Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[gmormon]

After employing a number of Google search strategies, I finally found the thread on "the other board" to which Daniel referred above. Pretty funny. It's now up to some 29 pages and only one or two of the book's vociferous critics have actually read or even seen it. They are ranting on and on about the things Dan mentioned above: alleged bias, conflict of interest, supposed Church funding of it, etc.

Ironically, there are some unflattering references to this thread, which contains substantive discussion on the book's actual content by people who have actually read it.

Thanks for the pointer Scott. it took me a while but 29 pages later... my head hurts!

It's been absolutely hilarious to watch.

That thread -- substantively without much if any value because almost nobody on it has so much as seen the book -- really does remind me of the late medieval scholastics who believed that objects of different weight fall at different speeds because Aristotelian physics said so, but who never bothered to actually test the proposition. So Galileo climbed the campanile at Pisa, and, in a sense, founded modern science.

Why bother to drop two objects? Why bother to read the book? We already know the answers. We already know the physics of falling objects. We already know the nature of the book. We already know, as one of the posters put it, that Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

I can not believe the audacity of you to require them to read the book before critizing it, the authors, or their backers

[Scott Lloyd]

I rather think he's mocking my poor choice of wording, rather than the substance.

Maybe, but I doubt it. You see, it is a postulate among many of the antagonists of Mormonism that the Church leadership over the years has conspired to suppress parts of its history, though this can in many cases be immediately disproved by turning to such sources as CES texts, Church curriculum materials, Church magazines and A Comprehensive History of the Church, cited earlier in this thread.

See Daniel Peterson's post immediately above yours about the durability of conventional, but false, wisdom.

[gmormon]

BTW doc can you do a countdown for us like you did for them to get us uoto 29 pages plus

[Scott Lloyd]

I see you're bak, Tak. Any chance you might deign to answer some of the questions before you?

Regards,

Pahoran

In due time my friend ..

The questions I've put to him are really not all that involved or complicated: Does he really think Turley and the Church leaders were lying about their intention to disclose any complicity by Brigham Young in the massacre, and why does he think I should believe they lied.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's been absolutely hilarious to watch.

That thread -- substantively without much if any value because almost nobody on it has so much as seen the book -- really does remind me of the late medieval scholastics who believed that objects of different weight fall at different speeds because Aristotelian physics said so, but who never bothered to actually test the proposition. So Galileo climbed the campanile at Pisa, and, in a sense, founded modern science.

Why bother to drop two objects? Why bother to read the book? We already know the answers. We already know the physics of falling objects. We already know the nature of the book. We already know, as one of the posters put it, that Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

I have a more contemporary example of a misconception assumed as fact.

For many years, it was popularly assumed (and still is by some people) that a moving bicycle stays upright because of gyroscopic action. Nobody ever bothered to challenge the assumption.

Then, somebody came along and performed an experiment in which a counter-rotating wheel was added to a bicycle to cancel the gyroscopic effect. Surprise! The bicycle still stayed upright.

It is now acknowledged that the phenomenon has to do with center of gravity and balance. See this Web page for further information:

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/aed29/Bad_Mechanics.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks for the pointer Scott. it took me a while but 29 pages later... my head hurts!

I can not believe the audacity of you to require them to read the book before critizing it, the authors, or their backers

Reading it wasn't a total waste of time for me. From all the empty rhetoric, I mined an amusing nugget for my sig line.

[gmormon]

Reading it wasn't a total waste of time for me. From all the empty rhetoric, I mined an amusing nugget for my sig line.

Not being a DCP wanna be...no such nuggets for me

[TAK]

Katherine the Great

Sheesh--give him some time. We aren't all glued to our computers all day long.

Thanks.. I live on the east coast and left a bit early for a Chris Isaak concert. Excellent btw..

Scott

Do you think Turley and the Church leaders were lying, TAK?

I donâ??t know. I donâ??t know what Turley was thinking when he made his statements nor was I privy to his conversations with Church leaders. It is possible in his mind that he was not lying. Phrases and statements can be parsed. Interpretations can vary. Beyond that, most people (Pahoran would an exception.) do not like to call other people liars. I think it goes against human nature and the general interaction with others.

The point of the question however is do I think that if the evidence existed, would Church leaders expose Brigham Young as a murderer?

