The Mountain Meadow Massacre

[juliann]

Not to mention how BY put out an edict to stop selling to the wagon trains because they were facing an approaching army on the heels of a famine. Didn't make the wagon trains who were depending on a routine 7-ll stop too happy with those Mormons.

And I apologize on behalf of the church, Rollo. For everything...whether they did it or not. Satisfied?

[Scott Lloyd]

Not to mention how BY put out an edict to stop selling to the wagon trains because they were facing an approaching army on the heels of a famine. Didn't make the wagon trains who were depending on a routine 7-ll stop too happy with those Mormons.

And I apologize on behalf of the church, Rollo. For everything...whether they did it or not. Satisfied?

And on that basis, I'll go ahead and add my name to the apology list too.

How many names do we need before we reach critical mass, Rollo?

[Pahoran]

Non-members who are reading your posts should understand that what you call the "violent temple covenant" refers to accepting martyrdom, not committing revenge.

Anyone can "google" the Oath of Vengeance and see that is has nothing to do with "accepting martyrdom," and everything to do with revenge for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Yes, anyone can, and can thus find the falsehoods and distortions that apostates have told in the past.

The FACT is that there was never any such "oath." There was at one time a prayer that God would exact vengeance; there was never any oath, promise or covenant that the Saints would do so. Calling it an "oath of vengeance" is the hard-line anti-Mormon spin which we all know you will take, Mister Rollo, and as such its only result is to offend and antagonise the Latter-day Saints.

But you wouldn't understand that, since you have never actually identified with us.

I have a long post in preparation replying to some of the more egregious bits of hate propaganda you have posted here. Please do me the courtesy of not flooding the thread with more and more of the stuff at least until I have responded.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Pahoran! Apologize. Now!

Get with the program.

Let's have no more of these "fact" thingies.

[juliann]

Perhaps we should just open an apology thread and pin it for easy reference? I can only imagine the load that would lift from our critics sensitive shoulders when they could refer to it several times a day for reassurance that life is good.

[Deborah]

Anyone can "google" the Oath of Vengeance and see that is has nothing to do with "accepting martyrdom," and everything to do with revenge for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Yes, but this refers to God avenging the deaths of the martyrs.

Someone should also apologize to the ancient inhabitants of Jericho. They were all slaughtered young and old at the Lord's command. Since some are assuming the church played a part in the MMM, how do you know it wasn't at the Lord's command?

Mind you I do not believe this. I think there were some over-zealous, frightened people who got carried away, but God has not been above erasing a people from the earth or bringing death upon innocents. I think God should apologize while we are demanding apologies.

[juliann]

I think God should apologize while we are demanding apologies.

Well, we will need an fundamentalist in here to speak for God. Rollo...would you do the honors?

[The Dude]

I think God should apologize while we are demanding apologies.

Well, we will need an fundamentalist in here to speak for God. Rollo...would you do the honors?

And would Rollo/God also please apologize for decades of witholding the priesthood from the Africans? And would all you apologists please sign that thread as well?

[Pahoran]

Mister Rollo,

as the most dedicated uber-anti-Mormon in this forum, especially but not exclusively WRT this issue, it was anticipated that you would stick your oar in early and often. Naturally I haven't time to reply to everything you've posted that is wrong; I'll just have to hit the highlights.

Brigham, as Church president, prophet, and governor (even if de facto by the time of MMM),

No, he was still governor de jure. You do not lose your job when your boss decides to sack you; you lose it when you are properly notified that you've been sacked. Brigham was not properly notified until Cumming arrived.

Agreed. Even TBM's, such as Pahoran (perhaps the most "uber" of TBM's on this bb), start threads to hash out the MMM and keep it at the fore.

Not quite. I started this thread so that Mickey could have an opportunity to learn that he is wrong to rely on anti-Mormon sources for LDS history, including but not limited to the MMM.

The Internet can be a great tool for seeking after truth, imo.

