The Mountain Meadow Massacre

[Mickey_D29]

I think the Church to this day is in denial. I don't recall one instance in its 175 years of existence that the institutional Church has apologized for anything, so I guess this is to be expected with MMM. I think a public apology is in order for whatever role the Church, its teachings, or its leaders played in contributing to the massacre. I know, this will never happen ... because being the one and only true church means never having to say you're sorry.

Rollo, are you a Mormon?

If so I must say you represent your Church very well. you are the only one who isn't smoke screening, condescending, and setting up strawmen to further your argument. You don't speak down to others' with a possible differing opinion. You use logic and set a clear case. One that there is different to the one I believed, and I can accept that.

Your logic and the way you put the case exonnerating Brigham Young does a much better job than some other not so suttle posters' on this site. To an outsider like me, I was starting to feel that most were essentially pompus, psuedo intelletuals on this site.

Truth needs to be above organized church, and you sound like one Mormon desperately wanting to just get the truth out there and let it go away. If the Mormon Church simply appologized for the role they played, whether it be ordering it, accomplices after the fact, or engaging in a cover up, or even destroying the memorial after the slaughter no one would even be talking about it anymore.

One thing is for certain especially with the advent of the internet, chat rooms, and message boards, the Mountain Meadows Massacre will only become more of a curiousity, more conspiracy theories, and more damage to the Mormon Church.

[awyatt]

Pahoran said: The reality is that the Paiutes, led by John D. Lee, attacked the wagon train early in the morning of the 7th of September and kept up the attack until nightfall on the 10th. The Mormons only got involved once the attack was well under way.

Just one small nit to pick: John D. Lee was a Mormon, therefore Mormons were--by definition--involved from the beginning.

Pahoran said: But has the Church engaged in any "cover-up," either on behalf of the perpetrators, or to conceal its institutional guilt? No. It didn't happen.

In the beginning, probably up until the time of the trial at which John D. Lee was convicted, a convincing argument can be made that the Church (and Brigham Young) did, indeed, participate in a cover-up. It was obviously not a successful cover-up, but it existed nonetheless. Every historian I have read on the subject seems to agree with the conclusion that there was a cover-up. The primary purpose of the cover-up, as I understand it, was not to allow the guilty to go free, but to protect the Church from the expected retribution from the superior military might of the US Government. Brigham knew that the Government was largely anti-Mormon and would ascribe the actions of a few to the entire Church. (Heck, just look at how critics try to do that today.) By trying to cover-up the events and the details, he hoped to protect the larger Church.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions. I think his actions were understandable. (This does not justify the massacre or exonerate those involved; there is no justification for such actions. We can only hope to understand.)

-Allen

[awyatt]

Mickey_D29 said: If the Mormon Church simply appologized for the role they played, whether it be ordering it, accomplices after the fact, or engaging in a cover up, or even destroying the memorial after the slaughter no one would even be talking about it anymore.

Doubtful. It has been my experience that critics cannot let anything go when it comes to the LDS Church. (You might let it go, but that doesn't mean "no one would even be talking about it anymore.")

-Allen

[Serious]

When is it ever going to get clear that there were many many extenuating circumstances. When there are such huge extenuating circumstances, you cannot go around pointing fingers with a simplistic antimormon soothing explanation.

Open your eyes, mind, and maybe even your heart if it is up to that and give these people from history, who are so long dead there is hardly evidence they even existed, a break.

You know, as you judge, so shall you be judged. Would you want to be judged this way? Would you want people for hundreds of years chasing you down and calling you names filled with hate because of their judgements which were not correct.

[Mickey_D29]

because of their judgements which were not correct.

That's puting it mildly...

[Mickey_D29]

(You might let it go, but that doesn't mean "no one would even be talking about it anymore.")

-Allen

Of course I don't mean the literal "no one"...

[Pahoran]

Pahoran wrote:

Brigham did not order the massacre and neither did George A. Smith.

I agree with your statement on Brigham, but I do believe he bears some culpability for setting the stage for the ultimate massacre. I also agree with your statement about GAS, but I think he also bears culpability for enflaming the southern Utah saints that contributed to the atmosphere that made the massacre possible.

