Mountain Meadow Massacre

[Pantsman]

This is an answer to the worst reading I have ever seen.  Pantsman go back to school and learn to read.  I didn't say the Fanchers had actually sold the flour, I stated the Piautes had said it was done. If the Piautes weren't attacking why were the fanchers at Mountain Meadow?  Something stopped them there, DUH.  Try reading Juanita Brooks' treatment of Mountain Meadow.  She did the first historical treatment.  She also wrote the biography of John D Lee.  She is my source.  What is yours?  I doubt you have any.  I am not trying to excuse the action.  I am trying to understand what was going on. 

To be clear,  DO YOU THINK A SIEGE MENTALITY EXISTED AT THE TIME?  IF NOT GIVE REFERENCES.  WHERE DID I BLAME ANYONE OTHER THAN THE IRON COUNTY MILITIA AND THE LOCAL PIAUTE TRIBES?  GIVE REFERNCES.  IF YOU USE MY POSTS, NO ELIPSES.  PLEASE GIVE US SOME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE FANCHER PARTY STATED AS THEY MOVED SOUTH AND THE MORMONS WOULDN'T SELL THEM ANY SUPPLIES.  Juanita Brooks disagrees with your assessment of the situation.  She was the authority on the subject in scholarly circles.  Please read her books.  She was the one that petitioned David O McKay to re-instate John D Lee to full fellowship.  It souds as if you are only reading a third of what I am writing.  Go back and try again.

Dr Fatguy

I see you insulting me but not citing any references. My opinion was broad and an editorial. Yours was pure slander against the Fancher party, and you can't cite references. You can continue to tell me to go back to school, but next time cite some references. Juanita Brooks book DOES NOT claim that the Fancher party was threatening the LDS with raising an army, etc...

The idea the Fancher party was at fault or inciting the LDS is nothing but 100% speculation without a shred of evidence, to repeat it knowing that is slander.

If it does you cite me page and paragraph. Either back up your assertions or leave the discussion. It's a heated enough topic without people making bold unfounded assertions. You can pick anything I wrote and I cite you where that came from. But since my statements are rather editorialized and not pointing the finger at anyone, there's probably not a need.

[Pantsman]

Lets us delve into catholic history and I am sure that we will find imperfections and tragedies. But I would never claim that the catholic church is a fraud because of them.

Catholics both past and present are only human beings and as such, imperfect.

Well that's inevitable, I've never seen you guys be able to talk about Mountain Meadows without bringing it up.

[why me]

Lets us delve into catholic history and I am sure that we will find imperfections and tragedies. But I would never claim that the catholic church is a fraud because of them.

Catholics both past and present are only human beings and as such, imperfect.

Well that's inevitable, I've never seen you guys be able to talk about Mountain Meadows without bringing it up.

But this is the problem. It is not a debate over interpretation. It is an attack on the truthfulness of the lds church. No one here would mind a debate or dialogue over interpretation but the 'Hey, look at this, the church is false' is the critic's illogical leap. Hence, the defensive posture of the apologists.

[drfatguy]

Ok pantsman I have an Idea. You can't answer questions and I, at my office away from my home library, can't supply page numbers so can't reference, let's both leave. Try answering queries when presented please. Again when did I say the Fancher party was at fault? My premise is there was a siege mentality in Utah at the time. You are arguing around my premise. I'll leave if you do. I'll stay away as until I can find the references if you answer my questions. If not, let's discuss the pogroms of the RCC in Poland against the Ghettos. I'll be unreasonable and you can try and define the feelings of people from the 1600's. Sound fun? This is analagous of what you are doing and accused (wrongly) Why Me of. Read what we say not what you think we are saying from a cursory skimming.

Dr Fatguy

[gramps]

why me wrote:

But this is the problem. It is not a debate over interpretation. It is an attack on the truthfulness of the lds church. No one here would mind a debate or dialogue over interpretation but the 'Hey, look at this, the church is false' is the critic's illogical leap. Hence, the defensive posture of the apologists.

No why me. That is not the problem. Not one person has cited anything against Pantsman (funny moniker, by the way. funny, in a good way!), yet.

You for one should not be talking about debate and discussion, why me. Show us one thread, even one post, that shows you can debate or have discussion. You never do debate or discussion. Prove me wrong. I'll admit it if you can show us at least that. Is that asking too much?

