Mountain Meadow Massacre

[gramps]

Dad of 7.

Are you saying the Church is not supporting, in every way, the research and publication of their upcoming history of the events?

[gramps]

Dad of 7 wrote:

If it was an ideological crime it wasn't the ideology of the LDS that did it.

Who's ideology was it, then?

[Pahoran]

Regarding John D. Lee...

Let us assume that he was responsible for instigating the massacre.  If so, he was guilty of mass murder.  And let us assume that all members of the Church find the MMM to be a monstrous crime.

Which they do, yes. No-one disputes this fact.

No-one with any credibility, anyway.

Why then would the First Presidency and Council of the 12 reinstate his membership and Temple blessings in 1961?

Are there cases of other LDS who have committed "monstrous crimes" being excommunicated and posthumously reinstated, including Temple blessings?

I honestly have no idea what they were thinking, and am curious how other LDS see his.

Y'know it's a funny thing, and one which I have frequently observed; the oh-so-innocent little question with the sting in its tail--the one that lets you make your point without requiring the courage to commit yourself to a position--is almost always the wrong question.

So here is the right one:

Does anyone know if there has ever been a case where the Church has refused to posthumously restore the blessings of an excommunicated person, if the family requests it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[gramps]

Pahoran wrote, to explain why the oath was removed, the following:

Incidentally, do you know why it was discontinued?

It was discontinued because the brethren felt that the calamities that had befallen the United States, especially the Civil War, constituted God's judgement upon the nation.

This seems a little far-fetched, Pahoran, when they didn't take it out of the ceremony until 1927?

[gramps]

Regarding John D. Lee...

Let us assume that he was responsible for instigating the massacre. If so, he was guilty of mass murder. And let us assume that all members of the Church find the MMM to be a monstrous crime.

Why then would the First Presidency and Council of the 12 reinstate his membership and Temple blessings in 1961?

Are there cases of other LDS who have committed "monstrous crimes" being excommunicated and posthumously reinstated, including Temple blessings?

I honestly have no idea what they were thinking, and am curious how other LDS see his.

You make a good point.

Perhaps, the ancestors of Bro. Lee were upset enough that the Church had to do it to appease them. But, the logic of it eludes me, as well.

[KevinG]

I suspect the writers of the upcoming book have the support of the Church, just as Bushman did with his biography... But it will not be published by the Church or written by Church authorities, so, no it's not a Church book (implying that its the authoratative word of the Church and its leaders).

Where does the ideology of murder and revenge come from? 'taint God.

[gramps]

I suspect the writers of the upcoming book have the support of the Church, just as Bushman did with his biography... But it will not be published by the Church or written by Church authorities, so, no it's not a Church book (implying that its the authoratative word of the Church and its leaders).

Where does the ideology of murder and revenge come from? 'taint God.

I believe the research is being paid for by the church? I stand to be corrected on that, however.

It came from his Prophet at the time. Didn't it?

[KevinG]

I think grams is missing an important point. One that was missed and took the ommission thread to several pages long...

There is no dispute that the LDS make mistakes, or commit crimes, or sin. None at all.

What is in dispute is using those exceptions to our beliefs, that a few of us commit to our own shame, and attempting to use them as something representative of the Saints beliefs and actions.

Which brings me back to my illustrative question which was soundly ignored...

Would it be fair or truthful to use your sins or mistakes to represent "what you really believe" if they are in opposition to the majority of your beliefs and actions?

[Scott Lloyd]

I suspect the writers of the upcoming book have the support of the Church, just as Bushman did with his biography...  But it will not be published by the Church or written by Church authorities, so, no it's not a Church book (implying that its the authoratative word of the Church and its leaders).

The comparison to the Bushman book is apt.

The book by Richard Turley Jr., Glen M. Leonard and Ronald Walker, due out next year, is through an independent publisher. The authors have had free access to archival materials (Turley is the managing director of the Family and Church History Department) but their work has not come under the Church Correlation Review process. At the Mormon History Association convention in Casper, Wyo., in May, each of the three authors gave a presentation, and they affirmed that they approached the project with a determination to tell the facts of the story, let the chips fall where they may. The fact that it has taken far longer than any of them expected to complete it is and indication of the care to which they are giving the task.

