Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[emeliza]

The shame of this dicussion is that the two extremes, "had it coming" or "Brigham planned it", can not be proven either way. The truth of the whole matter is that the, (with the known and given information,) is that it falls somewhere in between. I don't believe either one!

I don't believe it was in the middle at all. I don't think either extreme is even on the radar for what happened. I think the settlers got themselves hyped up and took it out on innocent people. I don't think that BY or the emmigrants had much to do with anything at all in the actual massacre.

[gmormon]

...(with the known and given information,)...

I don't believe it was in the middle at all. I don't think either extreme is even on the radar for what happened. I think the settlers got themselves hyped up and took it out on innocent people. I don't think that BY or the emmigrants had much to do with anything at all in the actual massacre.

I believe I qualified my statement!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Golly. It takes me back to my own days in Junior Sunday School and to happy nights singing around the Church camp bonfire with the other Boy Scout paramilitary trainees:

Mountain Meadows stories that my teachers taught to me:

All about the Fancher train who wouldn't let us be,

How they all deserved their fate -- and got it to a tee

At the hands of the friends of John D. Lee.

Awsome!!

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm looking forward to the second book, (Scott any feelers as to when this one will be released, and please don't say 5 to 10 years ?).

When I was in Rick Turley's office several days ago on another matter, he mentioned that the second volume is already in second draft, due to the fact that the initial plan was to publish just one complete book. He said they are not prognosticating a publication date for volume 2, "because we missed so badly on the first one."

Golly. It takes me back to my own days in Junior Sunday School and to happy nights singing around the Church camp bonfire with the other Boy Scout paramilitary trainees:Mountain Meadows stories that my teachers taught to me:All about the Fancher train who wouldn't let us be,How they all deserved their fate -- and got it to a tee At the hands of the friends of John D. Lee.

This is the second verse I've seen of the song so far. I want the complete version -- with musical notation. Maybe it could be an auction item for the FAIR Conference next year.

[TAK]

Of course, if it had been, it would be fairly easy to document. All one would have to do is produce the particular lesson manual, book, study outline or other item of official Church curriculum containing the teaching that the massacred emigrants "had it coming." And it seems that Pahoran is challenging Theophilus07 (and, I suppose, TAK and anyone else) to do just that.

The earliest official treatment I can find off hand is in B.H. Roberts Comprehensive History of the Church. (volume 4, beginning on page 139). Though it records the standard rumors and after-the-fact rationalizations (poisoning of cattle, boasting about driving the Mormons from Missouri, etc.) nothing in there purports that the victims deserved their fate.

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

This notion of â??Official Churchâ? anything â?? doctrine, teaching or policy are really hollow arguments. Our esteemed friend Dr. Peterson must have at least a 100 posts on a single MMM thread on the Board-That-Cannot-Be-Named, many of which are trying to convince critics that the Church does not have an â??Official Policyâ? to hide truths that are harmful to the Church, that truth is not secondary to the Church mission â?? despite comments from Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard to the contrary, and that if the authors of MMM had uncovered a smoking gun that would have implicated Brigham Young as a murderer, the Church would allow that information to be published.

As to this issue of things taught, I will let Theo address his own assertions, which from my perspective he seems to be doing just fine. I will say this; that things taught is a rather broad concept and people learn in different ways and not solely from a Sunday School manuals. While I am not aware of any manuals that taught anything about MMM that does not mean that blame was not inferred upon the Emigrants.

What I have read from the sources over the years were the many many rumors that were spread about the conduct of the Fancher train. Nobody was saying that the rumors were false and that the Fancher train did not deserve it. The implication is left to the reader. As noted by me earlier, the notion of â??no innocent bloodâ? were made by Lee and Haight â?? but were made to President Young and Apostle Woodruff. I am not aware of that they (Young or Woodruff) corrected the assessment of these two comments in the many years to follow. Members are left with the impressions based upon nothing but rumors that the Fancher train were at least partially responsible for their own murders. .

