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

[ttribe]

Its not a perfect analogy. Analogies never are.

It's not just imperfect, it's not even in the same ballpark.

But that is irrelevant.

No, actually, it is very relevant. One situation highlights a system problem evidenced by many misdeeds and the other is clearly an isolated event.

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

It doesn't.

the kidnappings,

It doesn't.

the theft of property,

It doesn't.

the cover up that followed,

I have yet to see any good evidence of a "cover-up", so there's nothing to concede, etc. here.

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

It doesn't. Last time I checked the responsibility for criminal justice rested in the government's hands.

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

Did I ever say the Church "owes anyone an apology"?

[Jaybear]

It doesn't. Last time I checked the responsibility for criminal justice rested in the government's hands.

Legal, perhaps so, perhaps not, but are you and smac are of the opinion, the LDS Church had no moral or ethical responsibility to see that those that committed this heinous act be brought to justice?

If so, I have to disagree. I think that with great power comes great responsibility.

I am under the impression that LDS Church had the power to insure that those responsible were brought to justice, if it chose to do so.

Did I ever say the Church "owes anyone an apology"?

Did I ever say you said that?

[ttribe]

Legal, perhaps so, perhaps not, but are you and smac are of the opinion, the LDS Church had no moral or ethical responsibility to see that those that committed this heinous act be brought to justice?

Since I was witness to none of the events, how can I comment on whether the Church made an effort to to do so?

If so, I have to disagree. I think that with great power comes great responsibility.

Do you really think you need to quote platitudes to me?

I am under the impression that LDS Church had the power to insure that those responsible were brought to justice, if it choose to do so.

What gave you that impression?

Did I ever say you said that?

You ended your comment to me with the statement that: if I didn't believe X,Y,and Z, then I shouldn't think that the Church owes anyone an apology. I'm trying to figure our where your closing statement is coming from.

[smac97]

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

No small number of anti-mormons.

-Smac

[smac97]

Legal, perhaps so, perhaps not, but are you and smac are of the opinion, the LDS Church had no moral or ethical responsibility to see that those that committed this heinous act be brought to justice?

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that the LDS Church should form extra-legal law enforcement groups to hunt down, capture and "bring to justice" church members who violate the laws of the land?

You can't be making such an absurd suggestion. So are you saying?

Back in 2006 Tapestry Against Polygamy complained that the LDS Church "turns a blind eye to abuses within polygamy." I noted:

I'm curious as to what TAP expects the LDS Church to do about "abuses within polygamy." The Church condemns polygamy and excommunicates its members who engage in it. So what does TAP expect? Is the LDS Church supposed to take law enforcement into its own hands?

A critic of the church chimed in:

IMO, the church and its members should acknowledge their part in the mess they created and do whatever they can to remedy it.

I responded:

Such as? The LDS Church's leaders regularly speak out about the very abuses on which TAP claims to focus. The LDS Church ceased the practice polygamy over 100 years ago. The LDS Church excommunicates anyone who engages in polygamy. So what, exactly, do you expect the LDS Church to do that it isn't already doing?

Of course, if the LDS Church had take any steps to "see that those that committed this heinous act be brought to justice," our critics would be caterwauling about Separation of Church & State, theocratic tyranny, etc.

We're damned no matter what we do.

If so, I have to disagree. I think that with great power comes great responsibility.

Ah. Moralizing from comic strips.

What "great power" does the LDS Church have to engage in law enforcement activities?

Really, I'd like to know. The Church claims none for itself (and, in fact, specifically disclaims any disciplinary power outside of ecclesiastical punishments like disfellowshipment and excommunication).

I am under the impression that LDS Church had the power to insure that those responsible were brought to justice, if it chose to do so.

Please explain. I'm really not getting your point.

-Smac

[Jaybear]

Since I was witness to none of the events, how can I comment on whether the Church made an effort to to do so?

You didn't answer the question.

I didn't ask you to comment on whether the LDS church made an effort to bring the guilty parties to justice, I asked if you thought the LDS Church had a moral responsibility to do so.

Silly me, expecting a straight answer to a straightforward question.

Do you really think you need to quote platitudes to me?

No, I don't need to. But, I do enjoy quoting from Spiderman.

What gave you that impression?

Do you disagree? Are you saying that, even if he had tried, BY could not have received a full accounting of who did what in the meadow.

SMAC: What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that the LDS Church should form extra-legal law enforcement groups to hunt down, capture and "bring to justice" church members who violate the laws of the land?