Any implication that this is a Church-directed book is inaccurate and misleading.

That said, I predict that those who want the authors to arrive at different conclusions than they do in the book will accuse them of being under Church control. All the while ignoring the fact that Bagley's project was funded by someone determined to pin the massacre on Brigham Young.

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding John D. Lee...

Let us assume that he was responsible for instigating the massacre.

[KevinG]

It came from his Prophet at the time. Didn't it?

No it didn't. That is your allegation and the allegation of those who desperately want to pin an evil act upon Brigham when in fact it was Brigham who sent express instructions for them to leave the travellers alone.

This is another example of why this thread was started. To point out the sheer hypocrisy and gall of those who use tragedy to exploit a good peoples' name.

[ED500]

In recent years there have been three new books on the Mountain Meadow Massacre.  These were Will Bagley's Blood of The Prophets, Jon Krakauer's Under The Banner of Heaven and Sally Denton's American Massacre.

(Note that Krakauer's book is only secondarily about the MMM; its primary focus is on the Lafferty murders.  His thesis is that religious people are essentially liable to fly into murderous frenzies just as soon as they can convince themselves that God wants them to do so, and therefore religion is a bad thing.  The MMM is cited to prove that the Lafferty murders weren't just an aberration, but that religiously-motivated violence is inherent in Mormonism.)

Ever since the MMM occurred, the Church's enemies have used it as a stick with which to bash the Church.  The first Lee trial failed to get a conviction primarily because the prosecuting attorney, the notorious anti-Mormon R. N. Baskin, failed to lead evidence against Lee, but wasted his time grandstanding about how Brigham Young was really behind it all.  For him, as for many others, then and now, getting to the bottom of the massacre, and catching and convicting the actual culprits, was of only secondary importance; far more important was the massacre's utility as a weapon against the Church of Jesus Christ.

What trends have we seen in anti-Mormon usage of the MMM?  I have noticed a number:

First, despite the attempts of all three books, above, to pin the responsibility for ordering the massacre on Brigham Young, this thesis seems to have little following these days.  Far more common are attempts to entangle him indirectly--Brigham created the "climate" in which the MMM was possible; or to focus upon the aftermath--Brigham should have been diligently rounding up the culprits and handing them over to the authorities.  The massacre as an expression of the latent violence underlying "Mormonism" seems to have caught on rather well.  The recent comments have often played up a rather irrelevant coincidence of date--both the MMM and the Twin Towers happened on the 11th of September.  This gives demagogues an excuse to try to link the two events in the popular mind.  And of course, the old stand-by--that Latter-day Saints "defend" or "excuse" the massacre always seems to get some air time whenever the subject is raised.

Let us accept, as a starting point, that there are no Latter-day Saints who "defend" or "excuse" the massacre.  I have never met or heard of a Latter-day Saint who thnks it was anything other than a monstrous crime.  Let us take that as a given.

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

YES, John D. Lee was an innocent sacrificial lamb. I think the only complicated issue about this issue/history is that that the LDS church (yes, B. Young masterminded the crime...) won't offer a public apology for the decendants who deserve more than a burial site and PR.

GBH could have offered an apology. Instead, he read the speech (made by LDS lawyers!) infront of the decendants during the dedication.

[Calm]

This seems a little far-fetched, Pahoran, when they didn't take it out of the ceremony until 1927?

Isn't this when they were collecting all the various temple versions with the intent of making them consistent?

[mormon fool]

The participants on this thread may want to check out my summary of Thomas Alexander's Arrington lecture in Logan. He completely debunked the idea that vengeance oaths had anything to do with the massacre. I guest posted on popular blog Millennial Star and I will field more questions there for those interested, I do not want to or have time to cross post here though.

See:

http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/20.../p1797#more1797

[Pahoran]

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little." (Brigham Young at the site of the massacre)

And this is relevant because...?

One-liners are especially useful for people who do all their thinking in slogans.

"Blood atonement was a literal and terrible reality. Brigham Young advocated it and preached it without compromise." (Juanita Brooks)

And never once did anything to put that "literal"--i.e. literary--reality into practice.