For example:

â??It becomes historically understandable if not pardonable when viewed as the result of a combination of Mormon hysteria during the early stages of the Utah War, the rumors that this company was a reconnoitering party in advance of the main federal army, and the misbehavior of some members of the Fancher train, mainly a few hangers-on known as Missouri wildcats, who forcibly expropriated supplies and made profane boasts that they had participated in the Haunâ??s Mill Massacre and other mob actions against the saints. Add to this the volatile, agitated state of the Indian tribes who seemed determined to attack the train because its members had poisoned some of the wells, and the convergence of factors became such as to allow an explosion of passion that under most circumstances could not have occurred.â?

Mormon Experience, By Leonard J. Arrington, Davis Bitton pg. 167

â?? if not pardonableâ? ??!!!

These rumors were portrayed as facts by LDS historians. They donâ??t have to come out and say the Fancher train â??had it comingâ? but reader is left with that impression none the less.

[ttribe]

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

This notion of â??Official Churchâ? anything â?? doctrine, teaching or policy are really hollow arguments. Our esteemed friend Dr. Peterson must have at least a 100 posts on a single MMM thread on the Board-That-Cannot-Be-Named, many of which are trying to convince critics that the Church does not have an â??Official Policyâ? to hide truths that are harmful to the Church, that truth is not secondary to the Church mission â?? despite comments from Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard to the contrary, and that if the authors of MMM had uncovered a smoking gun that would have implicated Brigham Young as a murderer, the Church would allow that information to be published.

As to this issue of things taught, I will let Theo address his own assertions, which from my perspective he seems to be doing just fine. I will say this; that things taught is a rather broad concept and people learn in different ways and not solely from a Sunday School manuals. While I am not aware of any manuals that taught anything about MMM that does not mean that blame was not inferred upon the Emigrants.

What I have read from the sources over the years were the many many rumors that were spread about the conduct of the Fancher train. Nobody was saying that the rumors were false and that the Fancher train did not deserve it. The implication is left to the reader. As noted by me earlier, the notion of â??no innocent bloodâ? were made by Lee and Haight â?? but were made to President Young and Apostle Woodruff. I am not aware of that they (Young or Woodruff) corrected the assessment of these two comments in the many years to follow. Members are left with the impressions based upon nothing but rumors that the Fancher train were at least partially responsible for their own murders. .

For example:

Mormon Experience, By Leonard J. Arrington, Davis Bitton pg. 167

â?? if not pardonableâ? ??!!!

These rumors were portrayed as facts by LDS historians. They donâ??t have to come out and say the Fancher train â??had it comingâ? but reader is left with that impression none the less.

What is the point of all of this Tak? You keep reaching around for various tangential statements and occurrences to connect dots that aren't even on the same page, and to what end? The more you do this, the more it just looks like you are trying to justify your longstanding belief that the Church and its leaders once (or even now) condoned the murders at Mountain Meadows; and all of this in spite of the significant evidence to the contrary. At what point (if ever) will you throw up your hands and say - "Yep...looks like I was wrong on this one! But that Danite thing - I know that's real and here's why...."?

[emeliza]

You could be right, TAK. It could very well be that up until the past 50 years the Church has sort of pushed the MMM off as being somewhat the fault of the emmigrants. I wasn't a member of the Church over 50 years ago nor alive.

However I do not feel the Church is doing it now and I also don't believe most of our leaders in the Church (GA's) were leaders over 50 years ago. Although we do sort of view the Church as a collective, you must also realize that the Church is somewhat based on the individual leaders as well.

Personally I think the rumors were just probably not explored until more recent years. I don't think it was a huge conspiracy. Maybe it started out as a cover up and then changed into just assuming it was correct. Or maybe it was assumed from the beginning. We don't really know. Heck, I can't even say that the Church actually pushed the MMM on the emmigrants over 50 years ago either.

[gmormon]

I believe I qualified my statement!

Okay middle might not be the best word, but could we say two of the more extreme tangents

"The shame of this dicussion is that the two extremes tangents, "had it coming" or "Brigham planned it", can not be proven either way"

[emeliza]

"The shame of this dicussion is that the two extremes tangents, "had it coming" or "Brigham planned it", can not be proven either way"

I agree with that. Though I think I also would agree that they can both be proven incorrect (but that is just my personal opinion).