Given the absence of quality control, it can also be every bigot's soap box.

Those who heard GAS's speeches described them in a way that I think qualifies as "enflaming."

And none of them had any incentive whatsoever to try to shift blame away from themselves, right?

BTW, you'd better produce some sources to back up this claim. Preferably sources whose middle initials are not "John D. Lee." After all, given that you tried to claim that Wilford Woodruff supported Leavitt's story about Brigham ordering the destruction of the cairn--when you and I both know that Woodruff did no such thing--we are all rather too well used to you to accept any such claims at face value.

Any oath, covenant, or other communication with God could be termed a "prayer," but the fact remains that the Oath of Vengeance was part of the temple endowment at that time,

No, that is not a "fact," it is an anti-Mormon falsehood. As already mentioned, it was a prayer that God would avenge the murders of the prophets, not an "oath" or promise that the Saints would do any such thing.

and some participants at Mountain Meadows (including John D. Lee) cited to that oath as a reason they committed wanton murder.

And of course Lee had absolutely no incentive to want to try to justify himself, did he?

A governor who was about to commit treason against the United States by attacking its army.

No, a governor who was about to defend his people from an invasion.

No, the real reason was because Brigham was God's one and only living prophet on the face of the Earth.

That's false. The one and only reason was because he was the governor.

This is obvious by BY's 9/10 response to Isaac Haight's letter (sent via Haslam) asking what to do with the beseiged Fanchers. Brigham's letterhead indicates it was sent from "President's Office, Great Salt Lake City" -- what "president," you ask? Buchanan, the U.S. President? No. Of course, it is referring to the President of the LDS Church, Brigham Young. No mention of "governor." And BY addresses the letter to "Elder Isaac C. Haight." Again, no mention of Haight's militia title, but his ecclesiastical title instead. BY then closes the letter with this: "Your Brother in the gospel of Christ, Brigham Young." Again, no mention of "governor" or any other civil office or duty anywhere in the letter. (all bold and italics mine for emphasis; my source: Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 63).

That is the most pathetic bit of strained argument I've seen in a very long time. He sat down and dashed off a reply as soon as Haslam showed up. What was he supposed to do? Put it before the legislature? If I have out-of-church contact with other Latter-day Saints I don't stop calling them "brother" and "sister," and neither did Brigham. Your attempt to load up inferences on this is such an obvious bit of hard-line anti-Mormon spin-doctoring that I would hitherto have expected even you to not be so shameless.

He also believed the Fanchers got what they deserved.

How do you know? Did you ask him?

Didn't have to; he offered the statement without being asked.

Uh-huh. IOW, you are forcing an interpretation of Brigham's little witticism about "I have taken a little" into a judgement upon the Fancher party's desserts.

Which is natural after all, since it is the hardest anti-Mormon line possible, so of course you will take it. The truth, however--which you keep pretending to be interested in--is that Brigham was unaware of who had killed them and had tried to prevent the massacre when he heard it was in the offing. Furthermore, he was anticipating God's vengeance against the United States as a whole, not just against individuals, which explains the "little." Note that the prayer for vengeance, the nature and purpose of which you have so assiduously misrepresented, was subsequently dropped because the brethren felt that the Civil War had accomplished that vengeance.

The Oath of Vengeance was a temple covenant that members took seriously.

See above.

The blood atonement sermons by BY (and other Church leaders) speak for themselves.

Yes they do, and they don't support your uber-hard-line anti-Mormon argument. Those "give 'em hell" sermons only said that Latter-day Saints who have committed capital crimes should voluntarily submit to execution, not that non-Latter-day Saints can be murdered if they are suspected of bad acts.

But Brigham, as part of instituting that strategy, is to blame for instructing the Indians to steal the Fancher cattle, which he knew was likely to lead to a violent confrontation.

Then since he did not give any such instruction, as you very well know, it follows that he's not to blame for anything.