You can't be making such an absurd suggestion. So are you saying?

I said what I said and nothing more. I will repeat it, so you won't feel the need to put words in my mouth: IMO, the LDS Church had a moral and/or ethical responsibility to see that those that participated in this heinous act were brought to justice?

Obviously, you disagree.

[Zakuska]

"We're damned no matter what we do."

Haven't you learned yet Smac... the church is the cause of everyting bad in he world.

[Pahoran]

But letâ??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 doesnâ??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.

This is a standard anti-Mormon canard, a mantra that is chanted not just about the MMM, but any time an anti-Mormon wishes to defend the polemics of his fellow ideologues.

Its falsehood is immediately apparent from the fact that every anti-Mormon does in fact resort to resort to lying, twisting the truth, and making things up.

Yourself not excepted.

the kidnappings

Huh?

Let me help you out here, smac; we've been jaybeared again. "The kidnappings" is the way certain anti-Mormon extremists characterise the fact that the Iron County Mormons took the children who survived the massacre into their homes instead of letting them die of exposure in the mountains.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I said what I said and nothing more. I will repeat it, so you won't feel the need to put words in my mouth: IMO, the LDS Church had a moral and/or ethical responsibility to see that those that participated in this heinous act were brought to justice?

Your opinion presupposes tht the Church knew from the outset who the guilty parties were. I'm not persuaded that's the case. I'm inclined to believe from the evidence that Church leaders, in the beginning, believed the account of the perpetrators that the Indians were responsible, and that efforts by outsiders to fix the blame on the Mormons was consistent with a pattern of persecution and oppression that had dogged the Church since its beginnings in 1830. The true facts in the episode emerged piecemeal over time, probably too late for the Church to have done what you're insisting. The failure to bring the responsible persons to justice was more due to inept prosecution (trying to pin the blame on high Church leaders rather than the local hot heads who were actually responsible) than any obstruction on the part of the Church.

[beastie]

Your opinion presupposes tht the Church knew from the outset who the guilty parties were. I'm not persuaded that's the case. I'm inclined to believe from the evidence that Church leaders, in the beginning, believed the account of the perpetrators that the Indians were responsible, and that efforts by outsiders to fix the blame on the Mormons was consistent with a pattern of persecution and oppression that had dogged the Church since its beginnings in 1830. The true facts in the episode emerged piecemeal over time, probably too late for the Church to have done what you're insisting. The failure to bring the responsible persons to justice was more due to inept prosecution (trying to pin the blame on high Church leaders rather than the local hot heads who were actually responsible) than any obstruction on the part of the Church.

1. Do you agree or disagree that Brigham Young could have found out who the perpetrators were fairly quickly had he conducted interviews with faithful members in the area?

2. Do you agree or disagree that if BY knew who the perpetrators were, that they should have been excommunicated immediately?

[beastie]

bumping up in hopes of a response

[beastie]

I think it's odd no one has even attempted to answer such simple questions.

[ttribe]

I think it's odd no one has even attempted to answer such simple questions.

Were they directed at Scott or the general population?

[beastie]

Were they directed at Scott or the general population?

I addressed it to scott, but welcome any reply.

[ttribe]

1. Do you agree or disagree that Brigham Young could have found out who the perpetrators were fairly quickly had he conducted interviews with faithful members in the area?

Maybe...hindsight is always 20/20 and I have no idea what was going on at the time. Attempting to apply present day circumstances to theirs is folly, at best.

2. Do you agree or disagree that if BY knew who the perpetrators were, that they should have been excommunicated immediately?

If by "knew" you mean the individuals SUSPECTED could have been identified and properly tried according to a Church court, the available evidence would seem to support that conclusion.

Nevertheless, I think you pre-suppose a level of "KNOWLEDGE" which may not have been available or may have been unclear...or maybe someone just screwed up...happens. Good thing there's an infallible judge on the other side of the veil.

[beastie]

Maybe...hindsight is always 20/20 and I have no idea what was going on at the time. Attempting to apply present day circumstances to theirs is folly, at best.

So you do not think BY could have found any faithful members who would have shared this information with him?

If by "knew" you mean the individuals SUSPECTED could have been identified and properly tried according to a Church court, the available evidence would seem to support that conclusion.

Nevertheless, I think you pre-suppose a level of "KNOWLEDGE" which may not have been available or may have been unclear...or maybe someone just screwed up...happens. Good thing there's an infallible judge on the other side of the veil.

What I've read seems to indicate that it was well known in the area who the perpetrators were. This was a fairly small community, and many people were involved. I don't see how it's possible that it wouldn't be well known.