[TAK]

You could be right, TAK. It could very well be that up until the past 50 years the Church has sort of pushed the MMM off as being somewhat the fault of the emmigrants. I wasn't a member of the Church over 50 years ago nor alive.

However I do not feel the Church is doing it now and I also don't believe most of our leaders in the Church (GA's) were leaders over 50 years ago. Although we do sort of view the Church as a collective, you must also realize that the Church is somewhat based on the individual leaders as well.

Personally I think the rumors were just probably not explored until more recent years. I don't think it was a huge conspiracy. Maybe it started out as a cover up and then changed into just assuming it was correct. Or maybe it was assumed from the beginning. We don't really know. Heck, I can't even say that the Church actually pushed the MMM on the emmigrants over 50 years ago either.

I agree with you that the blame appears to have been turned away from the Emigrants which strikes me as a good thing.

[gmormon]

I agree with that. Though I think I also would agree that they can both be proven incorrect (but that is just my personal opinion).

Do we have any of the journals of the immigrants of their daily activities...? However, I do agree with you more on the "Brigham planned it" scenario. In either case if we were to find a Mark Hoffman "document" that supports either scenario would that change the argument ?

[Aquilifer]

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

Under the subheading "Massacre Coldly Determined Upon":

After the discussion as to the disposition of the emigrants referred to ended, it appears that leading spirits among the white settlers who had assembled at Mountain Meadows determined upon the destruction of the emigrants; and in order that it might be accomplished without risk to themselves it was decided to decoy the emigrants from their fortified camp, disarm them and treacherously put them to death. The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.

I see nothing in that statement that seeks to place any of the blame on any party other than the Mormons

[emeliza]

Do we have any of the journals of the immigrants of their daily activities...? However, I do agree with you more on the "Brigham planned it" scenario. In either case if we were to find a Mark Hoffman "document" that supports either scenario would that change the argument ?

No, we do not. They were destroyed by the settlers if there ever were any.

You think there was evidence that might point towards the emmigrants having some blame, but not BY?

[TAK]

Under the subheading "Massacre Coldly Determined Upon":

I see nothing in that statement that seeks to place any of the blame on any party other than the Mormons

What is the reference to this quote ?

Thanks

[gmormon]

No, we do not. They were destroyed by the settlers if there ever were any.

You think there was evidence that might point towards the emmigrants having some blame, but not BY?

I don't think so, but I honestly don't know, (lack of evidence), we don't even know for sure who all the emigrants are. However I don't think whatever they might have done deserved what happened to them. In Brigham Youngs case there is more to support he didn't plan it, but as the book indicated he added fuel to the fire with the previous year rhetoric. However with that said could he have done more after the fact...?

[Aquilifer]

What is the reference to this quote ?

Thanks

Comprehensive History of the Church, vol 4. I can't provide a page number because I'm using an electronic version of the text, but it's in the section between "Motives Prompting the Massacre" and "Execution of the Plan" about a quarter into the volume.

[Scott Lloyd]

But does Elder Roberts say the rumors were false and/or the Fancher train did not deserve to be murdered?

Were the rumors altogether false (as in utterly without foundation)? How can we know that for sure? Not even the new book makes that claim, with the exception of saying the alleged cattle poisoning was likely a case of anthrax or other contagious disease

As to whether the emigrants deserved to be murdered, Roberts comments:

Of all those who participated in the massacre he [John D. Lee] alone was brought to execution. How meager the retribution in this world when weighed against the repulsive perfidy practiced against those emigrants, and the largeness of the crime! But the end is not yet -- 'the murderer hath never forgiveness:' 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord,' and in his own time and way he will doubtless be the minister of his own retribution.

vol. 4, p. 175-176

This notion of â??Official Churchâ? anything â?? doctrine, teaching or policy are really hollow arguments.

When the unfounded accusation is made that Mormons have been taught for over 100 years that the victims "had it coming," it is more than reasonable to challenge the accuser to produce some sort of documentation from the curriculum materials of the Church. The fact that you have not done so and are, instead, offering a weak protest about "hollow arguments" indicates to me that you cannot.

