Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Scott Lloyd]

You know, Pahoran, I genuinely don't think you're aware of the impact it has on many LDS and former LDS to read your statements like this, but are acutely aware that they were, indeed, taught that the F-B emigrants brought it on themselves. I also don't think you're aware of how powerful and far reaching that impact is on people who come to this forum in good faith hoping to find answers to sincere questions they have. I assure you that your impact on many of these people is profound, powerful, and persuasive. I know because I've read many heart-felt testimonials to your approach in exit stories on several other websites.

Theophilus07

If they follow a pattern that some of us have observed, such individuals come to a board such as this with their minds already made up and are looking for nothing other than some sort of excuse to validate a decision they have already made. It hardly strikes me as surprising that they would find such an excuse in the less-than-subtle approach of someone like Pahoran and would be more than happy to say so in their vitriol-laced "exit stories."

At the same time, I have to think there are hordes of unseen lurkers who have not already formed a hardened conclusion that Mormonism is false and for whom rock-solid refutation of anti-Mormon attacks and sophistry served to keep the playing field level. You likely won't read about them in self-absorbed "exit stories," but I'm fairly certain the effect has been profound upon them as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've not only seen the cover, I've read it from cover to cover. Dr. Peterson has said (and you've even quoted him to this effect) that he's just finishing the book now though he had skimmed it earlier.

I've not quoted him to that effect. I said he had probably read it. I knew from personal conversation with him that he had a copy.

So my opinions were based on an actual reading of the book in contrast to the opinions of others who have not read it. I'm now on my second reading, taking careful notes.

As Paul Simon said, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Please note that I have not doubted your ability, Scott, to read or understand English, I have not questioned your character, I have not "in the name of decency" called you to repentence, and I have neither said, nor even implied anything perjorative about you.

Except, of course, charging me with implying, contrary to my direct assertions, that the victims at Mountain Meadows "brought it on themselves."

[Daniel Peterson]

I will bear your statement as a badge of pride.

To take pride in a skewed reading of a book is a very odd thing, but this is a free country.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just thought I'd pipe in, Theo, and say that having completed the book I also think your reading differs greatly from my own.

As a "Chapel Mormon," I can report that I have not "been taught all [my life] that the F-B party 'had it coming'." Nor in any part of my life. Nor have I ever met a "Chapel Mormon" who claimed to have been so taught. Or even one that expressed such a view.

I guess you must be too young to remember the good old days. Alternately, "Fancher Sunday" and "Kolob Sunday" were mainstays in the Church.

[selek]

I guess you must be too young to remember the good old days. Alternately, "Fancher Sunday" and "Kolob Sunday" were mainstays in the Church.

Says the third-youngest turk at the unofficial FAIR/MADB shindigs in Provo!

I tell ya.....kids these days.....just no respect for their elders!

[Scott Lloyd]

Just thought I'd pipe in, Theo, and say that having completed the book I also think your reading differs greatly from my own.I guess you must be too young to remember the good old days. Alternately, "Fancher Sunday" and "Kolob Sunday" were mainstays in the Church.

"Fancher Sunday." Wasn't that the day they taught us that no such event as the Mountain Meadows Massacre ever occurred, but if it had, the emigrants would have been entirely at fault?

Or am I unconsciously conflating anti-Mormon "exit stories" here?

[emeliza]

"Fancher Sunday." Wasn't that the day they taught us that no such event as the Mountain Meadows Massacre ever occurred, but if it had, the emigrants would have been entirely at fault?

Or am I unconsciously conflating anti-Mormon "exit stories" here?

You guys are so silly. However Theo, I apologize for not thinking you had read the book. I also thought your reading differed so greatly you had not read it yet.

[Doctor Steuss]

Off hand, I can think of Life on a Plate, gmormon, Dr. Steuss and probably Daniel Peterson. I doubt Theophilus07 has even seen the cover.

In the spirit of disclosure, I am only on page 110.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the spirit of disclosure, I am only on page 110.