[ttribe]

So you do not think BY could have found any faithful members who would have shared this information with him?

Perhaps...again, I just can't reasonably put myself into the shoes of anyone involved...sorry.

BTW, if you are angling for the "cover-up" story, I'm not buyin' it. Inaction (at worst) does not equate to "cover-up".

What I've read seems to indicate that it was well known in the area who the perpetrators were. This was a fairly small community, and many people were involved. I don't see how it's possible that it wouldn't be well known.

Depends on whether people believed their alibis.

[beastie]

BTW, if you are angling for the "cover-up" story, I'm not buyin' it. Inaction (at worst) does not equate to "cover-up".

I'm not angling for the "cover-up" story, although I believe there was one. I'm pointing out that it is quite likely that BY could have discovered the perpetrators immediately had he really wanted to do so, and could have at least brought them to church justice, had he really wanted to do so.

[Calm]

This was a fairly small community, and many people were involved. I don't see how it's possible that it wouldn't be well known.

Which would be a good point in the favour of people of that community not wanting to tell outsiders, even BY, about it thereby implicating friends and even possibly family.

[Confidential Informant]

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

I am one of those descendants. I haven't demanded an apology. I know there is some distant cousin of mine running around like a moron demanding apologies, etc. I'm not sure who appointed him family spokesperson.

Get over it. The only reason any of you care about it was its potential to embarrass the Church and possibly expose Brigham Young. That's not going to happen because it's pretty clear by now that Young wasn't involved. Jaybear, Analytics, etc., don't give a rip about the Fanchers et. al., of whom I am descended, and we don't need your post mortem moralizing.

C.I.

[Scott Lloyd]

Which would be a good point in the favour of people of that community not wanting to tell outsiders, even BY, about it thereby implicating friends and even possibly family.

It occurs to me that for one who has participated in or condoned mass murder, it's not all that big a leap to rationalize keeping it a secret, even from ecclesiastical leaders.

[beastie]

This was a fairly small community, and many people were involved. I don't see how it's possible that it wouldn't be well known.

Which would be a good point in the favour of people of that community not wanting to tell outsiders, even BY, about it thereby implicating friends and even possibly family.

So in that entire community, there couldnâ??t have possibly been a handful of faithful, believing people who so abhorred mass murder, and so desired ecclesiastic justice, that they would have given their beloved prophet the information he requested? After all, Iâ??m just talking about excommunication, not the death penalty. Wouldnâ??t faithful believers view the process of excommunication as opening the door to repentance, accountability, and restoration?

It occurs to me that for one who has participated in or condoned mass murder, it's not all that big a leap to rationalize keeping it a secret, even from ecclesiastical leaders.

Well, of course. But Iâ??m talking about the non-participant members of the community.

Aside from this speculation, is there any evidence that Brigham Young personally interviewed members of this community immediately in order to obtain information about the perpetrators, in order to excommunicate the participants?

[Marmonboy]

I'm willing to bet that the faithful members who would have told the truth and condemned their brethren weren't the kind of people who would have been there at MM in the first place, and thus would have had to rely on what they were told by those who were there. That would have made it somewhat challenging to find out the truth.

[Calm]

So in that entire community, there couldn’t have possibly been a handful of faithful, believing people who so abhorred mass murder, and so desired ecclesiastic justice, that they would have given their beloved prophet the information he requested? After all, I’m just talking about excommunication, not the death penalty. Wouldn’t faithful believers view the process of excommunication as opening the door to repentance, accountability, and restoration?

But how would they know for sure that it would only be excommunication and that the information would not leak out to the civil authorities or that the excommunications and the talk surrounding them (which would likely occur with high profile members such as Lee and bishops and the militia leaders) would draw unwanted attention from the federal authority.

The conditions that led to the massacre in the first place existed after the massacre as well and would, imo, lead to less trust of outsiders--even among the church leadership simply because it would be out of the local control and knowledge--and heightened fear of reprisals, etc.

But I’m talking about the non-participant members of the community.

Yes, the wives and children and brothers and sisters and parents and friends of those who participated.

[Scott Lloyd]

Aside from this speculation, is there any evidence that Brigham Young personally interviewed members of this community immediately in order to obtain information about the perpetrators, in order to excommunicate the participants?

Aside from speculation, is there any evidence that Brigham Young saw a need to do such a thing immediately, when the popular understanding among Church members and leaders outside of Cedar City was that it was the Indians who did the killing?