"To pretend there were no holy murders in Utah and along the trails to California, that there was no saving of the souls of sinners by the shedding of their blood during the blood atonement revival of 1856, that there was no mysterious disappearance of apostates and offensive Gentiles, is simply bad history." (Wallace Stegner)

Your appeal to authority is noted. Other authorities disagree.

But how does this support your exploitation of the MMM? Even if you could prove that there were "holy murders," etc., that would hardly serve to establish that the MMM was one of them. You are using a technique that Hugh Nibley identified long ago--trying to establish an "atmosphere." I see the techniques of the 19th century demagogues are still alive and well.

I consider it an honor to be called a liar and slanderer by the likes of Pahoran, USU78, and others. It is no different today than after the massacre, or any other time in Mormon history, for that matter. Nearly anyone trying to do good history involving the Mormons has been considered such a person.

That's right, Gramps. You're a hero, and a martyr to the cause of impartial truth.

And I managed to type all of that with a straight face.

The persecution complex, as peculiarly evidenced in the Mormon culture, seems to know no bounds.

Do you have any sense of irony at all? Here is a classic example of a persecution complex in action:

"I consider it an honor to be called a liar and slanderer by the likes of Pahoran, USU78, and others. It is no different today than after the massacre, or any other time in Mormon history, for that matter. Nearly anyone trying to do good history involving the Mormons has been considered such a person."

First, it is a fact that Brigham Young inserted an Oath of Vengeance,

No, that is not a fact.

or prayer of vengeance, as Pahoran would have it,

Indeed I would, because that's what it was.

into the temple ceremony. It was not withdrawn from the ceremony until 1927.

And how many wagon trains were ambushed and massacred by Mormons in 1926, Gramps?

Okay, so there were no wagon trains in 1926. How about any other year? What is the grand total of the number of wagon trains ambushed and massacred by Mormons?

For those who wish to read it, you will have to google it. I will not quote it here.

How very noble of you. Or something.

What in heaven's name such an oath or prayer could have to do with getting into heaven, I leave each one of you to consider.

You should read the Bible sometime. The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf.

I don't expect you to know that, of course.

I'm sure Brothers George A. Smith, Haight, Klingensmith and Lee were well familiar with this oath (prayer). I have never said that all those who participated in the massacre knew of this oath. Perhaps some of those 50 knew nothing about it.

And therefore it wasn't a factor for them. Thank you for your reluctant admittance of this fact.

But, all of them knew that it wasn't wise to go against the counsel of the priesthood leaders.

And neither you nor any other hater can produce a single instance of priesthood leaders counselling anyone to massacre wagon trains.

Much as you wish you could.

Many, in the days, months, and years following the massacre admitted that they feared for their own lives if they had not have participated.

Really? And who were these "many?" Where can we read their contemporary statements? I do hope you are not pretending that John D. Lee's lawyer is "many," or that 1877 is "in the days, months, and years following the massacre."

And they "admitted" that? Since when has any version of the Nuremberg defence, which is ultimately an attempt to fix the blame for one's own misdeeds on others, constituted an admission of any kind? Can you spin it any more counterfactually?

Follow orders, or watch out for your safety. That was the rule of the day in southern Utah at the time of the massacre.

Really? And where is this "rule" documented?

I take only one sermon, of many which could be quoted, that Brigham Young delivered to the Saints on March 16, 1856.

"There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God (in the Mormon temples?) that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man or woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants." (See, Journal of Discourses)

So this is "only one sermon, of many which could be quoted," is it? Clearly, it's the very best one you could find--that old "there are plenty more like it" schtick is a well-worn one. But exactly what does Brigham say?

Does he say anything equivalent to "follow orders, or watch out for your safety?" No.

Does he say anything that any honest person could reasonably interpret as meaning or implying "follow orders, or watch out for your safety?" No.

He merely says that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ does not atone. This is sound biblical doctrine, BTW; can you refute it?

I am familiar, through my own family history research, with the reality of this environment at the time of this massacre. There is murder in my family history, directly relating to this principle. What was the murderer's reward for spilling the blood of an enemy to the Church? Why, he was called to serve as Bishop in the Orderville Ward for many, many years. And everyone knew he had murdered a man on Main Street, in downtown Salt Lake City, in the middle of the day, in cold blood, and rode off with known Danites, never to be brought to justice. Noone would testify.