You are unable, it seems, to say anything substantive about any thread you jump into. Your posts could be wiped out of any thread I've seen you participate on, and the thread wouldn't miss a beat.

Pantsman has not once said: "Hey, look at this, the church is false," simply because of the massacre. He might believe that or not, I don't know. And that's the point, neither do you. If anyone here makes "illogical leap(s)", it's you.

Throw a pitch and let us swing at it. Ball or strike, doesn't matter. But, for heaven's sake, why me, throw a pitch. Now, what are you going to do when you read this? make a farming analogy again? The fact that you imply the believers are "turnips" has even escaped you, hasn't it?

Show us something substantive, why me, or go jump on the threads discussing whether the hill cumorah is somewhere in chile or india or wherever. I bet they could use you over there.

And another point: noone here is arguing that the catholic church hasn't some sordid history in its past. Are they, why me? That logic is elementary school stuff. The kind of logic you employ.

And, another matter: the "Saints" aren't responsible for this mess called the MMM. But high-ranking priesthood leaders in the area are responsible. Not their wives, why me, not their children, why me. High ranking church priesthood holders are responsible, why me. High ranking church priesthood holders, who assumedly, if they were living their religion, were partaking of the sacrament the Sunday before they met together as high ranking church priesthood holders and planned a massacre.

It's frightening, really frightening! That such an action could be carried out by high ranking church priesthood holders is terribly upsetting to some people. At least, we know some of them were physically repulsed by what they did. At least, we know some of them knew what they did after the fact; that they wiped out a group of innocent people.

That brings some relief to think some of those high ranking priesthood holders had some kind of conscience. And that is a big point here, why me. How is it that high ranking church leaders could carry out so easily such a heinous act? That is what Krakauer was getting at. What is it about a religious environment that some times brings out the worst in us? We won't ever know, nor rectify it, if we don't face ourselves squarely in the mirror, and try to figure it out.

Now, throw a pitch.

Stop badgering other posters. More substance less noise. Second warning. -mods

[drfatguy]

Pantsman,

References wilpedia article Mountain meadow (not a good reference). The article quoted bagley on pg 379 stating BY enlisted the Piaute chiefs to attack the Fancher party. To do so the Chiefs would have had to ride 300 mi in 3 days. Not likely. Robert Briggs in an article (still quoting wilkpedia but a strong reference) which appeared in Sunstone Magazine 12/02 stated Piautes from the Santa Clara river area were enlisted to attack. This is debateable.

Whether there was evidence or not as to the dispostion of the Piautes or the Fancher Party is irrelevant. This is not my point. So your "editorial opinion" is wrong. The point is what the Mormons were believing at the time. I at no time slandered the Fancher Party. This is untrue to suggest it. I stated the Mormons at the time believed these stories. You missed many statements in my posts such as "from their perpective", "they believed" and so forth. Read what I say, don't skim and assume.

Dr Fatguy

[KevinG]

gramps,

It was not the religious environment that created the massacre. It was political and economic. In fact had Lee and others followed the dictates of their religion the massacre would not have happened.

Their rank in the priesthood should have caused them to pause and think how their actions would reflect upon the church. Their actions were diametrically opposed to the very teachings of their religion.

Brighams admonition to leave them in peace was the right one.

Scary conspiracy theories about how evil the Mormons are prepared to be on a moments notice are just that, scary conspiracy theories.

Your accusations go to the very point of this thread. That critics are very eager to portray what is a tragic, evil and unsaintly act as the product of our religion as opposed to what it really was, an act against the practices and teachings we ought to follow. It goes without saying that practicing religion was not the excuse for every massacre and murder in the world, or even the bulk of them. Thats where the critics theories fall down.

Now if the lesson is against hobbies and becoming zealots than it bears more introspection, but harboring collective guilt because someone acted against the tennants of our religion and the instructions of the prophet is useless. Using the MMM to beat the Saints up over is worse than useless.

[selek]

Gramps,

Stop the personal attacks on Why Me. It gets old quickly, and isn't germain to the subject.

As to the charge that critics invariably attempt to use MMM to invalidate the Church and its leaders, I challenge YOU to review all of the MMM threads on this board and show me ONE thread where the critics didn't do precisely that. You won't be able to.

