The Mountain Meadow Massacre

[awyatt]

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"?

Talk about apples and oranges. Sheesh!

Two things:

First, I don't think it is in anyone's interest (American Indian or otherwise) to seek "accountability" for things that happened generations ago. There is only madness down that path.

Second, nobody ever said that the genocide pursued by the US Army (or any other army on this hemisphere) against Native Americans was "committed by rogue commanders." There was a definite chain of command and the campaign went on for decades.

That, however, was not the case with the single abberation that became known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There was no other systematic killing of those coming through Utah; it didn't go on for decades. There were no orders from "command" (or the Church) to kill those coming through Utah.

Apples and oranges.

-Allen

[Mickey_D29]

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

There is circumstantial evidence, but I've already conceeded that probably the Chruch is not responsible for the Massacre per se'. however they are definitely responsible for setting the climate that lead to the massacre. (again the Catholic Church appologized for Passion plays because of the anti-semitism it sparked that lead to many deaths of Jews). There's many ways to bear responsibility in an action, not just ordering the trigger pulled.

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

Then why does the modern day church still not apologize or acknowledge any wrong doing in the massacre or subsequent events after, where essentially no one was punished except one patsy? Even though hundreds participated?

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.

Both

But what do we do with that information? Do we declare the early Church leaders morally bankrupt

No we declare them men who made a mistake, the modern church should address that, instead of declaring themselves to be completly innocent of any wrong doing, because that's the right thing to do, especially leading a large congregation. I mean the Catholic Church apologized for the Galileo incident HUNDREDS of years after the fact. An apology and accountability does a ton.

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?

Brought those who commited the crime to justice I think. The nation had already condemned the Mormon Chruch anyway. Reinging in those who perpetrated the crime would've gone a long way to assuage some of the ill will IMO. A lot more than hiding those responsible has...

[Serious]

This reminds me of a story where a man used any means seemingly legitamate to give an issue air time.

His goal wasn't to understand or get justice or learn anything. It twas all about getting air time for his campaign against his enemy.

Like playing chess, you have to know when you are being attacked and understand the goal of their game. It isn't to become more enlightened or because he loves our company, it is to get air time.

[Mickey_D29]

Talk about apples and oranges. Sheesh!

-Allen

I know you proved my point...

YOU brought up the American Indian masscares and my thoughts on them, they have nothing to do with the topic, so don't bring it into the topic, they do nothing for either side.

[Mickey_D29]

Like playing chess, you have to know when you are being attacked and understand the goal of their game. It isn't to become more enlightened or because he loves our company, it is to get air time.

Like I said before, if you feel me questioning the mysterious events surrounding MMM is an attack on your faith. Then you my friend should go back and see what you are really puting your faith in? Is it a man? An institution? Or is it the fundemental doctrines of your religion that are accepted on faith alone, and could never be attacked because the articles are taken on faith?

[Serious]

Like playing chess, you have to know when you are being attacked and understand the goal of their game. It isn't to become more enlightened or because he loves our company, it is to get air time.

Like I said before, if you feel me questioning the mysterious events surrounding MMM is an attack on your faith. Then you my friend should go back and see what you are really puting your faith in? Is it a man? An institution? Or is it the fundemental doctrines of your religion that are accepted on faith alone, and could never be attacked because the articles are taken on faith?

I don't listen to riff raff like you. I listen to God and in Him I put my faith. If I were to put my faith in the arm of flesh then I would be damned just as many who have left the church because their faith in men was shattered.

[Mickey_D29]

I don't listen to riff raff like you. I listen to God and in Him I put my faith. If I were to put my faith in the arm of flesh then I would be damned just as many who have left the church because their faith in men was shattered.

So we agree I am not attacking your faith then, good.

Peace Serious, you really are Serious.

Lighten up a good honest debate doesn't constitute I think all Mormon's should be burnt at the stake. Not everyone is out to get you, or your religion. I never once atacked or even criticized one iota of the doctrine you ascribe to.

Peace

That's all I'll say on the topic, you can have your board back Serious, I'll stick to debating the Yankees on ESPN, and my political sites where people skin is a little thicker, albeit a LITTLE thicker skin, not much...A debate is no fun if people are getting upset or their feelings hurt.

[thesometimesaint]

Mickey_D29:

So I go to where you like to debate, and call your mother every bad name in the book. But that's OK cause I didn't attack her beliefs. No hurt feelings RIGHT.

[Mickey_D29]

So I go to where you like to debate, and call your mother every bad name in the book. But that's OK cause I didn't attack her beliefs. No hurt feelings  RIGHT. 

That's fine if it makes you feel better, (my mother is a saint though) just don't mention the 2004 ALCS , although your analogy doesn't make much sense, if that's what you need to do, go right a head.

Peace!