Really? What was his name? What was the date? Whom did he murder? What were the names of the "known Danites" with whom he rode off? What are the names of the witnesses to this event? Where can we read their statements?

If you want us to take that tissue of--er, stuff--as evidence of something, then you will need to provide checkable particulars. Your care in avoiding the provision of those is highly revealing.

Even more revealing is the claim that he "rode off with known Danites." You either do not know or do not care that the Danite movement was squashed--by Joseph Smith--in Missouri, early in 1839. There were no danites in Utah, only ex-danites. That detail is a fiction. How much of the rest of your story is likewise fictitious?

It was very real. As Stegner says, it is just plain bad history to suggest otherwise.

Ah. More irony.

The massacre was ideological more than it was anything else.

Really?

Then tell us, Gramps: how many wagon trains did they ambush and massacre in 1856? How many in 1855? How many in 1858? How many did the Saints in Northern Utah and Idaho bushwhack? Given--and it is a given--that they had the same "ideology" as those in Southern Utah, why didn't they go on the rampage? As in, ever?

Consider these entries from the Cedar Stake journal.

Why? How do they support your accusations? Please explain.

They can be accessed in the William Palmer collection at Southern Utah University archives. This journal is a record of the church meetings held between December 1856 until 1858, when the stake was dissolved.

Theses journal entries coincide with the period of the Utah reformation. And they are very telling of the mindset of the Saints at that time.

19 December 1856--"President John Higbee spoke of the benefits of the Society, and of us not encouraging those blood sucking Gentiles that bring us their goods."

Yes, and? How exactly does "not encouraging" turn out to equal "murdering?"

21 December 1856--"President John M. Higbee made remarks on the necessity of us Saints living in subjugation unto those who are placed over us in the Lord, and of the Lord not giving us any commandments that we cannot keep. President Elias Morris spoke of the Saints not judging those who are above us, and of minding our own business and doing what we are told."

So why was Brigham's injunction to leave the wagon train alone ignored?

Because it wasn't received in time, right?

So why weren't they waiting for it?

29 January  1857--"President Isaac Haight having also returned from the sitting of the Legislature, arose to address the Saints: 'The chief sins of this people are disrespect to the Holy Priesthood, and the pruning time has come'"

So what does a "pruning" taking place among "this people" have to do with wiping out parties of emigrants--who are most emphatically not "this people," and who are only passing through?

And you do know what the "pruning" refers to, don't you? I'm sure you'd like uninformed others to believe that he's talking about murder, but you do know perfectly well that he's actually talking about ecclesiastical sanctions, don't you?

01 February  1857--"Richard Harrison arose and said 'We have to bring ourselves into subjugation to the proper authorities, and got to reform in everything, and make things right. Then we shall have the spirit of the Lord. Unless we are obedient to the priesthood, we cannot be saved.'"

Yes, and? The connection to the MMM is what, exactly?

They must have been drinking a bit too much down in the south. Consider the next two entries.

??? May  1857--"President Elias Morris:'The people of this place of late are indulging in liquor. The women even take the whiskey jugs into their tea party, and must treat a friend. I say let the men, women and children who indulge in it leave it off, unless you will go down and be condemned.'"

12 July  1857--"President I.C. Haight spoke and said 'Myself and Brother Western will not sell any more liquor unless the people bring a recommend from the bishop.'"

And you think this is relevant too, do you?

And the entry, just two days after the massacre:

13 September  1857--"At ten o'clock a.m. meeting opened by singing. Patriarch Elisha H. Groves spoke upon the principles of the gospel, and of the Lamanites as the battle-axe of the Lord, and of our faithfulness of the gospel. 2p.m. meeting opened by singing, prayer by I.C. Haight. Haight spoke upon the spirit of the times, and cousin Lemuel being fired up with the spirit of their fathers. Singing, benediction by P.K. Smith" [Phillip Klingensmith]

Yes, and? Your point?

Was Groves a massacre participant? Do you know? Do you care?

