Brigham Young: "I am the voice of God. And anyone who doesn't like it will be hewn down."

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? Are you really saying that if somebody provides an honest perspective and historical context to the MMM that the Mormons don't look bad?

Before I had opportunity to see this question, selek, ttribe and Smac all gave great answers. I endorse their responses.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's a fair question.And the answer is no.I reject notions of "collective guilt." I don't blame all Jews for the death of Jesus. I don't blame all Muslims for the 9/11 terror attacks. I don't blame all Catholics for the atrocities during the Crusades. I don't blame all atheists for the deaths brought about by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.And I don't blame all Mormons for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.The death of Jesus doesn't make all Jews throughout history "look bad." The 9/11 attacks didn't make all Muslims throughout history "look bad." The Crusades did not make all Catholics throughout history "look bad." The murderous regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung did not make all atheiststhroughout history "look bad."And the Mountain Meadows Massacre did not make all Mormons throughout history "look bad."-Smac

A post I made on the "Praise to the Man" thread has relevance here.

I said there that I'm glad the original text "Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame" was changed to "plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame" because Illinois of 1844 is not Illinois of today.

I made the point that a few years ago, when a delegation of Illinois state government office holders came to Salt Lake City to express regret about the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum and the persecution inflicted on the saints in the 1840s, I appreciated the magnanimous gesture, but felt that these folks had no standing to apologize, as they were not responsible for the wrongs perpetrated in Illinois back then.

Like you, I don't believe in "collective guilt."

That's not necessarily a helpful answer given the apparent evidence that there are certain Mormons who's actions were misrepresented in the movie.

Not the least of which being Brigham Young.

[ttribe]

Not the least of which being Brigham Young.

Bingo!

[jwhitlock]

But let's keep this in perspective. What we are talking about is the Mountain Meadows Massacre. If an anti-Mormon wants to make the Mormons look bad he doesn't need to resort to lying, twisting the truth, and making things up; all he has to do is tell the truth about what happened.

I have yet to see an anti-Mormon that can't resist the temptation to embellish a story further in order to make Mormons look even worse. That kind of methodology is SOP with them.

[jwhitlock]

That's a fair question.

And the answer is no.

I reject notions of "collective guilt." I don't blame all Jews for the death of Jesus. I don't blame all Muslims for the 9/11 terror attacks. I don't blame all Catholics for the atrocities during the Crusades. I don't blame all atheists for the deaths brought about by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.

And I don't blame all Mormons for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The death of Jesus doesn't make all Jews throughout history "look bad." The 9/11 attacks didn't make all Muslims throughout history "look bad." The Crusades did not make all Catholics throughout history "look bad." The murderous regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung did not make all atheiststhroughout history "look bad."

And the Mountain Meadows Massacre did not make all Mormons throughout history "look bad."

-Smac

This is an excellent observation.

However, guilt-by-association is precisely what the anti-Mormon industry wants others to believe.

[smac97]

That's not necessarily a helpful answer given the apparent evidence that there are certain Mormons who's actions were misrepresented in the movie.

I readily admit that the movie made the fictitious Bishop Samuelson "look bad" when he prayed (referring to the Fancher party) "May these children of Satan go to hell. Amen."

-Smac

[ttribe]

I readily admit that the movie made the fictitious Bishop Samuelson "look bad" when he prayed (referring to the Fancher party) "May these children of Satan go to hell. Amen."

-Smac

Key word being "fictitious", of course.

[Zakuska]

I readily admit that the movie made the fictitious Bishop Samuelson "look bad" when he prayed (referring to the Fancher party) "May these children of Satan go to hell. Amen."

-Smac

Well... the Scriptures only say...

"Pray for them who dispitefully use you"

It doesn't say what exactly it is you are supposed to pray for them. At least he cared enough to include them in his prayers.

[Analytics]

That's a fair question.

And the answer is no.

I reject notions of "collective guilt." I don't blame all Jews for the death of Jesus. I don't blame all Muslims for the 9/11 terror attacks. I don't blame all Catholics for the atrocities during the Crusades. I don't blame all atheists for the deaths brought about by Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.

And I don't blame all Mormons for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The death of Jesus doesn't make all Jews throughout history "look bad." The 9/11 attacks didn't make all Muslims throughout history "look bad." The Crusades did not make all Catholics throughout history "look bad." The murderous regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung did not make all atheiststhroughout history "look bad."

And the Mountain Meadows Massacre did not make all Mormons throughout history "look bad."

-Smac

Itâ??s kind of funny how your opinion on what I said has been so adamantly modified. Your initial reaction to what I said was, and I quote, â??I agree.â?

