The vengeance quote is only "inflammatory" to those who justified (or approved of) the massacre. Even so, why didn't they just remove the cross on top of the cairn that had the vengance quote? There was no need to destroy the entire monument that contained the victims' bones.

[Scott Lloyd]

His "role in setting the stage" was to prepare the people to defend themselves against an unprovoked attack.  Since the attack fully justified the defense, he did nothing that any reasonable person would find blameworthy, although rabid anti-Mormon fanatics would undoubtedly disagree.

Did that "defense" include the wholesale murder of 120 unarmed and defenseless men, women and children?

Are you now arguing that Brigham Young ordered the massacre?

If not, your response doesn't make sense.

[Scott Lloyd]

How do you know that's what Carleton's men were doing?

The context of the times would not lend themselves to that conclusion.

The Carleton cairn also contained the statement of the date and numbers of folks "murdered in cold blood." Thus, I think it is very reasonable to conclude that Carleton's men were swearing (or praying for) vengeance against those who had perpetrated the referenced "cold-blooded murder." The context and circumstances of this particular episode, indeed, do lend themselves to this conclusion.

Someone with a mob mentality -- such as those who had heaped persecution on the Mormons -- could talk himself into believeing the Mormons as a whole committed "cold-blooded murder."

Never understimate the stupidity of a mobber.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you now arguing that Brigham Young ordered the massacre?

If not, your response doesn't make sense.

Nope. I was merely observing that Pahoran seems to argue that the massacre was to be expected in light of the defense tactics of BY, or at least that the hysteria which led to the massacre was a proper tactic.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Never understimate the stupidity of a mobber.

... or those who would try to justify or excuse away their actions.

[Confidential Informant]

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.

Oh, there's plenty of blame to spread around. I just think Brigham ought to be included for his role in setting the stage.

But that's the whole point, Yound didn't set the stage. He was simply reacting to unjust agression from his very own government. It's not like the Saints didn't have precedent to be concerned.

C.I.