It is an unvarying, inviolate routine as sure as the sunrise or Pantsman saying something in support of the Catholic church.

And, another matter: the "Saints" aren't responsible for this mess called the MMM. But high-ranking priesthood leaders in the area are responsible. Not their wives, why me, not their children, why me. High ranking church priesthood holders are responsible, why me. High ranking church priesthood holders, who assumedly, if they were living their religion, were partaking of the sacrament the Sunday before they met together as high ranking church priesthood holders and planned a massacre.

Please define "high ranking". To my knowledge, no substantive association was been made between the MMM and anyone positioned higher than a Stake President, except in trying to stop it. Those responsible were all local officials, and none were ever held blameless by the Church.

All the rest is hyperbole.

[why me]

Pantsman has not once said: "Hey, look at this, the church is false," simply because of the massacre. He might believe that or not, I don't know. And that's the point, neither do you. If anyone here makes "illogical leap(s)", it's you.

I never said he did. What I did say is why this issue is important for members to defend. I said that the critics use it to try to prove the church false. Not pantsman.

And I stand by my claim. I would love to read a debate or an interpretation of MMM without it being about the truthfulness of the church. But that seems impossible. History is up for debate but why must it always be about the truthfulness of the church? Can you answer this gramps? First vision? book of mormon? etc. Why must it always be to prove the church false? And I am referring to the interpretations about the book of mormon and the first vision in an historical setting.

[Pantsman]

Pantsman,

References wilpedia article Mountain meadow (not a good reference).

[SlackTime]

Hmmm, I'm still waiting for the apologies for Joseph's Tar and Feathering in Kirkland and the deaths of his children, Haun's Mill, Far West, Carthage, and Nauvoo.

Let me know when it happens, I'm sure hell will have frozen over.

-SlackTime

[drfatguy]

Pantsman,

Again, I haven't slandered anyone. You keep missing the point. Let's forget it. You try to make this slander and I'm trying to make it about the mentality of the Saints. You accuse me of saying something I didn't. Try Exo 20:16. When did I mention the Crusades? When did I mention the Inquisition? You paint with a very broad brush but do not read my posts.

Let's clear this up. Why do you think this tragedy occured? Obviously you don't agree with my assessment of the Mormons in Iron County. Why did it happen? What is your opinion?

Dr Fatguy

[why me]

Hmmm, I'm still waiting for the apologies for Joseph's Tar and Feathering in Kirkland and the deaths of his children, Haun's Mill, Far West, Carthage, and Nauvoo.

Let me know when it happens, I'm sure hell will have frozen over.

-SlackTime

It won't happen. And yet, for the critics to mention this and to have a touch of sympathy for the man, would show compassion. But that is not the critic's job. Their job is not to use their sociological imagination and see the broader perspective, the historical setting, and the events as they happened.

Rather, they pull an issue out of their hat and say: Defend this! Look here! The church is false!

Soooooooooooooooo sad.................soooooooo sad.

[Pantsman]

Pantsman,

Again, I haven't slandered anyone.  You keep missing the point.  Let's forget it.  You try to make this slander and I'm trying to make it about the mentality of the Saints.  You accuse me of saying something I didn't.  Try Exo 20:16.  When did I mention the Crusades?  When did I mention the Inquisition?  You paint with a very broad brush but do not read my posts. 

Let's clear this up.  Why do you think this tragedy occured?  Obviously you don't agree with my assessment of the Mormons in Iron County.  Why did it happen?  What is your opinion?

Dr Fatguy

I think there was an air of religious frenzy going on, that they wanted revenge for Joseph Smith Parley Pratt, the extermination order etc.., that once they started they couldn't stop and couldn't leave witnesses. I think in the end it was an us against them mentality and people were using their religion as their identity and not their spirituality.

But this is what you said:

"The Fancher Party only did what they could to fan the flames of animosity so they could bring an army from California. The Fancher party didn't claim to be involved with Martyrdom of JS but they did claim responsibility for Parley P Pratt. They did make it known they were from Missouri and Arkansas and agreed with the Extermination Order and thought it should be carried out in the Territory"

That is not true, you have stated as near fact things to the Fancher party that are no more verifiable than someone saying Brigham Young ordered the Fancher party to be massacred, or the LDS Church was engaged in a cover up.

[Pantsman]

It won't happen.