GAS did give incendiary speeches during his tour (was it at Parowan or Provo where he said that the bones of soldiers would be used in the spring to fertilize vegetation in the town square?).

I don't know. What is the source for this alleged speech? In any event, please note that even by your uber-anti-Mormon spin, you couldn't get "emigrants" out of "soldiers."

There was ample time for the Indians who met with BY on Sept. 1 to get back in time for the massacre (Juanita Brooks says they overtook the Fancher party in Parowan).

No there wasn't. And as you very well know, since I was part of the thread in which it was pointed out to you, Brooks gave no source for this claim and was probably guessing.

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.

Which means that he has apologised for 100% of the Church's proven institutional responsibility.

I personally think he should.

I'll be sure to let him know. Since you are wrong about everything else in connection with this, that is probably good reason to conclude that no apology is needed.

It's obvious from this (and many other) threads that the MMM is still a festering scab in Mormon history.

So let's get this straight: any time we don't talk about something that uber-anti-Mormons like yourself obsess about, it's a "cover-up," while any time we do talk about it, it's because it's "still a festering scab in Mormon history." Got it.

I realise there is nothing I can do to prevent you from spinning anything whatever way you please, Mister Rollo, but please take notice that I formally object and take the strongest possible exception to being so egregiously misrepresented in this manner. If this issue is "still a festering scab in Mormon history" then it's only because people like you keep picking at it.

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).

I'm sorry, but that's just false; in this case, inexcusably so. As you perfectly well know, it was a military operation of the Iron County militia, acting as a military unit under its military commanders.

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.

Rollo, I keep trying so very very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep trying just as hard to remove it by telling such gigantic whoppers. "Evidence is mounting" only if it's mounting a horse to ride off into the sunset, never to be seen again. The "evidence" against the Church is all from the 19th Century, none of it is new, and your hard-line anti-Mormon spin is not accepted by any real scholars.

As I pointed out above, it's clear from the 9/10 correspondence from BY to Isaac Haight that BY was involved because of his position as prophet and LDS Church president, not his title (de facto at the time) as governor. This was not a military operation.

A glaring falsehood. See above.

It was done by members of the LDS Church living in southern Utah, under the planning and direction of their ecclesiastical leaders, who also happened to be members of the Iron County Militia (and perhaps the local Rotary Club, too).

That's completely false. It was done by the Iron County militia, not all of whom were Mormons BTW, under the command of the officers of the Iron Military District acting in their military capacities.

Yes, those officers did also happen to be Church leaders, and perhaps the local Rotary Club, too. You've got it exactly backwards.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Confidential Informant]

Not to mention how BY put out an edict to stop selling to the wagon trains because they were facing an approaching army on the heels of a famine.  Didn't make the wagon trains who were depending on a routine 7-ll stop too happy with those Mormons. 

And I apologize on behalf of the church,  Rollo.  For everything...whether they did it or not.  Satisfied?

And on that basis, I'll go ahead and add my name to the apology list too.

How many names do we need before we reach critical mass, Rollo?

Having just discovered that I am a descendant of the Fanchers from Arkansas, I accept your apology on behalf of the family and now request that posters such as Rollo, et al., cease and desist from further requests.

Thank you.

C.I. (Fancher Family Descendant)

[Scott Lloyd]

Not to mention how BY put out an edict to stop selling to the wagon trains because they were facing an approaching army on the heels of a famine.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran!  Apologize.  Now!

Get with the program. 

Let's have no more of these "fact" thingies.

Okay.

I hereby apologise for the Church's role in causing, bringing about or otherwise contributing to:

- The Kennedy assassinations

- Oprah

- The second Gulf War

- Hurricane Katrina

- Coronation Street

- The Mountain Meadow Massacre

- Anything and everything else that ever went wrong anywhere.