Absolutely not. I believe it would be detrimental to the Church Mission and Church leaders would put the defense of the Kingdom of God above all else including an embarrassing truth if necessary.

Pahoran

And which is not contrary to anything said by Elders Packer, Oaks and Ballard.

Unless you are prepared to show otherwise.

Okay, it's your turn: CFR, please.

And no, Elder Packer's talk to Seminary and Institute teachers defining the scope of their classroom teaching will not cut the mustard, just in case you were planning to try that one.

Nonsense..

I see no valid reason to excuse an address to Church employees as being different. The very fact that its Church employees, and that these Church leaders have control of their livelihoods and careers makes it all the more damning. If the instructions are to put the faith above truth then it can also be said to Church historians who can share the same reprisal.

There are a litany of quotes but I will only post two I think are telling..

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

-------------------------------

"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."

"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up facts with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:

â??The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.â? (Rom. 1:17-18.)

I repeat: â??The wrath of God is â?¦ against all â?¦ who hold the truth in unrighteousness.â?

To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action in light of this sacred scripture:

â??These dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information â?¦ yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and â?¦ wicked, â?¦ entirely forgetting the Lord their God.â? (Alma 47:36.)

"We must realize that we are at war. The war began before the world was and will continue. The forces of the adversary are extant upon the earth. All of our virtuous motives, if transmitted only by inertia and timidity, are no match for the resolute wickedness of those who oppose us."

- Russell M. Nelson, â??Truthâ??and More,â? Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69

Pahoran

But then, this reader isn't trying to shore up a false accusation. This reader isn't so blindly bigoted against the Latter-day Saints that he sees "impressions" that exist only in the minds of those desperate to support a lie.

Gee it must be difficult for you to live in your little world where everyone is out to get you.

I am of to my sailboat and a quiet anchorage and away computers. Have a nice weekend !

[Scott Lloyd]

I donâ??t know. I donâ??t know what Turley was thinking when he made his statements nor was I privy to his conversations with Church leaders. It is possible in his mind that he was not lying. Phrases and statements can be parsed. Interpretations can vary. Beyond that, most people (Pahoran would an exception.) do not like to call other people liars. I think it goes against human nature and the general interaction with others.

At this point, I think it useful to reiterate a passage from the Deseret News article in May quoting Turley's quite unequivocal assertions before a secular conference of professional historians and other enthusiasts, a good many of whom have no great affinity for Mormonism as a religious institution:

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."

The point of the question however is do I think that if the evidence existed, would Church leaders expose Brigham Young as a murderer?

That's the point of your question. The point of my question, one that you rather artfully dodged, was why you think Turley and the Church leaders were lying, and why you believe I should think so.

Absolutely not. I believe it would be detrimental to the Church Mission and Church leaders would put the defense of the Kingdom of God above all else including an embarrassing truth if necessary.

And, of course, this diametrically contradicts Turley's repeated and documented assertions. So, faced with the choice, I take Turley's word above your unauthoritative and cynical conjecture.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are a litany of quotes but I will only post two I think are telling..

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

I notice that you have not cited a primary source for this quotation. Thus, we are unable readily and conveniently to examine it in its context. I suspect that the quote is taken out of context, as was done with the Russell M. Nelson quotation you presented (see below).

-------------------------------

"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."

"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up facts with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:

â??The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.â? (Rom. 1:17-18.)

I repeat: â??The wrath of God is â?¦ against all â?¦ who hold the truth in unrighteousness.â?

To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action in light of this sacred scripture:

â??These dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information â?¦ yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and â?¦ wicked, â?¦ entirely forgetting the Lord their God.â? (Alma 47:36.)

"We must realize that we are at war. The war began before the world was and will continue. The forces of the adversary are extant upon the earth. All of our virtuous motives, if transmitted only by inertia and timidity, are no match for the resolute wickedness of those who oppose us."

- Russell M. Nelson, â??Truthâ??and More,â? Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69

When I read this quote, I suspected that at least part of what Elder Nelson meant by the phrase "use truth unrighteously" is the deplorable but widespread practice of presenting facts out of context. As a professional communicator, I am acutely aware of how easy it is to array and present facts and statements in a manner that is calculated to convey falsehood, even though the facts and statements, in and of themselves, may be accurate.