Klingensmith, as you know, was. He subsequently left the Church and made a deal with the feds to avoid prosecution. He wasn't called to give evidence at Lee's second trial, because the prosecutor considered him unreliable. Based upon what he is writing, just two days later, would you say that his defection was a manifestation of his conscience, or was he just trying to save his own skin?

I guess I am on the side of Will Bagley,

Well of course you would be.

We now know that Bagley was a hired hatchet-man who answered a newspaper ad looking for someone who would agree to pin the MMM on Brigham Young before looking at the documents. We also know that he falsified quotations to make them say what he wanted them to say.

when he said, while delivering a presentation to the 8th Annual Ex-Mormon Convention in Salt Lake City:

Yes, there's an audience who would object to him sticking it to the Church, isn't there?

"Now, I am astonished that I still have people who I consider friends who argue that this was done because these people basically behaved badly, and made people in southern Utah mad at them, so they just went out and killed them all.

Never in the entire fury and blood of the Civil War did members of one side or another kill children of seven years old. It never happened. These were not crimes of anger. These were crimes of ideology."

Yes, that's an excellent example of what this thread is about: the exploitation of the MMM for polemical purposes.

The MMM participants didn't murder seven-year-olds because they had an "ideology" that demanded it. That is a vicious and baseless piece of hate propaganda. They murdered seven-year-olds because they saw them as credible witnesses against them.

Which is to say--and I want this point to be completely clear, even to you--they murdered seven-year-olds precisely because they knew they were committing a crime, and not because they thought they were carrying out a religious duty.

And Bagley is overlooking other examples nearer to hand, carried out by non-Mormons. At Sand Creek and Bear River, Colonels Chivington and O'Connor permitted their troops to slaughter, not just seven-year-olds but suckling infants. How is that possible, without the baleful influence of Mormon "ideology" to spur them on? Given that some people, contemporary to the MMM participants and their relatively near neighbours, were able to commit such murders absent any religious "ideology" to motivate them, then why not the MMM participants themselves?

Violence was sanctioned over the pulpit.

Really? If that is the case, then you have failed to produce any examples of such.

People who took out their endowments took an oath to pray to God for the vengeance of Joseph Smith and to covenant to teach this to their children and their childrens's children and their children's children's children.

Thank you for admitting that this was a prayer and nothing more. I hope it didn't hurt too much. Note again, that by placing the matter in God's hands they were ipso facto removing it from their own.

This was the mindset of the 1850's in Utah.

Oh, so that's all there was to it, was there? No other factors were in play, is that your contention?

Are you aware that wagon trains were rolling through Utah, north and south, every summer through this time?

And it came right from the top, Brigham Young, and down through the local leaders to the rank and file members. There was far more going on here than just random frontier justice.

Who ever said that it was "just random frontier justice?" You are beating up a straw man.

I notice that Johnston's army doesn't even rate a mention in your summary. Is it your contention that the invasion was not relevant to the massacre? That it is a mere coincidence that the only wagon train to have been wiped out in the transit of Utah territory in all the 19th century--out of the hundreds that crossed the territory safely--just happened to be passing through when the Saints were preparing for war?

So, Pahoran, and others, I am not going to sit here day in and day out and argue back and forth with you about who said what and who didn't. You will never agree with me.

Does that mean that you are dropping this rather large cow-pat and running away?

But, I am not wrong,

Would you admit it if you were? Could you even recognise it?

that this was more an ideological crime than anything else.

No. It was not.

It was contrary to everything the Church teaches or has ever taught. That is a fact, Gramps. A fact that every honest, decent, informed person who has ever taken the time to examine the events, willingly admits. Without exception.

And that is all I ever suggested to Dad of 7 and others.

We know. You slyly tried to insinuate that the cause of the massacre is located in the teachings of the Church. This is the most extreme form of the propaganda that some try to adduce from the MMM.

The evidence is clear.

Yes, and it is all against you. Every scrap of it.

The temple endowment, coupled with the sermons over the pulpit culminated in an environment leading to the deaths of innocent men, women and children.

That's right. This single event, standing out in stark contrast against a half century of quiet, decorous behaviour, is the logical and expected consequence of all that violent indoctrination. It all fits. Well, all except for one teeny tiny little detail that your revised version of the Blood Libel fails to explain, Gramps: and that's the singularity of this event.