Our esteemed friend Dr. Peterson must have at least a 100 posts on a single MMM thread on the Board-That-Cannot-Be-Named, many of which are trying to convince critics that the Church does not have an â??Official Policyâ? to hide truths that are harmful to the Church, that truth is not secondary to the Church mission â?? despite comments from Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard to the contrary, and that if the authors of MMM had uncovered a smoking gun that would have implicated Brigham Young as a murderer, the Church would allow that information to be published.

I'll let Dr. Peterson respond in his own behalf, but my suspicion is that you are taking his remarks out of context.

As to this issue of things taught, I will let Theo address his own assertions, which from my perspective he seems to be doing just fine.

And from my perspective, on the other hand, he appears to have left the scene, having been utterly bested in this debate. Daniel Peterson's very clever song parody, for one thing, pretty much lampoons and dismisses the substance of his arguments.

I will say this; that things taught is a rather broad concept and people learn in different ways and not solely from a Sunday School manuals. While I am not aware of any manuals that taught anything about MMM that does not mean that blame was not inferred upon the Emigrants.

What I have read from the sources over the years were the many many rumors that were spread about the conduct of the Fancher train. Nobody was saying that the rumors were false and that the Fancher train did not deserve it. The implication is left to the reader. As noted by me earlier, the notion of â??no innocent bloodâ? were made by Lee and Haight â?? but were made to President Young and Apostle Woodruff. I am not aware of that they (Young or Woodruff) corrected the assessment of these two comments in the many years to follow. Members are left with the impressions based upon nothing but rumors that the Fancher train were at least partially responsible for their own murders. .

On the one hand, you imply that the Church has carefully kept the massacre hidden way over the years (ignoring, apparently, the fact that it was given rather extensive treatment in the official multi-volume history of the Church by Roberts, not to mention other texts such as CES manuals and what not). On the other hand, you're telling us that Church members at large could be expected to be acquainted with a rather obscure entry in the journal of Wilford Woodruff about an off-hand remark from massacre perpetrator John D. Lee and to have been thus "left with the impressions [sic]" that the Fancher train was "partly responsible for their own murders."

You need to get your story straight.

For example:

Mormon Experience, By Leonard J. Arrington, Davis Bitton pg. 167

â?? if not pardonableâ? ??!!!

These rumors were portrayed as facts by LDS historians. They donâ??t have to come out and say the Fancher train â??had it comingâ? but reader is left with that impression none the less.

While I would disagree that the actions of the Iron County militia were "pardonable" in any degree, even if one were to grant that, it is not the same as saying that the victims at Mountain Meadows deserved what they got. I don't see how a reader could reasonably be left with that impression. And I disagree that the rumors were portrayed in your cited source as anything other than rumors.

[TAK]

Comprehensive History of the Church, vol 4. I can't provide a page number because I'm using an electronic version of the text, but it's in the section between "Motives Prompting the Massacre" and "Execution of the Plan" about a quarter into the volume.

Thanks..

I found this http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/mmm.html

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks..

I found this http://www.angelfire.com/sk2/ldsdefense/mmm.html

Look at what I quoted directly in my post above. It pretty much destroys any notion that Roberts was saying the emigrants had it coming.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you that the blame appears to have been turned away from the Emigrants which strikes me as a good thing.

This presupposes that the blame was turned toward the emigrants in the first place in official Church accounts, a claim that has yet to be substantiated here.

It's an "I'm glad you stopped beating your wife" kind of statement.

[TAK]

This presupposes that the blame was turned toward the emigrants in the first place in official Church accounts, a claim that has yet to be substantiated here.

Nonsenseâ?¦.

But I am happy to others draw their own conclusions..

[Scott Lloyd]

Nonsenseâ?¦.

But I am happy to others draw their own conclusions..

Conclusions about what? Substantiation of the claim that the Church turned blame toward the emigrants? If such substantiation has been forthcoming, I missed it. Can you point it out?

[Daniel Peterson]

This notion of â??Official Churchâ? anything â?? doctrine, teaching or policy are really hollow arguments.

No they're not.

If something has never appeared in the curriculum materials or official publications of the Church, it's pretty obvious that it has no claim to be official. And that's (far and away) not nothing.