That is inflammatory rhetoric. The most "enflaming" thing that Brigham or GAS said was "the army are coming."

There is no direct evidence implicating Brigham Young, and the circumstantial evidence is flimsy or worse.

I think there is strong evidence (the Sept. 1 meeting) that implicates BY in targeting the Fancher party for engagement by the Indians.

You might, but no-one who isn't an anti-Mormon does. The September 1 meeting was a repeat of the August 30 meeting, just with different attendees. He was getting all the Indians on side, not "targeting the Fancher party." That accusation is baseless propaganda.

19th Century Utah was in no way a "fanatical theocracy."

The Oath of Vengeance would suggest otherwise, along with Brigham's preaching of blood atonement.

There was no "Oath of Vengeance," just a prayer; and only the most unscrupulous anti-Mormons repeat the discredited "blood atonement" libel.

Brigham Young was the federally appointed governor, but the Latter-day Saints lived rather quietly and inoffensively.

Brigham had already been replaced as governor, and even if he didn't know it at the time, he knew his days were numbered since the army was on the way to take him out.

Irrelevant and immaterial. He was the governor until he was properly replaced. Sending an invasion force was not exactly the standard procedure for replacing a territorial governor.

The massacre was a militia operation, not a Church-based action.

Then why did they bother to send a messenger to ask Brigham what to do?

Because--are you ready for this?

EARTH TO ROLLO! EARTH TO ROLLO! BRIGHAM WAS THE GOVERNOR!!

Who else were they going to ask?

The Mormons only got involved once the attack was well under way.

The massacre (not just the "attack") is what bothers folks to this day, and the Mormons played a leading role in the wanton slaughter of unarmed men, women and children.

Clever cropping of quotes. The point is that the old "Mormons dressed up as Indians" libel was fabricated to pretend that all the attackers were Mormons from start to finish.

Which is a lie.

There are good reasons to doubt the stories of Brigham "directing" the destruction of the cairn.

No there isn't.

Yes. There are.

As you very well know.

If that did happen, the likely explanation is to be found in the threatening inscription to be found thereon, and not in Brigham's approval of the massacre.  Note that at this time he had still not been told who did what, and still believed that the Indians were responsible.

He also believed the Fanchers got what they deserved.

How do you know? Did you ask him?

If you'd ever been a Latter-day Saint, Rollo, you'd know that false accusations are not acceptable.

... the massacre took place three hundred miles away from Brigham and outside his immediate control.

I'll ask again: if this were true, why was a messenger sent to Brigham to ask what to do?

Asked and answered.

The notion that it somehow demonstrates that the Church of Jesus Christ "is founded on, fanaticism, perversion (multiple wives), and murder" is a grossly ignorant one that has no basis in reality.

I agree, but things like MMM, the Oath of Vengeance, blood atonement, etc., make folks wonder why a religion (or at least some of its early leaders) seemed so damn bloodthirsty.

But since you and I both know that the MMM was a one-off aberration, and since you and I both know that the so-called "Oath of Vengeance" was nothing but a prayer, and since you and I both know that the "blood atonement" is baseless, neither of us would be so low as to try to exploit any of these things to create the impression that it was "so damn bloodthirsty," since you and I both know that that impression is false.

The culprits in the MMM were the participants therein.  There is no need to look any farther afield than Cedar City.

I disagree. Expand your focus to include SLC and I think you've got everyone.

Expand it to include the whole planet and we've still got everyone. All of them happened to live in or near Cedar City.

By what logic can a defensive military action be regarded as a "cause" of an event if the offensive operation to which it responds is not?

BY's defensive plan included shutting down the trails in Utah to overland emigrant travel. The Fanchers were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They certainly were. Brigham is not to be blamed for choosing the only defensive strategy available to him.

Brigham did not order Johnston's army into Utah; James Buchanan did.  Therefore it is his famous "blunder" that provides us with the "proximate cause" for the massacre.