Just to expedite the end of this nonsense, if somebody made a movie about Auschwitz and depicted a few of the Nazis worse than they really were, would you be wailing about how unfair it is to depict the Nazis unfairly like that? If somebody chimed in, â??Letâ??s keep this in perspective. If you want to make the Nazis look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth about what happened at Auschwitz,â? would you get on a high horse about collective guilt and say, â??Auschwitz doesnâ??t make all Nazis throughout history â??look badâ??.â?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just to expedite the end of this nonsense, if somebody made a movie about Auschwitz and depicted a few of the Nazis worse than they really were, would you be wailing about how unfair it is to depict the Nazis unfairly like that? If somebody chimed in, “Let’s keep this in perspective. If you want to make the Nazis look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth about what happened at Auschwitz,” would you get on a high horse about collective guilt and say, “Auschwitz doesn’t make all Nazis throughout history ‘look bad’.”

I would. I'm a historian. I care about accuracy. And the devil is always in the details.

[jwhitlock]

Just to expedite the end of this nonsense, if somebody made a movie about Auschwitz and depicted a few of the Nazis worse than they really were, would you be wailing about how unfair it is to depict the Nazis unfairly like that? If somebody chimed in, "Let's keep this in perspective. If you want to make the Nazis look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth about what happened at Auschwitz," would you get on a high horse about collective guilt and say, "Auschwitz doesn't make all Nazis throughout history 'look bad'."

You've got to be kidding. Talk about an invalid analogy.

[ttribe]

Just to expedite the end of this nonsense, if somebody made a movie about Auschwitz and depicted a few of the Nazis worse than they really were, would you be wailing about how unfair it is to depict the Nazis unfairly like that? If somebody chimed in, “Let’s keep this in perspective. If you want to make the Nazis look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth about what happened at Auschwitz,” would you get on a high horse about collective guilt and say, “Auschwitz doesn’t make all Nazis throughout history ‘look bad’.”

Did you just equate "Mormon" with "Nazi"? That's a new low.

Oh, and thanks for getting the thread locked down...since it's inevitable now. Speaking of nonsense.

[jwhitlock]

Did you just equate "Mormon" with "Nazi"? That's a new low.

I think a clarification by analytics is in order. To dismiss smac's rather excellent point concerning collective guilt with the kind of insulting analogy he made makes him seem like he was just pulling a cheap shot.

It didn't come over as particularly cute.

[smac97]

I think a clarification by analytics is in order. To dismiss smac's rather excellent point concerning collective guilt with the kind of insulting analogy he made makes him seem like he was just pulling a cheap shot.

It didn't come over as particularly cute.

I'm not sure I fully understand Roger's point. And I Nazi analogies are practically never appropriate.

Let's just move on.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Itâ??s kind of funny how your opinion on what I said has been so adamantly modified. Your initial reaction to what I said was, and I quote, â??I agree.â?

Just to expedite the end of this nonsense, if somebody made a movie about Auschwitz and depicted a few of the Nazis worse than they really were, would you be wailing about how unfair it is to depict the Nazis unfairly like that? If somebody chimed in, â??Letâ??s keep this in perspective. If you want to make the Nazis look bad, all you have to do is tell the truth about what happened at Auschwitz,â? would you get on a high horse about collective guilt and say, â??Auschwitz doesnâ??t make all Nazis throughout history â??look badâ??.â?

To make this analogy even approach being valid, the hypothetical movie would have to place the blame not just on Nazis, but all Germans and, possibly, their descendants for generations to come.

Even then, the analogy is not very apt, since very few Mormons assented to or even knew about Mountain Meadows, and the facts we have today emerged piecemeal over more than two generations.

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent detective work, Smac.

[Jaybear]

To make this analogy even approach being valid, the hypothetical movie would have to place the blame not just on Nazis, but all Germans and, possibly, their descendants for generations to come.

Even then, the analogy is not very apt, since very few Mormons assented to or even knew about Mountain Meadows, and the facts we have today emerged piecemeal over more than two generations.

The catholic priest scandal doesn't make all Catholics look bad, but the Church most certainly deserves the black eye that it received as a result of the scandal, for both creating the environment where such things could happen, and for failing to take all steps necessary to insure those that committed crimes were brought to justice.

[ttribe]

The catholic priest scandal doesn't make all Catholics look bad, but the Church most certainly deserves the black eye that it received as a result of the scandal, for both creating the environment where such things could happen, and for failing to take all steps necessary to insure those that committed crimes were brought to justice.

And that has what to do with a 19th century act of violence committed by an isolated group of people who happened to be Mormons?

[Scott Lloyd]

The catholic priest scandal doesn't make all Catholics look bad, but the Church most certainly deserves the black eye that it received as a result of the scandal, for both creating the environment where such things could happen, and for failing to take all steps necessary to insure those that committed crimes were brought to justice.

Without expressing an opinion on the Catholic priest scandal, I refuse to concede that the Church of Jesus Christ is responsible for "creating the environment" where the Mountain Meadows Massacre could happen. It's more "collective guilt" nonsense.

[ttribe]

Without expressing an opinion on the Catholic priest scandal, I refuse to concede that the Church of Jesus Christ is responsible for "creating the environment" where the Mountain Meadows Massacre could happen. It's more "collective guilt" nonsense.