Will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

As I understand your position, that role consists of the fact that, when a federal army was on its way to put down the mythical "Mormon rebellion" in Utah, Mormon leaders didn't roll over and play dead but decided that they had had enough (in New York and Ohio and Missouri and Illinois and even, with the recent murder of Parley Pratt, in Arkansas, to say nothing of the petty oppressions and open hostility of previously appointed federal officials in Utah).

It's one thing to fight back against an approaching (perceived) hostile army; quite another to engage an emigrant train close to leaving Utah, and then to lure these unarmed defenseless men, women and children civilians into an ambush in order to methodically slaughter them.

I appreciate your apology, and while I recognize that FARMS seems to speak for the Church on many things these days (the ol' 'driving the bus' metaphor), I'd still like the apology for Mountain Meadows to come from a member of the Brethren.

[Rollo Tomasi]

How many names do we need before we reach critical mass, Rollo?

Just one, actually -- that of Gordon B. Hinckley (or other member of the Brethren).

[Rollo Tomasi]

The FACT is that there was never any such "oath." There was at one time a prayer that God would exact vengeance; there was never any oath, promise or covenant that the Saints would do so.

Spin it however you want, but the Oath of Vengeance was a temple covenant that was a part of the endowment ceremony for over 80 years (it was not removed from the ceremony until 1927). The fact remains that some participants at Mountain Meadows viewed themselves as an instrument of the Lord in answering that prayer and fulfilling the sought after vengeance -- in other words, they thought they were avenging the blood of the prophets (Joseph, Hyrum, and more recently, Parley Pratt).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Yes, but this refers to God avenging the deaths of the martyrs.

...

I think God should apologize while we are demanding apologies.

Is it your contention that God never uses mankind to answer prayers? LDS teachings are replete with instances in which God used others to answer prayers. In this case, some Mountain Meadows participants saw themselves as instruments in God's hands in avenging the blood of the prophets. I think they were wrong, but one can see how early Church teachings could be viewed as promoting violence of this type.

No need for God to apologize; the buck stops with Mormon zealots who lost control all on their own, with no prodding from God.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Mister Rollo,

as the most dedicated uber-anti-Mormon in this forum ....

So much for your call for civility, eh, mate?

No, he was still governor de jure.  You do not lose your job when your boss decides to sack you; you lose it when you are properly notified that you've been sacked.  Brigham was not properly notified until Cumming arrived.

Nope. A new governor had already been appointed and was on his way. Which is why I referred to BY at this time as governor de facto.

And none of them had any incentive whatsoever to try to shift blame away from themselves, right?

Sure ... including GAS and BY.

BTW, you'd better produce some sources to back up this claim.

My source for the GAS "bone as fertilizer" sermon in Parowan is from Juanita Brooks's MMM book (p. 35). Also, see the journal entry of Rachel Lee for August 17, 1857 (p. 37 in Brooks's book), wherein she describes GAS's speech in Harmony as "full of hostility and virulence." Before you immediately discount this as the biased words of John D. Lee's wife, note that the entry was made on August 17, 1857, well before the MMM and long before her husband was ever accused of anything.

After all, given that you tried to claim that Wilford Woodruff supported Leavitt's story about Brigham ordering the destruction of the cairn--when you and I both know that Woodruff did no such thing--we are all rather too well used to you to accept any such claims at face value.

I never said that WW's account supported Leavitt's account that BY ordered the destruction of the cairn. WW's account mentions nothing of the sort. But the two accounts do agree on BY's insensitive remarks while visiting the monument.

No, that is not a "fact," it is an anti-Mormon falsehood.  As already mentioned, it was a prayer that God would avenge the murders of the prophets, not an "oath" or promise that the Saints would do any such thing.

You really don't get it. The Mormon participants at MMM viewed themselves as instruments in God's hand in answering that prayer. They felt they had a duty to so act based on that oath. Perhaps they were wrong or misinterpretred their duty regarding that covenant, but it still served as a religious basis to justify the murderous doings of an otherwise law-abiding and peaceful people.