I'm out...

[Scott Lloyd]

So I go to where you like to debate, and call your mother every bad name in the book. But that's OK cause I didn't attack her beliefs. No hurt feelings

[Pahoran]

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?

Actually Mickey, I did in fact answer both of those questions, on Nov 29 2005, at 3:33 PM. Directly and in detail.

For your convenience, so that you won't have to turn back to the first page, I here reproduce my answers. No, don't thank me, it's all part of the service.

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

I asked you this question before, and I ask again: are you saying this to ask a question, or are you saying it because you've made up your mind and are now pronouncing judgement?

1) How do you know that Brigham knew Lee was responsible? The established historical fact is that Lee concealed his true involvement from Brigham for as long as he could.

2) Since the MMM is all you know of 19th Century Mormon history, you can't begin to imagine what it was like to be on the receiving end of a constant, relentless campaign of harrassment and official persecution. Did you know, for example, that the Civil War period was the most peaceful time the Saints had enjoyed since the foundation of the Church? Have you paused to reflect (if you even know how to pause to reflect on anything) on the fact that lying reports of a "Mormon rebellion" had prompted the President of the United States to order the largest body of regular troops in the US into Utah?

Did you know that in the aftermath, a large number of federal appointees of the "carpet-bagger" variety settled themselves in Utah and were abusing their legal powers by arresting Mormons on ridiculous pretexts? Did you know that a federal judge named Cradlebaugh had usurped the police powers of the government and started running his own "investigations," thus turning his court into an inquisition? Did you know that Lee's first trial was botched by the prosecution's attempts to get at Brigham instead of trying the case before them, which led to Lee's acquittal, which led in turn to false accusations of Mormon jury-tampering?

Of course you didn't. But while you pause to reflect on these matters, ask yourself this question: if you were living in Utah at the time--or anywhere under these circumstances--would you be foolish enough to imagine that going into hiding was something only the guilty would do?

Here is something additional to this point:

When you say that "Brigham Young [hid] John D. Lee at Lee's ferry," what are you asserting? That Brigham concealed him there with a squad of danites to keep away the inquisitive? Brigham didn't "hide" Lee anywhere; Lee moved there after he was excommunicated from the Church.

Why do you ignore this statement from John 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"

Let's see now. Lee was about to be executed for his crimes; might he have perhaps had some motive to try to push the blame onto someone else? Gawrsh, lemme think about that. Can you think of any reason he might have had to appeal to the Nuremberg defence?

Also, his "confessions" were published posthumously; William Bishop, his lawyer, told Lee that he was going to work over Lee's writings to make them sell better, and each edition shows the effects of his anti-Mormon editorialising. Did you know that? Do you care? So how can we know for certain that the statement you cited is in fact Lee's, unaltered, as it came from his own pen?

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?

I suggest you take that up with the person who did use Lee's words. Although it is a well-known principle of weighing evidence--something with which you have yet to show any familiarity at all--that the testimony of an unreliable witness can be useful if it can be corroborated, or if it is contrary to his own interest.

Like I said, no need to thank me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Talk about apples and oranges. Sheesh!

-Allen

I know you proved my point...

YOU brought up the American Indian masscares and my thoughts on them, they have nothing to do with the topic, so don't bring it into the topic, they do nothing for either side.

Excuse me Mickey, but it was you who said:

Or people want to get to the bottom of the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing.

And then, in response to information about worse massacres:

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.

So you don't think Indians are Americans. Very illuminating.

But apart from that, you brought up the standard claim that the MMM was "the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing." This is a legitimate point of inquiry.

And it has now been established, once for all, that it was not. Thank you for giving us that opportunity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I don't listen to riff raff like you. I listen to God and in Him I put my faith. If I were to put my faith in the arm of flesh then I would be damned just as many who have left the church because their faith in men was shattered.

Serious,

Please take a few deep breaths. This thread is not about Mickey's personal shortcomings, whatever they might be. It is about the MMM, its causes, the culprits, and any cover-up that followed.

Please focus on that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mickey_D29]

But apart from that, you brought up the standard claim that the MMM was "the worst American on American massacre in US History until the Oklahoma City bombing."

[Kevin Graham]

From the The Guide to Mickey Mouse Logic, page 17.

Straw man: Any argument you don't want to respond to.

Logic fallacy: Something your opponent must be doing whenever you paint yourself in a corner.

Red Herring: Similar to a red earring.

Double-standard: When your opponent argues and chews gum at the same time.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And then, in response to information about worse massacres:

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.

So you don't think Indians are Americans. Very illuminating.