Right...Jaybear's analogy only works if you have multiple MMM's...since there weren't - no dice Jaybear. You'll have to try again.

[Scott Lloyd]

Right...Jaybear's analogy only works if you have multiple MMM's...since there weren't - no dice Jaybear. You'll have to try again.

Don't encourage him.

[Jaybear]

Right...Jaybear's analogy only works if you have multiple MMM's...since there weren't - no dice Jaybear. You'll have to try again.

Its not a perfect analogy. Analogies never are.

But that is irrelevant.

If you don' t think the LDS Church harbors any responsibility for the massacre, the kidnappings, the theft of property, the cover up that followed, and the fact that only one person was brought to justice for the crime, despite the participation of so many, then you have no reason to believe that the LDS Church owes anyone an apology.

[smac97]

Without expressing an opinion on the Catholic priest scandal, I refuse to concede that the Church of Jesus Christ is responsible for "creating the environment" where the Mountain Meadows Massacre could happen. It's more "collective guilt" nonsense.

While I agree with you generally, I see Jaybear's point.

That said, I still don't agree with Jaybear. The wrongdoing of the Catholic Church (pertaining to covering up sexual abuse of children by its priests) was problematic, and distinguishable from the conduct of the LDS Church as pertaining to the MMM, in a number of ways:

First, it was a systemic problem. The abuse scandal of recent years hasn't been about one or two isolated incidents, but about large numbers of allegations and a broad attempt by the Catholic Church to hide the problem rather than deal with it. In Contrast, the MMM was a singular event. An aberration.

Second, the Catholic Church's attempts to hide the problem (such as by transferring abusive priests around) allowed the problem to fester and continue. in contrast, although there were some disturbing attempts to cover up the MMM, they were not done in such a way as to allow the similar events to happen again.

Third, the Catholic Church's cover up involved knowledge of the wrongful acts of its priests during and after the fact. The Catholic Church knew there was an ongoing problem, but did not correct it. In contrast, the Mountain Meadows Massacre was an aberration, a result of a mixture of factors that nobody perceived would lead to a massacre. Brigham Young's "fiery rhetoric" notwithstanding, the letter he sent with Haslam makes it pretty clear that the MMM was not something he intended as a consequence of being at war with the United States. Brigham Young did not know of the wrongful acts going on in Iron County until it was already too late to stop those acts.

Finally, consider this comment by Ron Walker (one of the authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows). See :

If it was ordered by Young, he says, "that had to be one of the best-kept secrets ever. How do you get all these people involved and then, after the fact, telling a consistent story? Conspiracies break down because people spill the beans, he says. "In this case, nobody did."

Does that mean Young was blameless?

Not entirely, Walker says. Young's preaching "tended to inflame emotions. Because of that, he does bear a measure of culpability."

I'm not sure Walker is correct here. JFK put troops in Vietnam, so does that mean that he bears "a measure of culpability" for the My Lai Massacre?

Does the United States of America bear "a measure of culpability" for the Oklahoma City bombing because some of its citizens perpetrated it?

If Jaybear's comment throws me into a murderous rage, and I go on a shooting spree at the mall down the street, does he bear "a measure of culpability" for that?

-Smac

[smac97]

Its not a perfect analogy. Analogies never are.

But that is irrelevant.

If you don' t think the LDS Church harbors any responsibility for the massacre,

The doctrines of the LDS Church, properly followed, would never lead to this result. So I have a hard time assessing responsibility to the LDS Church for conduct that is not in accordance with its teachings.

And until and unless folks like you make similar demands as to the United States accepting some portion of responsibility for the Massacre, I don't think the demand for an apology is made in good faith.

the kidnappings,

Huh?

the theft of property, the cover up that followed,

I'm a bit ambivalent on the theft, but concede that the LDS Church's leaders should not have denied or covered up the massacre. That's easy for me to say in 2009, sitting at a comfortable desk. I think the Saints in 1857 felt their very survival was at stake, and so made some wrong choices as a consequence of that perception.

and the fact that only one person was brought to justice for the crime, despite the participation of so many,

The "responsibility" for civil punishment lies with civil government, not with the LDS Church.

then you have no reason to believe that the LDS Church owes anyone an apology.

If the demands for an apology were made in good faith, I'd be more inclined to consider them.

But I think that such demands, in the main, are not made in good faith. They are made by folks who don't give a tinker's damn about the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and who instead only harp on this issue because they dislike the LDS Church and will utilize anything they can to act on that dislike.

-Smac

[Jaybear]

If the demands for an apology were made in good faith, I'd be more inclined to consider them.

But I think that such demands, in the main, are not made in good faith. They are made by folks who don't give a tinker's damn about the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and who instead only harp on this issue because they dislike the LDS Church and will utilize anything they can to act on that dislike.

-Smac

Who has demanded an apology, other than the descendants of the victims?