So I looked up the talk by Elder Nelson from the January 1986 Ensign, titled "Truth -- and More," and read the quoted material in context. It turns out I was right in my hunch. Elder Nelson is not talking here about suppressing truth, but rather, using truth in a righteous manner, which includes using it honestly.

For example, here's a passage from the talk:

I am reminded of a personal experience that you may find amusing. I was serving as a consultant to the United States government at its National Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Once while awaiting a taxi to take me to the airport after our meetings were over, I stretched out on the lawn to soak in a few welcome rays of sunshine before returning to the winter weather of Utah's January. Later I received a photograph in the mail taken by a photographer with a telephoto lens, capturing my moment of relaxation on the lawn. Under it was a caption, "Governmental consultant at the National Center." The picture was true, the caption was true, but the truth was used to promote a false impression. Yes, truth can even be used to convey a lie.

p. 71, bold emphasis added.

I submit that the selective use of quotes from Elder Nelson's talk to convey a false impression of his meaning is an example of using truth unrighteously.

I don't charge you with this offense; perhaps you did it ignorantly. Maybe you didn't bother to read the actual talk, but rather, picked up the quoted material from somebody else.

But shame on the individual who took Elder Nelson's words out of context to convey a false impression of his meaning.

So here's a link to the article on lds.org, so others may read the entire talk and see the quoted material in context.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

[Theophilus07]

Speaking of whom, he appears to have missed my CFR, above. So, for his convenience, I reproduce it here.

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.

Nice try at a diversion tactic. Just produce the references, please.

Regards,

Pahoran

To bring everyone up to speed, three days ago, Pahoran asked for CFRs that some LDS, at least prior to Turley's book, believe that the emigrants "had it coming." He even goes so far as to charge me with "making it up," and later conducts the usual Pahoran sharp personal attacks, calling me a black-hearted "liar." When I didn't visit this site for several days because I actually have a life, he said I'd "ran away." He does this to a lot of critics, so it may well be that he does not understand that people who disagree with him may do so in good faith and may have valid opposing points of view, and they may not visit this site every single day.

In this specific instance, I'm surprised at his charges. A lot of us have heard the belief. Indeed, over the years, I've read several posts right here in this very forum in which LDS and ex-LDS posters have said the way it was told to them, the emigrants had it coming. I have to wonder, has he REALLY not read these or remembered them, has he read them and dismissed them completely, or has he read them and feels for the glory of the Kingdom of God's sake, he must pretend to you readers not to have read them? I sincerely don't know, but I'd love to find out.

I know from past experience that the following references will have absolutely no impact or effect whatsoever on Pahoran who will, I'm sure, find some reason to reject them or not believe them. I'm also quite positive that he won't recant his charges that I've lied about them. His persistent personal attack behavior in this forum strongly suggests that it is extremely important to him for some reason to verbally attack people. I personally find this clearly established pattern of sharp personal attacks inconsistent with the "turn the other cheek" behavior advocated by Jesus Christ in the New Testament and even Book of Mormon [â??â?¦ I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other alsoâ? (3 Ne. 12:9, 39)"]. Besides being at variance with LDS teachings, his persistent attack behavior is, I assure you, really not persuasive at all to those of us being attacked and called names.

That having been said, I think the majority of readers in this thread recognize, almost as common knowledge, that a minority, but significant number of LDS have expressed the belief that the MMM emigrants had it coming. Sorry, Pahoran, but I didn't make it up and I'm certainly not lying about it.

I -- and anyone who searches online -- find this "had it coming" belief expressed across a wide spectrum of sources, many of them quite recent.

From "Facing the truth of Mountain Meadows," by Robert Kirby, a SL Tribune columnist's 09/07/2007 column we read the following:

My church raised me on the saintliness of my Mormon pioneer ancestors, an honest folk persecuted for no reason other than that we were God's favorites. Satan raged against us because we had The Truth.

I heard all the faith-promoting stories about Haun's Mill, Carthage Jail and Nauvoo, Ill. We were whipped, burned out, murdered, robbed and stripped of our civil rights. The U.S. sent an army against us. All of this proved we had The Truth, right?

Unfortunately, such a one-sided view of our history presented a problem when I finally learned that in 1857, Mormons (including my great-grandfather) slaughtered 120 defenseless men, women and children at Mountain Meadows.

As unforgivable as that was, just as troubling to me were our subsequent efforts to dodge The Truth, to cover it up, to water it down, to pretend that it never happened or, worse, to blame it on others.