More "proximate" was GAS's incendiary tour through southern Utah and BY's instructions at the Sept. 1 meeting.

Since GAS did not say the "incendiary" things Lee/Bishop accused him of saying, and since the Sept. 1 meeting was too late to actually start matters off, you are plainly wrong.

In any event, Brigham's defensive preparations were simply part of the chain of events that was set in motion by Buchanan's Blunder, which is therefore the "proximate cause." (Look it up.)

Finally there is the question of a cover-up.  Was there one?

I think so. Lee was the sacrificial lamb.

Hardly.

I think Lee received justice, but I think many others escaped justice.

This is true, but the real explanation has nothing to do with any "cover-up."

But has the Church engaged in any "cover-up," either on behalf of the perpetrators, or to conceal its institutional guilt?

I think the Church to this day is in denial. I don't recall one instance in its 175 years of existence that the institutional Church has apologized for anything, so I guess this is to be expected with MMM.

IOW, since you have no evidence for a cover-up, you will resort to a blanket appeal to prejudice. Got it.

I think a public apology is in order for whatever role the Church, its teachings, or its leaders played in contributing to the massacre.

None, none and none, respectively.

I know, this will never happen ... because being the one and only true church means never having to say you're sorry. 

Not quite; but not doing anything wrong helps.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

The primary purpose of the cover-up, as I understand it, was not to allow the guilty to go free, but to protect the Church from the expected retribution from the superior military might of the US Government. Brigham knew that the Government was largely anti-Mormon and would ascribe the actions of a few to the entire Church. (Heck, just look at how critics try to do that today.) By trying to cover-up the events and the details, he hoped to protect the larger Church.

Isn't this also the reasoning that led the attack to become a massacre?

My understanding was that the rationale for the massacre was fear that the survivors of the attacks would on their arrival in CA? inflame the population against all the LDS and that would lead to another Missouri with no real place for LDS to retreat to this time. The militia men not only feared for themselves, but for the lives of their own women and children and considering how many of them had already watched some of these die, their fear was not entirely irrational. They could have, indeed, been totally correct. Eyewitness testimony as opposed to confused conjecture could have triggered more pogroms against church members as had occurred in the past.

Wrong choice, of course, anyway imo (there are some things one just doesn't do even in defense of others who are totally dependent on you for support and safety) but it is still not uncommon today for accidents or lesser crimes to escalate without intention to more tragic and horrible ones. Fear is a horrible thing.

All one has to do is to look at crimes committed during Vietnam and other wars to know what ordinary men placed in extraordinary situations are capable of. However, the statistics demonstrate that this occurrence is the exception for the military, happens more than they want (once is more), but still is in a small minority.

Obviously the MMM is an uncommon occurrence in LDS history. To claim that the religion is therefore founded on "fanaticism, perversion, and murder," wouldn't one have to also apply that to other organizations also involved in the past in such things, especially those where it happened more often?

The US Army has a much worse record against the native population, including men, women and children, around the same time period, for example. Using the logic that condemns the LDS faith for MMM, do you also condemn the US government and its founding fathers for the Army's behaviour?

[Mickey_D29]

The US Army has a much worse record against the native population, including men, women and children, around the same time period, for example. Using the logic that condemns the LDS faith for MMM, do you also condemn the US government and its founding fathers for the Army's behaviour?

****STRAWMAN****

Can't anyone come up with a retort that doesn't rely on these ridiculous strawmen argumets?

1. The U.S. armies actions or whether or not I condemn it has ZERO to do with the Mormon churches involvement in the massacre, or subsequent cover up. Nor does it somehow vindicate them, or advance your arguments or opinion in the slightest.

2. The US Government and the US Army is NOT a religion or faith, it is an organization trained to kill the enemies of the United States and follow orders without discussion. apples/oranges...

[Serious]

The US Army has a much worse record against the native population, including men, women and children, around the same time period, for example.  Using the logic that condemns the LDS faith for MMM, do you also condemn the US government and its founding fathers for the Army's behaviour?

****STRAWMAN****

Can't anyone come up with a retort that doesn't rely on these ridiculous strawmen argumets?