No, a governor who was about to defend his people from an invasion.

Against the country he served as a federally-appointed governor. It's call treason.

That's false.  The one and only reason was because he was the governor.

Read BY's 9/10 letter to Isaac Haight again.

That is the most pathetic bit of strained argument I've seen in a very long time.  He sat down and dashed off a reply as soon as Haslam showed up.  What was he supposed to do?  Put it before the legislature?  If I have out-of-church contact with other Latter-day Saints I don't stop calling them "brother" and "sister," and neither did Brigham.  Your attempt to load up inferences on this is such an obvious bit of hard-line anti-Mormon spin-doctoring that I would hitherto have expected even you to not be so shameless.

Now go back and read the letter again. I challenge you to show me one word in that letter to suggest BY was writing as anything other than Church president to a local Church leader. Give me anything, Pah, that talks of government, militia, civic duty. You can't, because it's not there. Just like it wasn't when during his deposition BY referred to Isaac Haight as the acting stake president in Cedar City, without any mention of his militia or other civic status. My argument is based on Brigham's own written words -- your argument is based on how you address fellow church members "out-of-church." Now who is really doing the spinning here, Pah?

Uh-huh.  IOW, you are forcing an interpretation of Brigham's little witticism about "I have taken a little" into a judgement upon the Fancher party's desserts.

"Forced"? Are you kidding? What "little" vengeance that God has supposedly taken do you think Brigham was referring to? As far as I can tell, the monument was to the slaughtered Fancher party members. Is it "forced" to think Brigham was referring to a vengeance other than what had been visited upon the Fancher party? No, as you well know, and any reasonable mind would see that instantly. Just keep digging the hole deeper, Pah.

... is that Brigham was unaware of who had killed them and had tried to prevent the massacre when he heard it was in the offing.  Furthermore, he was anticipating God's vengeance against the United States as a whole, not just against individuals, which explains the "little."  Note that the prayer for vengeance, the nature and purpose of which you have so assiduously misrepresented, was subsequently dropped because the brethren felt that the Civil War had accomplished that vengeance.

It doesn't matter who Brigham thought had killed them -- the point is that he agreed with their slaughter, whoever did the deed. And you seem to agree, when you say the slaughter of the Fancher party was just a part of what was anticipated to be coming on the United States. In other words, BY agreed with the slaughter, even if he believed it was a godsend. Oh, and btw, the "prayer for vengeance" was not "dropped" until 1927, some 62 years after the end of the Civil War. Keep digging ....

Yes they do, and they don't support your uber-hard-line anti-Mormon argument.  Those "give 'em hell" sermons only said that Latter-day Saints who have committed capital crimes should voluntarily submit to execution, not that non-Latter-day Saints can be murdered if they are suspected of bad acts.

Keeping focusing on your perceived technicalities. Bottom line is that the blood atonement doctrine preached violence (Jedidiah Grant or Daniel Wells even went so far as to preach that every town should set aside a place to perform blood atonement). Certain LDS ceremonies in 1857 were filled with words and actions that can only be described as extremely violent, even if only symbolic. To deny that early Mormon teachings of vengeance, blood atonement, and violent covenants had no cumulative effect on very zealous members, is absurd, and you know it.

Then since he did not give any such instruction, as you very well know, it follows that he's not to blame for anything.

According to Dimick Huntington, he did. And since BY himself later wrote that he only knew of the Fancher party on the southern trail at that time, it's clear he targeted them at the Sept. 1 meeting when speaking of the cattle that had gone on the south route to California.

I don't know.  What is the source for this alleged speech?  In any event, please note that even by your uber-anti-Mormon spin, you couldn't get "emigrants" out of "soldiers."

See above. My point was not that he was speaking of the bones of "emigrants," but that he inflamed the people in a way that contributed to the atmosphere allowing for the later massacre of emigrants.