I'm so disillusioned.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm so disillusioned.

I hear that often comes with advanced age.

[emeliza]

In the spirit of disclosure, I am only on page 110.

Holy crud, you are catching up with me. I am only on 136. However so far I don't see anything that points the cause as being the emmigrants.

[Scott Lloyd]

I hear that often comes with advanced age.

No, you're confusing disillusioned with disoriented.

[Daniel Peterson]

Holy crud, you are catching up with me. I am only on 136. However so far I don't see anything that points the cause as being the emmigrants.

Perhaps you can only see that in the book with your anti-spiritual eyes, or with the eye of anti-faith?

[Doctor Steuss]

No, you're confusing disillusioned with disoriented.

Holy crud, you are catching up with me. I am only on 136. However so far I don't see anything that points the cause as being the emmigrants.

So far I haven't seen anything as "the" cause. It kind of keeps jumping about at what might have been contributing aspects that might have acted as motivating factors, but as for â??the" causeâ?¦

It has been far too long since I read Bagley (and even further in the past since I read Brookes) to give any form of a meaningful comparison, but thus far it seems as if these authors are putting much more effort into painting an overall picture than the previous two authors (I keep feeling myself being thrust back and forth as one perspective is given, then anotherâ?¦)**

**Edited to add:

I'm not quite sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing (in a way it reminds me of when I read Schindler's OPR biography, and the duality painted through that book...)

[Scott Lloyd]

So far I haven't seen anything as "the" cause. It kind of keeps jumping about at what might have been contributing aspects that might have acted as motivating factors, but as for â??the" causeâ?¦

It has been far too long since I read Bagley (and even further in the past since I read Brookes) to give any form of a meaningful comparison, but thus far it seems as if these authors are putting much more effort into painting an overall picture than the previous two authors (I keep feeling myself being thrust back and forth as one perspective is given, then anotherâ?¦)

Ah, but you see, you're being craftily manipulated (according to Theophilus07) into believing the emigrants "brought it on themselves."

[emeliza]

Ah, but you see, you're being craftily manipulated (according to Theophilus07) into believing the emigrants "brought it on themselves."

It must be very craftily because every time I read something it just basically makes it out as the settlers were getting themselves more and more worked into a frenzy by putting all the factors they were 'seeing' together and that this area was one of the few places that was doing so.

I feel so much more for the emmigrants and how they just managed to get to the wrong place at the wrong time that it breaks my heart.

[Doctor Steuss]

Ah, but you see, you're being craftily manipulated (according to Theophilus07) into believing the emigrants "brought it on themselves."

I don't know how crafty the manipulation has been thus far as I have developed a fair amount of disdain for some of the vigilante Mormons that failed to distinguish from the approaching threat and â??Gentilesâ? and â??apostatesâ? within their midst that they felt they were justified in meting out violence upon (despite leadershipâ??s orders to the contrary).

One thing is for sure. It is hard to remain â??detachedâ? while reading this. There are so many events and moving first-hand accounts (from both sides of the fence) as to make one wish to choose a side, but at the same time, the presentation of evidence almost makes it impossible to do so. In a way, I think the way the book is written almost forces one to suspend overall conclusions until all of the evidence is laid out. Just when I begin to become disgusted with the LDS of the area and time, I find myself placing myself in their shoesâ?¦ only to later find those shoes loathsome.

Itâ??s been a rollercoaster so far... a very well-written one.

Edited to add:

No doubt some will read the above as me saying the book leaves room for the "they had it coming" mindset, but I just want to make it clear... In my opinion (from my reading thus far), the book leaves no such room.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I feel so much more for the emmigrants [...]

Speaking of which; I just finished a passage that was rather complimentary of Alexander Fancher. Not exactly what one would expect from something that is supposedly meant to demonize the victims.

[katherine the great]

Speaking of which; I just finished a passage that was rather complimentary of Alexander Fancher. Not exactly what one would expect from something that is supposedly meant to demonize the victims.