1. The U.S. armies actions or whether or not I condemn it has ZERO to do with the Mormon churches involvement in the massacre, or subsequent cover up. Nor does it somehow vindicate them, or advance your arguments or opinion in the slightest.

2. The US Government and the US Army is NOT a religion or faith, it is an organization trained to kill the enemies of the United States and follow orders without discussion. apples/oranges...

I just wonder what you personally are getting out of these attacks. You pretend to be interested? no you don't pretend to be interested in understanding what was really happening back then.

It is an outright attack on the church you are enjoying here. What makes you any better than those men who attacked at MMM?

You are worse, you keep doing it over and over and over again. At least this MMM was a one time thing.

This goes for all of you antis who think you are so blameless you can come and throw stones at the dead, just to try and hurt a church.

It really shows some kind of psychosis if you ask me.

[James Clifford Miller]

Over one hundred and forty-eight years ago, a wagon train travelling from Arkansas to California on the Southern Route through Utah was ambushed and massacred by a mixed force of Southern Paiute warriors and mostly Mormon militia from Iron County, in Southern Utah. Ever since that time, the Mountain Meadow Massacre has been a cause celebre for anti-Mormons. Many, like Beadle and Bagley, have tried to make Brigham Young personally responsible for ordering the massacre; others, like our own Rollo, have tried the more sophisticated tack of trying to get him close enough to it to merely smear him by association.

In this thread, we shall discuss three questions: (1) the causes of the massacre--what were the events that brought it about; (2) the culprits behind it--who was responsible; and (3) the aftermath, and especially whether and to what extent there was any "cover-up" of the events and if so, by whom.

In the course of the discussion, I would like us to consider the following questions:

While discussing the culprits: did Brigham Young order the massacre? Is there any direct evidence implicating him? If not, can any argument be made based upon the notion that 19th Century Utah was some kind of "fanatical theocracy" in which all Mormons were strictly regimented and no-one would or could panic without orders, or is this notion an expression of mere prejudice?

Did the Mormon participants "dress as Indians" as some early libels claimed?

Did Brigham Young "go back to rip apart the makeshift grave and cross dedicated to 140 men, women and children?" If so, did that indicate his approval of the massacre, or is some more reasonable and humane explanation to hand?

Does the massacre constitute evidence against the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ? Does it have any relevance to what the Church is founded upon, or are rants about "fanaticism, perversion and murder" simply evidence of extreme prejudice on the part of the one doing the ranting?

Let the discussion begin. Keep it civil, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pres. Buchanan ordered the army to Utah because the LDS had driven out all (and perhaps killed one or more) of the legally appointed Federal Territorial officials and the Pres. wished to quell what was a real rebellion. And Pres. Young felt he was about to be deposed. At the time, the Utah Territory was in the midst of a multi-year "Utah Reformation," in which there are documented cases of some violence against malcontents. Many LDS who sickened of the overzealousness left the Territory and were called "backouts" by those who remained. Speeches by Brigham Young and others from this period include a discussion of the necessity of atonement by the shedding of the blood of the sinful. The year the Francher train set out, Pres. Young decided to send a message to the incoming army and to the U.S. President that Young controlled access into the Territory and would resist being desposed. Prior to the Francher train, several wagon trains on the Northern Trail were harrassed by men dressed as Indians, but speaking fluent English.

In SLC, Young both personally spoke with indian chiefs from several tribes and had emissaries speak to them promissing them the loot of the wagon trains. Young then issued printed orders that no LDS should trade with any trains coming through and verbal orders that the LDS should permit Indians to attack any wagon train not bearing his personal written pass. The Francher train, without such a pass, was directed to the Southern Trail with the Mountain Meadows location near Cedar City decided as the ambush point. Stories that the Francher train had some of the mob that killed Joseph Smith, acted offensively, or in any way brought the ambush on themselves come only from LDS sources and can only be found starting 20 years later and not at the time.