No there wasn't.  And as you very well know, since I was part of the thread in which it was pointed out to you, Brooks gave no source for this claim and was probably guessing.

Brooks doesn't "guess." And as I have shown, the Indians chiefs who met with BY on Sept. 1 had ample time to get back. Even Haslam (who you use as the standard for the minimum time needed to make the trip) had some significant layovers on the trip to Salt Lake City (see Bagley, p. 127), but he still did it in 60 hours or so. It was very doable.

Which means that he has apologised for 100% of the Church's proven institutional responsibility.

This must be a typo -- certainly you meant 0%.

So let's get this straight: any time we don't talk about something that uber-anti-Mormons like yourself obsess about, it's a "cover-up," while any time we do talk about it, it's because it's "still a festering scab in Mormon history."

All one has to do is see how often the MMM is discussed on message boards like this -- in fact, you yourself have started a few threads on the subject, including this one. Nearly 150 years after the fact and this is still controversial to many and very hurtful for others.

... I formally object and take the strongest possible exception to being so egregiously misrepresented in this manner.  If this issue is "still a festering scab in Mormon history" then it's only because people like you keep picking at it.

Dude, go back and read the name of the poster who started this thread. Who is "picking" at the scab?

I'm sorry, but that's just false; in this case, inexcusably so.  As you perfectly well know, it was a military operation of the Iron County militia, acting as a military unit under its military commanders.

See my posts to Scott above on this matter. It was a religious war, not a military operation because: (1) BY's involvement (including his 9/10 letter to Haight) was in his ecclesiastical position; (2) On Sept. 6 Haight called a meeting in Cedar City to decide what to do about the Fancher party -- the meeting was comprised of the Cedar Stake Presidency (Haight was then acting stake president, according to BY), Bishop Klingensmith and his bishopric counselors, and the Cedar Stake High Council (they even held a temple-like prayer circle); (3) the role of the Oath of Vengeance, according to some participants; and (4) the purported boasts from members of the Fancher party about the murders of Church leaders Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The only "military" things about all this was the way Lee used a white flag of truce to sucker the emigrants out, separate men from women and children, use a single line formation to maximize the helplessness of the unarmed emigrants, and then use their firearms and other weapons to blow and bash their brains out. The planning, direction and purpose was religious; the fact that these same Church leaders had civic or militia posts was incidental.

"Evidence is mounting" only if it's mounting a horse to ride off into the sunset, never to be seen again.  The "evidence" against the Church is all from the 19th Century, none of it is new, and your hard-line anti-Mormon spin is not accepted by any real scholars.

The Dimick Huntington Sept. 1 journal entry (discussed in Bagley's book) is relatively new (in terms of publication) and certainly more damning of BY than anything that's come out in a long time.

That's completely false.  It was done by the Iron County militia, not all of whom were Mormons BTW, under the command of the officers of the Iron Military District acting in their military capacities.

Yeah ... and who just happened to feel the need to ask their prophet what to do, and just happened to feel the need to call a stake meeting, with prayer circle, to decide what to about the Fancher party. Sure sounds like a "military operation." Not.

That hole is getting so deep I can barely see you, Pah. Come back up when you're able.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I hereby apologise for the Church's role in causing, bringing about or otherwise contributing to:

- The Kennedy assassinations

- Oprah

- The second Gulf War

- Hurricane Katrina

- Coronation Street

- The Mountain Meadow Massacre

- Anything and everything else that ever went wrong anywhere.

Will that do?

Almost. Throw in the priesthood ban, polygamy, whitewashing history, the Strengthening Church Members Committee, along with some incredibly boring lesson manuals, and I'll start to feel better.

[Baptized1962]

It's a "cause celeb" Pahoran because 120 men, women and children were brutally murdered by Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints let the dead bodies of children rot in the valley and be strewn for a year by animals.