Our esteemed friend Dr. Peterson must have at least a 100 posts on a single MMM thread on the Board-That-Cannot-Be-Named, many of which are trying to convince critics that the Church does not have an â??Official Policyâ? to hide truths that are harmful to the Church, that truth is not secondary to the Church mission â?? despite comments from Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard to the contrary, and that if the authors of MMM had uncovered a smoking gun that would have implicated Brigham Young as a murderer, the Church would allow that information to be published.

Elders Packer, Oaks, and Ballard [??? I must've missed that one] have never declared an official Church policy, nor any intention, of hiding truths that are harmful to the Church or that truth is secondary to the Church's mission, let alone that it's Church policy to suppress historical facts and/or to falsify history.

The authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows have said, orally and in print, on numerous occasions over several years, that leaders of the Church from President Hinckley on down have encouraged them to tell the full story of the episode as honestly and fairly as it is humanly possible to do. Indeed, according to the authors and others who have been involved with the project, Church leaders have demanded that they do so. I've not only read this and heard it in public statements, but have been told it by friends of mine who are professional historians and have been involved, sometimes quite extensively, in the project. I have no reason to believe that they're lying.

If the truth conflicts with your dogmatic certainties, I can only express my condolences to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

No they're not.

If something has never appeared in the curriculum materials or official publications of the Church, it's pretty obvious that it has no claim to be official. And that's (far and away) not nothing.

Elders Packer, Oaks, and Ballard [??? I must've missed that one] have never declared an official Church policy, nor any intention, of hiding truths that are harmful to the Church or that truth is secondary to the Church's mission, let alone that it's Church policy to suppress historical facts and/or to falsify history.

The authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows have said, orally and in print, on numerous occasions over several years, that leaders of the Church from President Hinckley on down have encouraged them to tell the full story of the episode as honestly and fairly as it is humanly possible to do. Indeed, according to the authors and others who have been involved with the project, Church leaders have demanded that they do so. I've not only read this and heard it in public statements, but have been told it by friends of mine who are professional historians and have been involved, sometimes quite extensively, in the project. I have no reason to believe that they're lying.

If the truth conflicts with your dogmatic certainties, I can only express my condolences to you.

Here, for example, is an excerpt from a Deseret News report from May 24 of this year of statements made by Turley about the book.

LDS Church historian concludes Brigham Young did not order 1857 massacre

By Carrie A. Moore

Deseret News

SACRAMENTO, Calif. â?? There is insufficient evidence to say former LDS Church President Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and ample evidence that says he did not, according to the church's assistant historian.

Richard Turley is one of three authors employed by the LDS Church who has spent the past six years writing a book about the 1857 massacre of 120 Arkansas wagon train emigrants in southern Utah. He told participants at the annual conference of the Mormon History Association on Saturday his conclusion, "based on the totality of evidence, is that Brigham Young did not order the massacre."

The book is scheduled for release sometime this summer or fall.

"He did not order it. Instead, local (church) leaders in the charged environment of the Utah War made a series of horrible decisions" that "led to the murder of 120 men, women and children, not one of whom deserved to die," Turley said.

The question of Young's potential culpability has "haunted our dreams and pressed itself upon our memories" the past six years, Turley said, as the authors worked with "several dozens and maybe hundreds" of researchers that examined documents from archives across the country, looking for any evidence related to the murders.

Before seeking to verbally dismantle two different theories some historians have used as evidence that Young did order the massacre, Turley said his research had not brought him to a personal crisis of faith because "my faith is in the Lord, Jesus Christ" and not in human beings, including church leaders.

When asked what he would do if he had found Young did order the massacre, he said, "I would highlight it. Some may question that, but it's true. We were committed to follow the evidence wherever it took us and to let the chips fall where they may.

"Some might wonder whether I would have had my hand slapped if I learned Brigham Young ordered the massacre." As an employee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Turley said he made senior church leaders "aware of my intent to follow the evidence to its conclusion. They supported it and, to a man, were willing to accept it and follow the truth."

[TAK]

Here, for example, is an excerpt from a Deseret News report from May 24 of this year of statements made by Turley about the book.

So Scott,

Do you believe if the authors had found a smoking gun that Brigham Young was a murder, the Church leadership would make those facts know to the public? Even if it meant damaging the Church's Mission?