I heard all the self-serving explanations for Mountain Meadows, ranging from the deliberately obfuscating to the patently ludicrous: "Indians did it." "The immigrants had it coming." "We only shot them a little."

Historians, notably the inestimable Juanita Brooks, who tried to bring the facts of the massacre to light, were ostracized by fellow Mormons and even threatened by church leaders. We couldn't, it seemed, handle The Truth about ourselves."

Even the LDS owned and managed Deseret Morning News has carried such comments.

http://deseretnews.com/user/comments/1,515...0244245,00.html

In the comments following the July 19, 2008 article â??Book confronts LDS Tragedy,â? we read the following from Ed 5:26 a.m. July 19, 2008:

"As a foreign born missionary called to serve in California, I remember how shocked I was after learning for the first time of this tragedy [the MMM] from my companion from Southern Utah. What I also felt was tragic was the line he took of â??They had it comingâ?. He would have pulled the trigger too and followed the line of authority as he saw it. Very sad. The top leadership of the Church may not have been involved before the massacre but logic says they must have got involved with â??protectionâ? afterwards with only one person being punished.

Even FAIR reports this:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...s_Massacre.html

2003 FAIR Conference presentation by Gene Sessions

"It's an awful story, you can't put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, 'Well don't you think they deserved it?' And, no I don't think they deserved it. I don't care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old."

If a FAIR speaker reports that ocasionally he hears this belief, and it even appears in the Deseret News, I must wonder how Pahoran missed out.

I don't know if the "they had it coming" belief was ever cannonized into LDS teaching manuals, but I'm quite sure it was preached in talks in church, in lessons given in church, and in fireside chats.

Pahoran, enough with the personal attacks. Not only do I get a little weary of it, but I don't think it's doing your image any good.

Theophilus07

[emeliza]

Theo~

I am sure many saints feel that way. However I think we were getting at whether the Church taught this or whether it was just how some members justified the actions of the settlers who did the acts.

My personal guess is that many people try and justify what happened and they do so by saying 'the emmigrants had it coming' which of course is completely wrong.

My question though is, have GA's said such things or has the Church published such things since Wilford Woodruff's time?

[Pahoran]

To bring everyone up to speed, three days ago, Pahoran asked for CFRs that some LDS, at least prior to Turley's book, believe that the emigrants "had it coming."

No. Pahoran did not.

As you perfectly well know.

Pahoran asked for references in support of quite a different assertion, namely, that Latter-day Saints "had been taught" that.

For instance, you said:

For that matter, I'm not sure that Chapel Mormons are going to see the valid, but quite fine distinction you draw between justifying even one death, and explaining what certainly helped contribute to even one death. I suspect that to many of those LDS who've been taught all their lives that the F-B party "had it coming," reading in Turley's book about what you call the F-B party's "reckless behavior and taunts" will simply reinforce their previously held belief. What do you think?

To which I replied:

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.

And you came back with:

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.

To which I replied:

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

Just in case that wasn't absolutely clear to you, I subsequently wrote:

Tak,

the question at issue is not whether or not the participants thought the emigrants "had it coming."

Nor is it whether some other random Mormons thought the emigrants "had it coming."

The only point at issue is whether anyone was ever taught that the emigrants "had it coming."

That little word "taught" is the key to Theo's accusation, the verb in the sentence. That is what I am questioning.

Clear now?

Okay Theo, now that you are up to speed, can you support your actual accusation?

Snip more diversion tactics.

That having been said, I think the majority of readers in this thread recognize, almost as common knowledge, that a minority, but significant number of LDS have expressed the belief that the MMM emigrants had it coming. Sorry, Pahoran, but I didn't make it up and I'm certainly not lying about it.

No, you are merely changing the subject. You are shifting your ground, and pretending to defend an assertion that I did not question, and which you did not even make at the time.

I will stipulate that various individuals, with varying degrees of association with the Church of Jesus Christ, have either held or heard something to the effect that the emigrants "had it coming." That, as you PERFECTLY WELL KNOW, is not the point at issue. It never was.

Ever.

The question at issue is whether those people "were taught" such a view from any authoritative source, such as, for example, the General Conference pulpit, or Church-published curriculum materials.

So are you "up to speed" now, Theo?