I have heard many in the press and media refer to the MMM as the greatest massacre of Americans by Americans in the history of the United States until the Oklahoma City bombing. I agree that this statement is inaccurate because Indians also are Americans (more so that the white Europeans who showed up much later, imo), but the reference "Americans by Americans" really is speaking to citizens of the United States of America (I don't think the Indians slaughtered in the massacres mentioned above were considered to be "citizens of the United States of America"). Moreover, most don't consider the MMM to have been a military operation (which would bring the massacres of the Civil War into play), but American civilians (Utah Mormons) murdering other American civilians (the Fancher party).

Putting aside these semantics, none of the massacres mentioned (of the Fancher party, of Indians, or any other) is excusable, and all are deserving of absolute condemnation.

[Sput]

MMM was the worst American on American massacre until the OK City bombing, that is a historical FACT!

---------Strawman---------

[Mickey_D29]

From the The Guide to Mickey Mouse Logic, page 17.

Straw man: Any argument you don't want to respond to.

Logic fallacy: Something your opponent must be doing whenever you paint yourself in a corner.

Red Herring: Similar to a red earring.

Double-standard: When your opponent argues and chews gum at the same time.

Kevin,

I already explained a strawman to you, go back and read it, it's simple.

I haven't been painted into any corner:

1. Why did Brigham Young/Church Leadership hide John D. Lee for years. The massacre was in 1857 John D. Lee was executed in 1874. Knowing full well he was responsible. Why were none responsible ex-communicated or tried? If Brigham Young knew of Lees involvement and conspired after the fact to hide it, that puts a measure of responsiblity on him.

2. Why can Lee's words be used to exonnerate Young but not be used as credible evidence to condemn him?

Those are the only assertions I made in this argument and neither has been refuted.

Cheap shots, and strawmen are the acts of the desperate...

[Deborah]

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

I'm not understanding why Pres Hinckley should apologize for something he doesn't believe the church sanctioned. BY denied any part in it. I think it's presumptuous of anyone today trying to judge another's motives or actions in the past when they weren't there. We can condemn the action but how can anyone say with any definitive authority that the church promulgated it in any degree? I keep hearing quotes of statements made by church leaders which supposedly inflamed the people and goaded them to action. In the first place those quotes are taken out of context and in the second place there is a presumption of effect that can't be proven.

[Pahoran]

Like playing chess, you have to know when you are being attacked and understand the goal of their game. It isn't to become more enlightened or because he loves our company, it is to get air time.

Like I said before, if you feel me questioning the mysterious events surrounding MMM is an attack on your faith. Then you my friend should go back and see what you are really puting your faith in? Is it a man? An institution? Or is it the fundemental doctrines of your religion that are accepted on faith alone, and could never be attacked because the articles are taken on faith?

Well here's the problem, Mickey. When you first raised this subject, it was so that you could demonise the Church of Jesus Christ as being founded upon fanaticism, perversion and murder. You say you've since apologised for that; I haven't seen your apologies, but I'll take them as read, but the fact that you continue to try to press home the attack anyway makes us wonder how heartfelt they were.

If you really aren't trying to use the MMM as a bludgeon to hit us with, it seems to me that you would have posted something equivalent to the following:

"Hey guys, I'd just read Krakauer and I was in high dudgeon. Clearly there is more to the story than what his book says. What's your view on these questions?"

Instead, we get something similar to, "well if Brigham wasn't in it up to his eyebrows, why did he smuggle Lee out of Utah? Hm, ha? You can't answer that one, canya canya canya? And how about the cairn, and how about what Lee said, and how about this and how about that?"

So, once again, it comes down to this: do you actually want to find out how better-informed people view the MMM, or are you just going to keep slinging the mud?

You also wrote:

This entire topic was full of loaded questions, it was a joke to begin with, the topic was never meant to "get to the truth of the MMM", or "be civil"...It was an ambush!

When someone describes a thread as an "ambush," it usually means that they've been lured into it not realising that they'd be out of their depth because they unexpectedly find themselves debating experts in the field. Well, I guess you're right to a certain extent; but don't you see that most of the uncivility in this thread either originates with you, or is in response to your uncivil remarks?

Here is a parallel case: if you were to read "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and rush onto a Jewish discussion board and announce that you'd learned what they were really up to, what sort of reception would you expect to get? And even if you apologised, if you continued to defend that awful bit of tripe, would you really expect them to be nice to you?

Krakauer's book is an awful bit of tripe, and his spin on the MMM is as hostile as can be. Do you want to know what really happened, or are you going to persist with the attack?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Serious]

I don't listen to riff raff like you. I listen to God and in Him I put my faith. If I were to put my faith in the arm of flesh then I would be damned just as many who have left the church because their faith in men was shattered.

Serious,

Please take a few deep breaths. This thread is not about Mickey's personal shortcomings, whatever they might be. It is about the MMM, its causes, the culprits, and any cover-up that followed.

Please focus on that.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks. I have and will continue to do so.