Actually I think Illinois apologized formally for Haun's Mill, or Joseph Smith, I could be wrong though. I know Illionois apologized for something.

Edit: Haun's Mill was Missouri (I think) so it probably wasn't that.

[SlackTime]

It won't happen.

Actually I think Illinois apologized formally for Haun's Mill, or Joseph Smith, I could be wrong though. I know Illionois apologized for something.

Missouri apologised for the extermination order... no mention of Haun's Mill that I know of.

-SlackTime

[why me]

I think there was an air of religious frenzy going on, that they wanted revenge for Joseph Smith Parley Pratt, the extermination order etc.., that once they started they couldn't stop and couldn't leave witnesses. I think in the end it was an us against them mentality and people were using their religion as their identity and not their spirituality.

Now you are using your sociological imagination. You are seeing the big picture. Hopefully, you will not follow the critics' line and claim the lds church is false because of this tragedy.

Everything is open to interpretation in historical settings.

[selek]

Actually I think Illinois apologized formally for Haun's Mill, or Joseph Smith, I could be wrong though. I know Illionois apologized for something.

Great, if it's true. IIRC, though Haun's Mill was Missouri.

[katherine the great]

So, what is the utility of the MMM for the Church's critics? Does it have any impact upon the Church's truth claims? Why is it allowed to overshadow the Utah War of 1857-8, of which it was a part? Is it really reasonable to expect Brigham Young to be hunting down participants after he was replaced as governor? Does anyone really think that John D. Lee was an innocent sacrificial lamb?

Let's not let this thread go the way of the last one. Please keep focused upon the topic.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm sorry...The Utah WAR? Where are the list of names of people killed in the Utah War of 1857-1858? There's a website with the names of over 100 men, women and children killed in the MMM which occured over a three day period. If anyone would like to make an excuse for this atrocity, I would because some of my ancestors participated in it. And a great big "NO!" John D. Lee was no sacrificial lamb. He was a scapegoat. He deserved his death, but so did my ancestors who only spent a few months in jail and then ran away to Arizona.

[KevinG]

It won't happen.

Actually I think Illinois apologized formally for Haun's Mill, or Joseph Smith, I could be wrong though. I know Illionois apologized for something.

Edit: Haun's Mill was Missouri (I think) so it probably wasn't that.

A senator from Illinois proposed an official apology around the time the LDS were building the Nauvoo Temple. It was gracious and well received. Of course the LDS had long before removed the line iin their hymnal about blood of the prophet staining Illinois, and had built a Temple near Chicago in the 1980's. I am an Illinois convert from the 80's so I'm pretty sure things had cooled off a bit by that time.

Still it was gracious and well received by the Saints.

[smac97]

It won't happen.

Actually I think Illinois apologized formally for Haun's Mill, or Joseph Smith, I could be wrong though. I know Illionois apologized for something.

Edit: Haun's Mill was Missouri (I think) so it probably wasn't that.

Haun's Mill was in Caldwell County, Missouri, not in Illinois.

But the State of Illinois did offer a resolution expressing regret:

Almost 160 years after the Mormon exodus began, the Illinois Legislature is seeking "the pardon and forgiveness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the events that led to the death of church founder Joseph Smith in 1844 and the expulsion of his followers from Nauvoo.

...

The resolution states that the "biases and prejudices of a less-enlightened age in the history of the state of Illinois caused untold hardship and trauma for the community of Latter-day Saints by the distrust, violence and inhospitable actions of a dark time in our past . . . ."

It also describes members of the LDS Church as "a people of faith and hard work" and asks them to forgive "the misguided efforts of our citizens, chief executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors" from Nauvoo.

More here:

SALT LAKE CITY, April 7

[drfatguy]

Pantsman,

I did a web search on yahoo. I used "Mountain Meadow Juanita Brooks" as my seach parameters. The third title down has an article cocerning MMM. If you were to read the 5th paragraph down you find the what I was saying. The Momons weren't selling food without a pass. The Fancher party was getting hostile because they had limited provisions and were able to restock. Hostilities grew. Whether or not these were perceived or real the Fancher Party was thought to be hostile. This is what I have been saying. You on the other hand have no proof the Fancher party is innocuous. Who is making these statements? I think the truth is in the middle. Does this excuse the Iron County Militia? NO!!!!!!!!!!! Does this make them responsible? YES!!!!!!!!!!! Have you acused me wrongly? That's a matter of perspective which is something totally foriegn to you. I didn't slander the Fancher Party. It's a matter of debate and not germane to the issue I was discussing. Argue the main point before you go off on a rabbit trail.