As planned, some Piutes and members of the Iron County Brigade of the Nauvoo Legion painted as Indians (rather as backup) attacked the train on the first day [There is documentation that Legion troopers did paint themselves as Indians]. However, the train fought back to strongly and the Indians soon lost any interest so Lee and other Nauvoo Legion leaders had to send to Cedar City for reinforcements to finish what the Indians refused to do. Some Legion troopers had been told they were part of a burial party, but on arrival at MM discovered that they were expected to shoot at the train members. After several days of inconclusive fighting, some of the Legion troopers, really sickened by the fighting, asked that a rider be sent to Brigham Young for a definitive ruling. Diaries from the period indicate that some Cedar City LDS were aghast at the massacre and refused to take part. After five days -- repeat five days -- of continuous and ineffective fighting, and before the rider had returned, Lee arranged for the fake surrender and then at point blank range, the Legion troopers shot the remaining train members under the white flag of surrender. The rider with the orders to leave the train alone arrived after the betrayal of the surrender.

Back in 2002 after Bagley's and Denton's books on the MMM came out, the LDS Church promised that Turley and other LDS historians would be given full access to LDS archives for a rebuttal book which would conclusively disprove any guilt to Pres. Young. Well, it's now 2005 and no such official rebuttal book has surfaced.

When I was on my mission, a fellow missionary from the Cedar City area told me that his ancestors had taken very reluctant part in the MMM, and then only did it because Apostle Smith had assured them it was Young's order to do so. Afterward, when Young avoided any guilt and scapegoated Lee, some in the family felt betrayed by the Church and by Young. Indeed, the historical record shows a number of LDS from Cedar City left immediately after the MMM.

I doubt that members of a real god's church would be asked to massacre people like this. At the same time, I think there is historical evidence that Young thought the Indians would do the massacring and was horrified when Legion troopers had to take over and finish the job.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[Mickey_D29]

You are worse, you keep doing it over and over and over again. At least this MMM was a one time thing.

This goes for all of you antis who think you are so blameless you can come and throw stones at the dead, just to try and hurt a church.

It really shows some kind of psychosis if you ask me.

A psychosis is being so loyal to a Chruch you call a complete stranger WORSE than a group of cowardly mass murderers.

What makes me better than those at MMM?

Well for one I never executed a man in cold blood. i also never bashed a womans brain in after executing her husband. That's two reasons, is that good enough?

Funny thing is I was actually curious about this church, since coming here not one has witnessed to me, only insulted, denigrated, and wrote posts similar to yours. kudo's!

[Serious]

A psychosis is being so loyal to a Chruch you call a complete stranger WORSE than a group of cowardly mass murderers.

What makes me better than those at MMM?

Well for one I never executed a man in cold blood. i also never bashed a womans brain in after executing her husband. That's two reasons, is that good enough?

Funny thing is I was actually curious about this church, since coming here not one has witnessed to me, only insulted, denigrated, and wrote posts similar to yours. kudo's! 

Absolutely, you have murdered in cold heart. Cold blood. There is more than one way to murder.

I have never tried to destroy others by throwing garbage in their face day in and day out. I have never tried to take your personal beliefs and string you up with them.

Spiritual murder is just as real and life changing as physical murder. You show an attitude of total disrespect for all LDS and then say you come into LDS territory and are attacked.

How odd. I guess if you wanted to get along with people while in their territory you would show respect for them.

I can just imagine you going into someone's home and ripping the furniture up claiming it wasn't good enough for you and therefore they are to thank you for such a great gift of enlightenment and caring.

Man you need help.

[Mickey_D29]

O.K. buddy, have a good night I have no time for such nonsense, I enjoy debating with someone with at least one intelligible thought.

"Absolutely, you have murdered in cold heart. Cold blood. There is more than one way to murder."

Can someone tell me what this means? Anyone?

Questioning the actions of the early leaders of your churchs' involvement in a terrible attrocity, is NOT attacking your Theology buddy, grow up!

[Serious]

O.K. buddy, have a good night I have no time for such nonsense, I enjoy debating with someone with at least one intelligible thought.

"Absolutely, you have murdered in cold heart. Cold blood. There is more than one way to murder."