You see, if in fact the legendary Utah of the Bloody Valleys really did exist, then being ambushed and massacred would have to be the normal fate of any wagon trains foolish enough to venture within the reach of the dreaded danites. Indeed, you've done your best (or worst) to try to revive that vile old legend, but it only serves to raise the question even higher: why was Utah so very safe for every emigrant party except the Fanchers? Why did any trains make it out alive? Why did they even go in there?

Any impartial observer can see that there must have been something unusual, either about the personnel of that train, or the specific time in which they were present. The "Mormon ideology" that you and your hero Baglady try so desperately to pin the blame upon was not unique to that time or place, but was constant throughout the territory, and for the entire last half of the 19th century; therefore, that cannot be the explanation.

Now it happens that there were very particular things going on right at that time, and not any other. There were also particular factors about some of the personnel travelling with the Fancher party that attracted the odium of the locals. Please note that this does not excuse what happened to them, and was never meant to do so; but it does help to understand why them in particular. Primarily, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

(Oh, did I forget George A. Smith, just two days ahead of the Fancher party in every village and town, rallying the Saints in to a frenzy to "do their duty.")

"Just two days ahead?" Your timing is out by several weeks. You are clearly attempting to describe GAS as riding down the road just in front the Fancher party and rousing the countryside, when in fact he was heading in the opposite direction to them, and was back in SLC before they reached the Meadows.

Do you know why GAS really toured the southern settlements, or would you prefer not to know?

Does this mean that the Church is not true because this massacre was caused by the Church's own ideology?

Since the massacre was not "caused by the Church's own ideology," the question is moot.

But that is what you hope others will conclude.

This, then is the culmination of the anti-Mormon polemical view of the MMM: that some, made irrational by their extreme hatred for the Church of Jesus Christ, adamantly insist against all evidence that the massacre was a result of the Church's teachings. Others, whose love for truth and impartial history is exactly the equal of theirs, used to insist that Jews eat Christian children at Passover. The two libels are equally valid.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

YES,  John D. Lee was an innocent sacrificial lamb.

Innocent? Do you actually know anything about the massacre?

Are you aware that Lee admitted to having killed five people? That he only stopped because his gun jammed? How innocent was he?

I think the only complicated issue about this issue/history is that that the LDS church (yes, B. Young masterminded the crime...)

Did he? How? How did he get his instructions to Southern Utah, by carrier pigeon or post owl? Why are his actual written instructions directly contrary to the crime you imagine that he "masterminded?"

won't offer a public apology for the decendants who deserve more than a burial site and PR.

Why? All my ancestors from the 1850's are dead, too. What do I "deserve" for that?

GBH could have offered an apology.  Instead, he read the speech (made by LDS lawyers!) infront of the decendants during the dedication.

Apology for what? "I'm sorry your ancestors were murdered contrary to the orders of my predecessor?" Would that do?

Regads,

Pahoran

[Marvelous]

What excuse do you apologists give for Brigham Young not rigorously investigating the crime and prosecuting the perpetrators, other than sacrifical lamb Lee?

[gramps]

Hey mormon fool:

This quote from the Millenial Star notes about Alexander completely debunking the oath idea is nonsense, unless you heard actually more than your notes summarize. Did you think I wouldn't go and check them out?

Your notes are as follows (taken in context):

The Q&A was entertaining and Dr. Alexander didn't flinch at any tough questions. One person asked about whether the temple ceremony wording at the time required the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death. Alexander responded that it was his understanding that the Saints merely asked God to carry out such vengeance. Some one fished for a compliment for Juanita Brooks, in which Alexander gave due credit, but suggested that if Brooks hadn't have covered the massacre somebody else would have. He complimented Brooks for doing well with the limited information she had, but now much more is available.

(emphasis mine)

May I ask how in heaven's name do those two lines completely debunk anything?

Noone has ever said the oath "required" the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death.

[mormon fool]

Gramps,

You write:

Did you think I wouldn't go and check them out?