Cause celeb of anti-Mormons? Anyone who thinks about it for more than a nano-second shoud recast it as an indictment against those who want to just forget it.

120 Men, women and children murdered and left to rot in a valley.

[edited]

[Nighthawke]

Then since he did not give any such instruction, as you very well know, it follows that he's not to blame for anything.

According to Dimick Huntington, he did. And since BY himself later wrote that he only knew of the Fancher party on the southern trail at that time, it's clear he targeted them at the Sept. 1 meeting when speaking of the cattle that had gone on the south route to California.

Any thoughts on the following item?

Brigham Young an Accessory before the Fact? The Dimick Huntington 1857

[Daniel Peterson]

Almost.  Throw in the priesthood ban, polygamy, whitewashing history, the Strengthening Church Members Committee, along with some incredibly boring lesson manuals, and I'll start to feel better.

The "whitewashing history" thing is a canard. The Strengthening Church Members Committee is a harmless news-clipping service.

How about a First Presidency apology for green jello desserts, while we're cataloging these unspeakable Church-inflicted horrors?

Incidentally, "Baptized1962," can you direct me to the place where Pahoran or anybody else here has endorsed the Mountain Meadows Massacre or, even, expressed nonchalant indifference to it? What we object to is the effort made by certain people on this board (the most recent round having been initiated by Mickey_D29 on the basis of the expertise he derived from reading a few pages in a book by a hostile journalist) to blame Brigham Young and the leaders of the Church in Salt Lake City for what seems to have been a tragic local overreaction under conditions of wartime tension.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Any thoughts on the following item?

Brigham Young an Accessory before the Fact? The Dimick Huntington 1857

[Nighthawke]

It's a "cause celeb" Pahoran because 120 men, women and children were brutally murdered by Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints let the dead bodies of children rot in the valley and be strewn for a year by animals.

Cause celeb of anti-Mormons? Anyone who thinks about it for more than a nano-second shoud recast it as an indictment against those who want to just forget it.

120 Men, women and children murdered and left to rot in a valley.

Cause celeb THAT, you cowardly Pahoran.

I don't believe anyone, LDS or non, disputes the fact that the Mountain Meadows Massacre was a horrific event in history.

What some of us dispute however is whether it was a Mormon event (i.e. done with Brigham Young's blessing) or whether this was a frontier event (i.e. bad guys mouthing off, threatening to come back with an army and wipe out all the Mormons, letting their animals graze everything in sight while people are starving and preparing for war at the same time. In consequence of which you have leaders of the militia (Would they have been the 'law' back then? Did Cedar City have a sheriff and so forth or was the militia it?) deciding they're going to act and then shots are fired, and everything falls apart from there...).

As for whether or not George Albert Smith was inflaming the Mormons, let's not forget that folks on the Fancher train were inflaming their side as well. So you have people on both sides using violent language with things escalating beyond, I'm sure, both sides expectations.

Something to keep in mind is that "talking tough" is often used as a means of frightening off the other side. Politicians do this all the time. On this point, Richard Burton, author of City of the Saints and across the Rocky Mountains wrote that Brigham Young used "purposely violent language, making the terrors of a scolding the punishment in lieu of hanging for a stolen horse or cow." (Burton, 239-240) (emphasis mine)

I'm sure the same could be said of other leaders of Mormon communities at that time, living on the frontier and trying to protect their homes and families--many of whom had already experienced such losses many times over. After all, why the hell else would they be out there on the frontier in the first place?

[Nighthawke]

That's pretty much it for me. I've read both Brooks and Bagley and will wait patiently until the next book written by Richard E. Turley Jr., Glen M. Leonard, and Ronald G. Walker comes out.

[charity]

Nighthawke, maybe if some of the people on the board would read your signature lines, they would make make more reasonable arguments, or see that their arguments are so weak that they wouldn't even put them forth. It is so easy to sit outside the situation and try to say how people felt who were there, experiencing it.