Dr Fatguy

[Pantsman]

Pantsman,

I did a web search on yahoo. I used "Mountain Meadow Juanita Brooks" as my seach parameters. The third title down has an article cocerning MMM. If you were to read the 5th paragraph down you find the what I was saying. The Momons weren't selling food without a pass. The Fancher party was getting hostile because they had limited provisions and were able to restock. Hostilities grew. Whether or not these were perceived or real the Fancher Party was thought to be hostile. This is what I have been saying. You on the other hand have no proof the Fancher party is innocuous. Who is making these statements? I think the truth is in the middle. Does this excuse the Iron County Militia? NO!!!!!!!!!!! Does this make them responsible? YES!!!!!!!!!!! Have you acused me wrongly? That's a matter of perspective which is something totally foriegn to you. I didn't slander the Fancher Party. It's a matter of debate and not germane to the issue I was discussing. Argue the main point before you go off on a rabbit trail.

Dr Fatguy

I'm going to quote what you wrote for the last time:

"The Fancher Party only did what they could to fan the flames of animosity so they could bring an army from California. The Fancher party didn't claim to be involved with Martyrdom of JS but they did claim responsibility for Parley P Pratt. They did make it known they were from Missouri and Arkansas and agreed with the Extermination Order and thought it should be carried out in the Territory"

Here you claim the Fancher party was "fanning the flames of annimosity so they could bring an army from California, and "claimed responsibility for Parley Pratt", and "made it known they agreed with the extermination order". NOTHING you have said below is acknowledging any of what you initially claimed.

Forget it, people here can read and discern the matter for themselves. This is futile since you're just going to squirm until I lose interest anyway.

Fact is in the italicized post I quoted from YOU, there is zero evidence to back up even one claim you made.

[drfatguy]

I gave evidence but that's ok. Leave. I am not squirmming. It's debatable as to what the Fanchers did. Some researchers claim the Fanchers did fan the flames. Some disagree so this isn't slander. You have stated they didn't but showed no evidence. Your problem is this isn't the focus of my posts. OK.

Let's just ignore each other for a while. Ok We won't agree. You are arguing one thing and I am stating another. You talk of apologies for something I never mentioned. I talked of a siege mentality because of Johnson's Army, not just because of Missouri and Illinois. If the Saints were driven from Ut, where would they go? You needn't answer this because I don't care what you think. You can say what you want. The info is sketchy at best so to make any hard and fast statements is outside the pale. Have fun for the rest of the thread.

Dr Fatguy

[USU78]

Some misconceptions here:

1. The group claiming responsibility for the PPP murder were travelling with the Fancher party, but left to take another road long before the Fanchers got to Cedar City.

2. The claims of waterhole poisoning and poisoned grain were a rumor that followed the Fancher party . . . but it is entirely unknown upon what the rumor was based, if anything. The Paiutes and Mormon settlers in Iron County believed it.

3. The claims that the Fancher group (or their hangers-on who left the party) that they'd bring the CA militia back with them to force the Mormons into a 2-front war appear to have been believed as a credible threat by the Iron Co. folks. We can pooh-pooh it today from our comfortable studies, but they could not.

4. It is undisputed that Johnston's Army was on its way to Deseret at the time with the intent to put down an alleged rebellion; it has been claimed with some authority that gunboats were attempting to find a way up the Colorado to Deseret at the same time. We know this to be a useless endeavor now, but at the time there was no reason to think the Iron Co. folks would not believe it possible and a real threat. Imagine: gunboats, CA militiamen, the US Expeditionary force under Johnston all converging on about a score of thousands of Mormons spread from heck to breakfast.

5. BY said, "Don't sell wagon trains any foodstuffs; you'll need them for the coming fight with the US Army."

6. BY also said, "Don't molest the Fanchers." When his letter was received scant days after 9/11/1857, the reaction in Cedar City and environs was pure horror.

7. There was indeed a general amnesty in 1858 as part of the negotiated settlement of the Utah War/Buchanan's Blunder. I argue it applied to the actions by the Iron Co. Militia. Not all agree with me.