Can someone tell me what this means? Anyone?

Questioning the actions of the early leaders of your churchs' involvement in a terrible attrocity, is NOT attacking your Theology buddy, grow up!

Maybe you need some quotes of statements made on this thread or maybe you should just read it again as if you were LDS.

There are teachings about murder in 1 John 3:15. Growing up as we speak.

[Mickey_D29]

Maybe you need some quotes of statements made on this thread or maybe you should just read it again as if you were LDS.

There are teachings about murder in 1 John 3:15. Growing up as we speak.

Hey Hey we're both murderers then mister holier than thou...

I wonder if those at the MMM would rather have their heads bashed in by rifle butts, or just have the Mormons dislike them?

Alright enough I've stooped to your level enough for one day...

[Serious]

Maybe you need some quotes of statements made on this thread or maybe you should just read it again as if you were LDS.

There are teachings about murder in 1 John 3:15. Growing up as we speak.

Hey Hey we're both murderers then mister holier than thou...

I wonder if those at the MMM would rather have their heads bashed in by rifle butts, or just have the Mormons dislike them?

Alright enough I've stooped to your level enough for one day...

In all my growing up I discovered that I have righteous indignation based upon love of my fellow saints. Being disgusted with destroyers of the faith isn't hate.

I don't see me over on the anti board giving them the same slaps they deserve just because I could. Yet it is here the antis come.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

We aren't here to "witness" Mickey, we are here to discuss Mormonism. Now, don't be judging Mormonism because someone during a debate gets a little heated up. Insults aren't allowed here Mickey, if you have a problem, you call a mod. Serious, I do think you need to cool it, you maybe frustrated, but you really shouldn't be questioning Mickey's sanity.

[Serious]

We aren't here to "witness" Mickey, we are here to discuss Mormonism. Now, don't be judging Mormonism because someone during a debate gets a little heated up. Insults aren't allowed here Mickey, if you have a problem, you call a mod. Serious, I do think you need to cool it, you maybe frustrated, but you really shouldn't be questioning Mickey's sanity.

I agree Mickey got the bulk of the attack which I shouldn't have made, it was the combination of several putting out attackful statement after statement, pages and pages of them that finally broke my silence.

[Sput]

I agree Mickey got the bulk of the attack which I shouldn't have made, it was the combination of several putting out attackful statement after statement, pages and pages of them that finally broke my silence.

I retract my post as it would waste more time and effort on trying to get mickey_d to see the well documented rebuttals to the account of the MMM he is reading.

Anyways have charges been brought on Brigham Young yet? Or is the LDS Church and Brigham Young still not responsible for the MMM?

[Garden Girl]

I really don't believe there can be a Latter-Day Saint in the Church through the years that does not regret that such a tragedy as Mountain Meadows took place, and are troubled and have a hard time understanding how it could happen. But we do have a different perspective about the times and events that contributed... and this is not to make strawman excuses... for there is no excuse. We LDS do not deny the terrible actions of that event... but we can look at our history... how about the massacres of our innocent people at Far West and Haun's Mill? Men killed... women raped... farms looted and burned... being driven from place to place... state to state... Even the murder of our Prophet... suffice it to say that there is NO EXCUSE for those actions against the early saints... Who was responsible for those attacks? What churches did these "God-fearing Christians" belong to? Yes, all courtesy of the local mobs, most of whom would go to church on Sunday and boast about their latest "wolf-hunt." I don't see people like Mickey D29 rushing to condemn their actions, demanding explanations, pointing fingers.

I'm not making excuses for the people, Mormons or not, who participated in the atrocity of MMM. But today there are those outside the Church who seem to relish beating and beating upon the entire Church over something we can do nothing about today. But they delight in attacking... anything, anything, to discredit the Church.

[Daniel Peterson]

Pres. Buchanan ordered the army to Utah because the LDS had driven out all (and perhaps killed one or more) of the legally appointed Federal Territorial officials and the Pres. wished to quell what was a real rebellion.

Not true.