I fully expected to draw some people to read my summary, you in particular after seeing your post on the first page. I feel sad my motivation has been questioned, at worst, I was overenthusiastic in my use of the word debunk which I was using as a teaser and my personal, but informed, opinion.

Noone has ever said the oath "required" the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death.

At the lecture and if my memory serves me correctly, somebody did ask this very question. I am at a loss how you can assert otherwise.

In fact I am at a loss exactly what you are asserting in this thead. You do understand that the burden of showing there is a connection between temple oaths and the MMM is on you, right?

As it is, I think I have a fairly good understanding of Nauvoo and Utah temple ceremonies having recently read the two books in the Anderson and Bergera series, selections from and reviews of Buerger's Mysteries of Godliness (I don't recommend this book, BTW), and Ehat's Master's thesis. I also have a pulse on anti-mormon claims about violence in frontier Utah from the Tanner's coverage, from Bagley, to odd behavior of splinter groups like the Laffertys and LeBarons, from compilations of the most violent rhetoric in the JoD, and from competent coverage in numerous articles from the UHQ. After all that I am not impressed with any alleged connections between temple oaths and violence. That isn't to say I am not still humbly learning more from master historians such as Dr. Alexander. So if you have anything that might persuade me or other rational people otherwise, consider this yet another CFR.

But I think you have enough on your plate already. If you can ignore some of Pahoran's drama and focus on his ideas, I opine what he has already stated "debunks" the notion temple oaths had any relevancy to the MMM. I am in complete agreement (and I imagine Alexander is as well) with and could add documentation for what should be obvious:

"The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf."

I hope you will account for this verity at some point.

Thanks,

fool

[mormon fool]

What excuse do you apologists give for Brigham Young not rigorously investigating the crime and prosecuting the perpetrators, other than sacrifical lamb Lee?

If you see my summary of Dr. Alexander's lecture, who you would be hard pressed to call an apologist, but more of a "let the chips fall were they may" type of historian, you will see that Brigham rigorously conducted five investigations and that the people who talked were less than forthcoming at best and flat out lying at worst. Brigham Young offered his complete assistance to help prosecute the perps multiple times but was rejected by an inept, scheming, anti-mormon government faction.

So this apologist rejects the premise of your question. Brigham was not in charge of the incompetent court system.

[gramps]

Hey mormon fool. You wrote:

At the lecture and if my memory serves me correctly, somebody did ask this very question. I am at a loss how you can assert otherwise.

I wasn't at the lecture. Apparently, you were. So, even if your memory was correct, which you seem willing to hedge in the quote below, I am "at a loss" as to how "you can assert" I would know what someone asked at the lecture.

I never asserted someone might not have asked that question. Even if someone asked that question, and I wasn't there at the lecture, it has never been asserted on this thread that the oath "required" anyone to do anything. That is what I meant by my statement here:

Noone has ever said the oath "required" the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death.

Hopefully, that is clear enough for you now.

To the next point. You wrote:

The participants on this thread may want to check out my summary of Thomas Alexander's Arrington lecture in Logan. He completely debunked the idea that vengeance oaths had anything to do with the massacre. I guest posted on popular blog Millennial Star and I will field more questions there for those interested, I do not want to or have time to cross post here though.

(emphasis mine)

And in your summary notes on the other blog, you write:

The Q&A was entertaining and Dr. Alexander didn't flinch at any tough questions. One person asked about whether the temple ceremony wording at the time required the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death. Alexander responded that it was his understanding that the Saints merely asked God to carry out such vengeance. Some one fished for a compliment for Juanita Brooks, in which Alexander gave due credit, but suggested that if Brooks hadn't have covered the massacre somebody else would have. He complimented Brooks for doing well with the limited information she had, but now much more is available.

(emphasis mine)

You next come up with this excuse, here on this thread. You write:

I fully expected to draw some people to read my summary, you in particular after seeing your post on the first page. I feel sad my motivation has been questioned, at worst, I was overenthusiastic in my use of the word debunk which I was using as a teaser and my personal, but informed, opinion.

The word you used was not a word, it was a phrase: "clearly debunked." Your notes aren't even close to matching that description.

OK. If you were just using a kind of "sales puffery" to lure us in, well, it got me in there. But, there was no substance to back it up. Just puffery. That is what you ought to be sad about.