Quite a bit of time and thought was obviously put into presenting a fair, unbiased background of all the parties involved. The notes reference interviews with relatives of the victims as well as the perps. Alexander Fancher, I agree, was presented as a fair and good leader who tried to keep a cool head through the journey.

[emeliza]

Speaking of which; I just finished a passage that was rather complimentary of Alexander Fancher. Not exactly what one would expect from something that is supposedly meant to demonize the victims.

Is that where he got after members of 'his party' for acting badly?

Alexander Fancher tried to calm the men. Johnson reported, "I did hear Capt. Fancher, who was the leader of the emmigrants, rebuke the boastful ones of the company for making these threats."

[Scott Lloyd]

Is that where he got after members of 'his party' for acting badly?

Something to which I trust Theophilus07 will give due attention in his careful note taking during his second reading of the book.

But then that would require an acknowledgment that some members of the party were indeed acting badly, something he would find too unpalatable for his cognizance, I'm afraid.

[Doctor Steuss]

Is that where he got after members of 'his party' for acting badly?

That's a much better example than what I had just read. I was referring to Pg. 110-111 where John Pierce Hawley told of his meeting with the train's leader (later identified as most likely Alexander Fancher by the authors) south of Nephi:

â??We have a Dutchman with us, a single man, and he has given us all the trouble we have had. He would not obey orders but was sassy with officers in these places and it originated by our cattle being grazed on there [sic] herd grounds, but we intend to observe the laws and rules of the territory.â? After spending time with the emigrants, Hawley believed that the â??Saints gave them more trouble than they ought.â?

Katherine,

It fills me with added fear of the upcoming chapters when a face (a very admirable and human face) has been given to some of the victims. I imagine the accounts of the children/teenagers playing (such as Cropperâ??s account on pg. 113) will make it all that much more difficult when the ensuing chapters cease to be something I will read and instead become something I have read.

[emeliza]

It fills me with added fear of the upcoming chapters when a face (a very admirable and human face) has been given to some of the victims. I imagine the accounts of the children/teenagers playing (such as Cropperâ??s account on pg. 113) will make it all that much more difficult when the ensuing chapters cease to be something I will read and instead become something I have read.

I feel the same way, which is why I have gone days at a time without picking up the book. I keep fearing how close I am to the actual event. Books really affect my mood and demeanor in life, especially when I have empathy for the characters and how much more so when they are real people and you know there is no happy ending.

[Pahoran]

You know, Pahoran, I genuinely don't think you're aware of the impact it has on many LDS and former LDS to read your statements like this, but are acutely aware that they were, indeed, taught that the F-B emigrants brought it on themselves.

Were they? When? By whom? From what curriculum materials?

This is a CFR, Theo. Not one of those "many LDS and former LDS" has come forward to support your libel that they were "taught that the F-B emigrants brought it on themselves." Absolutely to the contrary, the unanimous verdict of the "many" you have taken it upon yourself to champion is that the Church villainously failed to mention the MMM at all. So put up or shut up, because I put it to you that you are making it up.

I also don't think you're aware of how powerful and far reaching that impact is on people who come to this forum in good faith hoping to find answers to sincere questions they have. I assure you that your impact on many of these people is profound, powerful, and persuasive. I know because I've read many heart-felt testimonials to your approach in exit stories on several other websites.

Theophilus07

References, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TAK]

Pahoran

As a "Chapel Mormon," I can report that I have not "been taught all [my life] that the F-B party 'had it coming'." Nor in any part of my life. Nor have I ever met a "Chapel Mormon" who claimed to have been so taught. Or even one that expressed such a view.

I can say that I was never taught that either..

â?? I had never heard a word about Mountain Meadows until my mission when an article in Time Magazine came out and were being asked about it while tracking. We violated mission rules and bought the Magazine so we could (or so we thought..) answer the questions. Mission President was not much help either.