A subsidiary question is whether your coy use of the passive voice really fooled anybody about what you were trying to insinuate.

In flatly denying that the emigrants "had it coming," does the Turley book substantively challenge or undermine any standard LDS view of the massacre? Or does it merely challenge the prejudices held by some individuals or family groups in specific geographical locations, such as Cedar City?

I don't know if the "they had it coming" belief was ever cannonized into LDS teaching manuals, but I'm quite sure it was preached in talks in church, in lessons given in church, and in fireside chats.

And what, apart from your thinly-disguised prejudice against the Latter-day Saints, is the source of your being so sure? Is there anything more to your sureness than "I wouldn't put it past them," the gossips' creed?

You made the accusation; don't you accept that you have the slightest responsibility to get any of it right?

Pahoran, enough with the personal attacks.

Feel free to stop them any time you like.

Not only do I get a little weary of it, but I don't think it's doing your image any good.

Or yours. But I shall offer the olive branch, and not respond in kind by running any red herrings about whether your persistent pattern of bearing false witness against the Latter-day Saints is consistent with EV Protestant ethics.

The accusation you made, and to which I called for references, is that large numbers of Latter-day Saints have "been taught all their lives" that the F-B party "had it coming." In response to which you tried a lame little shell-game and offered up evidence that such fringe-Mormon characters as Kirby(!!??) had heard such a view from someone.

So, the question remains unanswered: who is it that claims that this notion has "been taught all their lives?"

Well?

We're still waiting.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That having been said, I think the majority of readers in this thread recognize, almost as common knowledge, that a minority, but significant number of LDS have expressed the belief that the MMM emigrants had it coming. Sorry, Pahoran, but I didn't make it up and I'm certainly not lying about it.

Theo

here is the problem, you are making false accuastions here. I have never once been "taught" nor even told in my many many church meetings that the immigrants "had it comming". So far you have failed to produce any thing that gives substance to your accusation. And you certainly ar lying. I suggest you stop it. I think some ex members claimed to have been taught it, but the fact is that it was never taught by the church, or in any of its manuals. If it wre Im sure you could produce it. Heck I wasnt even taught that in seminary. And I heard of some wacked out hings in seminary.

So far you have failed. Do you care to try again? If you do I suggest by actually giving a valid source. Such as a general confrence talk or an ensign article. You know, something that is some what offical. I doubt that you will find it.

Good luck.

[ttribe]

Theo

here is the problem, you are making false accuastions here. I have never once been "taught" nor even told in my many many church meetings that the immigrants "had it comming". So far you have failed to produce any thing that gives substance to your accusation. And you certainly ar lying. I suggest you stop it. I think some ex members claimed to have been taught it, but the fact is that it was never taught by the church, or in any of its manuals. If it wre Im sure you could produce it. Heck I wasnt even taught that in seminary. And I heard of some wacked out hings in seminary.

So far you have failed. Do you care to try again? If you do I suggest by actually giving a valid source. Such as a general confrence talk or an ensign article. You know, something that is some what offical. I doubt that you will find it.

Good luck.

x2

[emeliza]

Okay I finally finished the book 100% tonight. It was a tough read, especially when I got to the actual massacre and the small parts included by the surviving children. I really dislike many of the people involved. I admit Indians appear to be more involved then I had thought they were (for some reason I thought they weren't involved at all in the end massacre), but it was definitely at the orders or persuasion of the settlers.

[Scott Lloyd]

No. Pahoran did not.

As you perfectly well know.

Pahoran asked for references in support of quite a different assertion, namely, that Latter-day Saints "had been taught" that.

For instance, you said:

To which I replied:

And you came back with:

To which I replied:

Just in case that wasn't absolutely clear to you, I subsequently wrote:

Okay Theo, now that you are up to speed, can you support your actual accusation?

Snip more diversion tactics.

No, you are merely changing the subject. You are shifting your ground, and pretending to defend an assertion that I did not question, and which you did not even make at the time.

I will stipulate that various individuals, with varying degrees of association with the Church of Jesus Christ, have either held or heard something to the effect that the emigrants "had it coming." That, as you PERFECTLY WELL KNOW, is not the point at issue. It never was.

Ever.

The question at issue is whether those people "were taught" such a view from any authoritative source, such as, for example, the General Conference pulpit, or Church-published curriculum materials.

So are you "up to speed" now, Theo?