In SLC, Young both personally spoke with indian chiefs from several tribes and had emissaries speak to them promissing them the loot of the wagon trains.  Young then issued printed orders that no LDS should trade with any trains coming through and verbal orders that the LDS should permit Indians to attack any wagon train not bearing his personal written pass.  The Francher [sic] train, without such a pass, was directed to the Southern Trail with the Mountain Meadows location near Cedar City decided as the ambush point.

Not true.

Back in 2002 after Bagley's and Denton's books on the MMM came out, the LDS Church promised that Turley and other LDS historians would be given full access to LDS archives for a rebuttal book which would conclusively disprove any guilt to Pres. Young.  Well, it's now 2005 and no such official rebuttal book has surfaced.

The authors, with whom I'm slightly acquainted, are still working on it. They have been astonished at the quantity of material to be examined and digested. They want their book to be as solid as humanly possible. Any serious academic writer knows that, sometimes, there is more research to be done than one had initially anticipated, and that expected completion dates sometimes have to be postponed. Be patient.

When I was on my mission, a fellow missionary from the Cedar City area told me that his ancestors had taken very reluctant part in the MMM, and then only did it because Apostle Smith had assured them it was Young's order to do so.

So, in 2005, we have your version of an anonymous 19-21 year-old missionary's account of an alleged family tradition allegedly deriving from 1857 that purports to explain what an unspecified number of his unidentified ancestors of x generations previously had allegedly done on the basis of their alleged version of their alleged understanding of alleged comments (otherwise apparently unattested) by George A. Smith that supposedly reflected Elder Smith's alleged understanding of an alleged directive from Brigham Young.

This is, to put it mildly, not strong evidence.

Afterward, when Young avoided any guilt and scapegoated Lee,

It seems that President Young continues to avoid guilt in this matter, since, as observed, there is no substantial evidence implicating him.

some in the family felt betrayed by the Church and by Young.

Are you still basing yourself on the alleged family traditions of your anonymous young missionary? Very nearly 1.5 centuries separate us from the purported origin of the oral tradition that you claim to have heard from this 19-21 year-old fellow. Do you really expect us to put much stock in your memory of what he may have said about what his ancestors may have said about what others may have done?

Indeed, the historical record shows a number of LDS from Cedar City left immediately after the MMM.

Do you have a specific reference to "the historical record" that we can examine? Does "the historical record" indicate that these Latter-day Saints who allegedly left Cedar City did so because of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

I doubt that members of a real god's church would be asked to massacre people like this.

First of all, once again, there exists no substantial evidence indicating that either Brigham Young or George A. Smith asked anyone to massacre anybody. Secondly, the sinfulness and fearfulness of human beings says nothing whatever about whether God exists or whether a particular church is his Church. Since God does not rob us of our wills or our agency, we are entirely free, even as members of his Church, to do wrong.

At the same time, I think there is historical evidence that Young thought the Indians would do the massacring and was horrified when Legion troopers had to take over and finish the job.

If so, you urgently need to bring this to the attention of a historian.

[Serious]

Good points.

[juliann]

I really don't believe there can be a Latter-Day Saint in the Church through the years that does not regret that such a tragedy as Mountain Meadows took place, and are troubled and have a hard time understanding how it could happen.

In all honesty...when I read the triumphant denunciations in these kinds of threads I come away feeling that the counter-Mormons are rather gleeful that it happened.

[Serious]

I really don't believe there can be a Latter-Day Saint in the Church through the years that does not regret that such a tragedy as Mountain Meadows took place, and are troubled and have a hard time understanding how it could happen.

In all honesty...when I read the triumphant denunciations in these kinds of threads I come away feeling that the counter-Mormons are rather gleeful that it happened.

They definitely are. They have no charity or true feelings for those People. They have no understanding of how transparent they really are.

They could care less about those people and in essence have remurdered them over and over. I doubt those people who were in the MMM are not happily enjoying a higher kingdom and glory because of their untimely demise.

So they can't possibly be trying to get justice or redress for them. It is all about having a weapon with which to whip the church because they have fallen into darkness and resent anyone still walking in the light.