[Kevin Graham]

== I already explained a strawman to you, go back and read it, it's simple.

Which is what makes it all the more humorous. You haven't a clue, and your explanations make this all the more obvious.

== Cheap shots, and strawmen are the acts of the desperate...

So are the baseless whinings about nonexistent strawmen.

Pahoran and others have pretty much manhandled you on this one. ( I know, ***STRAWMAN*** right?)

[Rollo Tomasi]

I'm not understanding why Pres Hinckley should apologize for something he doesn't believe the church sanctioned.

Evidence is mounting that the Church, its leaders and its teachings and doctrines played a role in setting the stage for the ultimate massacre, whether intentional, officially sanctioned or not. To the extent the Church, its leaders or its teachings and doctrines played a role, I think an apology is in order.

I think it's presumptuous of anyone today trying to judge another's motives or actions in the past when they weren't there.

But those who were there left evidence behind. All our observations, conclusions or opinions of history, under your definition, are "presumptuous," but those who forget their history are bound to repeat it.

We can condemn the action but how can anyone say with any definitive authority that the church promulgated it in any degree?

I don't think that "definitive authority" (however you define that term) is needed for an apology to be in order.

I keep hearing quotes of statements made by church leaders which supposedly inflamed the people and goaded them to action. In the first place those quotes are taken out of context and in the second place there is a presumption of effect that can't be proven.

"Out of context" how? GAS statements were given while he toured the southern Utah settlements with the express mission to prepare them for war with the approaching U.S. Army. Was GAS talking of some other "soldiers" when he spoke of using their ground-up bones to use as fertilizer in the spring? And is it your contention that in 1857 Utah the words of the prophets, seers and revelators were not effective with the local sainsts?

[Pahoran]

From the The Guide to Mickey Mouse Logic, page 17.

Straw man: Any argument you don't want to respond to.

Logic fallacy: Something your opponent must be doing whenever you paint yourself in a corner.

Red Herring: Similar to a red earring.

Double-standard: When your opponent argues and chews gum at the same time.

Kevin,

I already explained a strawman to you, go back and read it, it's simple.

I haven't been painted into any corner:

1. Why did Brigham Young/Church Leadership hide John D. Lee for years.

Sorry, but this commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. Did "Brigham Young/Church Leadership hide John D. Lee for years?" What is your evidence that they did any such thing?

The massacre was in 1857 John D. Lee was executed in 1874.

Is that it, is it? (Actually it was 1877.)

Knowing full well he was responsible.

Did they? How do you know?

Why were none responsible ex-communicated or tried?

Again, begging the question. Were none responsible excommunicated or tried?

If Brigham Young knew of Lees involvement and conspired after the fact to hide it, that puts a measure of responsiblity on him.

That's right. If.

2.  Why can Lee's words be used to exonnerate Young but not be used as credible evidence to condemn him?

I have also answered this one. Since you won't take my word for it, I defer to Robert H. Briggs, in his review of Sally Denton's book American Massacre.

To be sure, John D. Lee is an important source, and his statements should be considered in reconstructing the massacre. By Lee

[awyatt]

Rollo said: I have heard many in the press and media refer to the MMM as the greatest massacre of Americans by Americans in the history of the United States until the Oklahoma City bombing. I agree that this statement is inaccurate because Indians also are Americans...

Glad we agree on this.

Rollo said: ...the reference "Americans by Americans" really is speaking to citizens of the United States of America (I don't think the Indians slaughtered in the massacres mentioned above were considered to be "citizens of the United States of America").

As I kept mentioning to Mickey_D29 (who seemed unable to catch the reference), everyone forgets Wounded Knee. This happend in 1980, not the 1800s. All those killed were US citizens, and they were killed by US citizens. Exactly what war was going on at the time? Or is someone saying that the Sioux were still not US citizens, even in 1980?

Rollo said: Moreover, most don't consider the MMM to have been a military operation (which would bring the massacres of the Civil War into play), but American civilians (Utah Mormons) murdering other American civilians (the Fancher party).

And that is the misconception that needs to be corrected. Those American civilians were members of a militia; they were the trained military of the day, similar to our National Guard today. It was militias that would later go fight in the Civil War; you can see their individual militia monuments all around battlefields such as Gettysburg. If we consider those militias to be military combatants at places like Gettysburg, why wouldn't we consider those militias to be military in Southern Utah?

The only reason that I can think of for anyone to downplay the fact that a militia was involved in the MMM is that it is then easier to play up the fact that the militia happend to be comprised of Mormons, and therefore it is easier to cast aspersions on the Church.

Rollo said: Putting aside these semantics, none of the massacres mentioned (of the Fancher party, of Indians, or any other) is excusable, and all are deserving of absolute condemnation.

Quite.

-Allen