A subsidiary question is whether your coy use of the passive voice really fooled anybody about what you were trying to insinuate.

In flatly denying that the emigrants "had it coming," does the Turley book substantively challenge or undermine any standard LDS view of the massacre? Or does it merely challenge the prejudices held by some individuals or family groups in specific geographical locations, such as Cedar City?

And what, apart from your thinly-disguised prejudice against the Latter-day Saints, is the source of your being so sure? Is there anything more to your sureness than "I wouldn't put it past them," the gossips' creed?

You made the accusation; don't you accept that you have the slightest responsibility to get any of it right?

Feel free to stop them any time you like.

Or yours. But I shall offer the olive branch, and not respond in kind by running any red herrings about whether your persistent pattern of bearing false witness against the Latter-day Saints is consistent with EV Protestant ethics.

The accusation you made, and to which I called for references, is that large numbers of Latter-day Saints have "been taught all their lives" that the F-B party "had it coming." In response to which you tried a lame little shell-game and offered up evidence that such fringe-Mormon characters as Kirby(!!??) had heard such a view from someone.

So, the question remains unanswered: who is it that claims that this notion has "been taught all their lives?"

Well?

We're still waiting.

Regards,

Pahoran

I can picture poor Theo spending days combing Google and who-knows-what-other sources trying to come up with an instance -- any instance -- of official Mormon teaching that the Mountain Meadows victims "had it coming." All he is able to unearth is some hearsay folklore from the likes of Robert Kirby and (gasp!) an anonymous responder to an article on a newspaper's Web site? Come on! So with nothing else to go on, he changes the position to accommodate his weak "evidence."

This is one instance where Theo would have benefited his case more by remaining silent than by speaking up.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay I finally finished the book 100% tonight. It was a tough read, especially when I got to the actual massacre and the small parts included by the surviving children. I really dislike many of the people involved. I admit Indians appear to be more involved then I had thought they were (for some reason I thought they weren't involved at all in the end massacre), but it was definitely at the orders or persuasion of the settlers.

At the Mormon History Association bus tour of Mountain Meadows in 2007, Turley said the reason the earlier "brush" with the emigrants failed is that it wasn't the Indians' fight. Their heart wasn't in it, in other words.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is one instance where Theo would have benefited his case more by remaining silent than by speaking up.

I concour.

Just admit you were wrong Theo, and all will be good.

[gmormon]

Okay I finally finished the book 100% tonight. It was a tough read, especially when I got to the actual massacre and the small parts included by the surviving children. I really dislike many of the people involved. I admit Indians appear to be more involved then I had thought they were (for some reason I thought they weren't involved at all in the end massacre), but it was definitely at the orders or persuasion of the settlers.

I agree that it was didficult to read the descriptions. I cann't imagine the justifiacation that was going on in the perpetrators' minds, but then again I have a hard time picturing my own reactions in any given stituation.

Now that more of us have at least finished reading this book, how would you rank it amongst the other books about MMM? Maybe we could break it into three groups: fiction, non-fiction, and those books that mention it in passing. And just for kicks why

[emeliza]

I admit, I haven't read any of the 'other' books.

What is recommended to get a different perspective?

[gmormon]

I admit, I haven't read any of the 'other' books.

What is recommended to get a different perspective?

I would recommend Juanita Brooks' and Will Bagley's books to start. To me they are the most informative, but bare in mind their given objectives for writing the books. There are some good magazine articles out there too: Utah Historical Quarterly; Journal of Mormon History; & BYU Studies. and also you can find some Masters and Doctorate Thesises, not just BYU either.

[emeliza]

I would recommend Juanita Brooks' and Will Bagley's books to start. To me they are the most informative, but bare in mind their given objectives for writing the books.

What about John D. Lee's book....or rather his lawyer's book? Would that be worth my time?

[gmormon]

What about John D. Lee's book....or rather his lawyer's book? Would that be worth my time?

I think you should read it for perspective; but keep in mind the book was published after his death, and it has been suggested that the lawyer added some editorial input into the book to make it sell, ( this was his payment for defending John D Lee.)

[emeliza]

Guess I am going to start with Bagley's as there is no library close to hear that has the others. I might check our used book stores, but right now I don't want to go spending a ton of money on books. I just spend $200 last week.

So much to read, so little time and even less money.