Your motivation is quite clear in the words you alone wrote. Who wouldn't question your motivation? It screams out to any reasonable person reading your own words.

And another thing, mormon fool, if I had been there at the lecture, I would have asked something like the following:

"Mr. Alexander, taking that there was an oath of vengeance in the temple ceremony, and that Brigham Young was the one to insert it into the ceremony, and taken Brigham Young's penchant for preaching blood atonement over the conference pulpit and taking into account that, at the time of the massacre, Utah Mormons were in the midst of the "reformation hysteria", can you honestly say that this massacre was not a crime of ideology?"

The question, which you assert, assuming your memory serves you correctly, that was asked, was cream puff all the way. A ninety-year old on crutches could have dodged that one.

[gramps]

Hey mormon fool.

From where does this quote, from a post of yours above, originate?

"The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf."

Edited to read: see the next post of mine. I found it.

[gramps]

Hey mormon fool.

From where does this quote, from a post of yours above, originate?

"The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf."

I found it mormon fool. Up in Pahoran's post above.

Are you using him as authority now, or has everything been "clearly debunked" by citing Pahoran?

[gramps]

Pahoran wrote:

You should read the Bible sometime. The whole idea behind appealing to God for vengeance upon one's enemies is that such an appeal necessarily entails an explicit renunciation of any right to exact vengeance on one's own behalf.

Show where the Bible teaches that. "Necessarily" is an awful mighty big word. So is "explicit."

[mormon fool]

Gramps,

May I humbly suggest that you not get so worked up about a second hand, brief summary of Alexander's position. I made no promises that my summary was a verbatim capture of Alexander's complete response, if you are disapponted I didn't bring a recording device you have my sincere apology. Yes Alexander had more to say, but somehow I think whether he debunked the notion that "temple oaths" somehow contributed to the event would be in the eye of the beholder. I have charitably conceded that point already and bit my tongue on imagining the type of folks (who would have been present) wouldn't think so . Present company excepted. Some people can watch the show Myth Busters and not be convinced the myth they show involved was really busted. We all have different levels where we set the bar for acceptable evidence; and some set it much, much lower than others where arguably the bar needs to be set very high.

Your assertion that "Noone[sic] has ever said the oath "required" the vengeance of Joseph Smith's death does not make any sense given that it was stated in form of a question IIRC, and that is why I wrote about it. 'Nuff said.

As for the way you would have phrased your question, I would say the audience members were sufficiently clever not to load up questions but isolate issues. One asked if George A. Smith's sermons inflamed the massacre, one asked what the train may have done to deserve the massacre, and another asked about temple oaths. So your loaded question was answered in stages and the outcome was not at all favorable to your position, not even a little bit.

The massacre was anti-ethical to Mormon ideology, especially temple covenants and blood atonement. I will wait and see if you can respond to what is already on the board before presenting new evidence.

I will give you some advice on how you can construct your case:

0. Respond to why you don't think Pahoran's statement doesn't completely blow your case out of the water before you even begin to construct it.

1. State up front what you hope to establish.

2. Clearly reconstruct 1850's Mormon theology without ignoring context or quotations that work against your theory.

3. Clearly establish how such teachings were received and implemented and establish patterns of behavior prior to the massacre, while accounting for all merciful practices that work against your reconstruction.

4. Show direct connections to 2-3 to the massacre from the most reliable, and if possible, contemporary sources.

5. Show while your "ideological" motivations have more bearing than more proximate causes (war time hysteria, courting alliance with indians, vigilante justice for committed crimes, a small group of men (esp. Haight) manipulating a militia and the indians for personal vengeance.)

6. Show how your reconstruction is more plausible and has fewer anomalies than Brooks', Alexander's, Turley's, Crockett's, most respected LDS historians, etc.

7. Show that mormon ideology was necessary or sufficient to cause the massacre. Explain why other (with religious perps, athiestic perps, vigilante mobs, or millitary) massacres took place and be prepared to explain why common or varying elements to these other massacres don't undercut your burden of proof.

You have a lot of work to do be persuasive without quibbling over anything I have written. Let me know if I can help.