New Evidence Re: B. Young's Complicity in Mountain Meadows Massacre

[alter idem]

That's too bad you feel that way. Here's why.

Question I asked: "So, you believe Brigham Young is a murderer?" That's called a question. Not an accusation.

To which you defensively responded:

"Let me make this clear: You are confused and you need to go back and read posts more carefully--accusing me of believing Brigham Young was a murderer is highly offensive. "

edited.

Thanks Anijen and JWhitlock for coming to my defense. I appreciate it.

O-brother, All I can say is "OH BROTHER!"

If you didn't want to apologize, you should have just gotten out of the thread like you said you were going to...At least then you would have been able to preserve some dignity.

Will, In regards to what I read online from the letters;

The hatred, fear and misinformation about the Saints shows the kind of attitude towards them the people dealt with. I wonder if any of the historians made much note of that.

It gave me a little more understanding of just why the settlers acted so wary toward the Army, emigrants traveling through as well as the govt. agents who were sent out to oversee them.

As for Will Bagley, I thought his book was informative and it would have been great if he'd tried to remain objective and just put forth the evidence and let the reader decide--but his own bias influenced how he presented the information and the evidence he provided did not warrant his conclusions.

I see he has a new book out. Not sure I'll bother to read it, unless I can get it from the library. I'm sure not spending 42.00 to buy it.

[William Schryver]

Will, In regards to what I read online from the letters;

The hatred, fear and misinformation about the Saints shows the kind of attitude towards them the people dealt with. I wonder if any of the historians made much note of that.

As a diligent student of Mormon history for over 30 years, it is my impression that, generally speaking, non-Mormon historians fail abysmally in this respect. Their failure to understand the very unique dynamics underlying the production of Mormon-related historical source material is at the root of their (again, generally speaking) failure to produce good, fair, and accurate historical interpretations about Mormons. When you factor in the hostile motivations of apostate propagandists (Will Bagley is merely a 21st century rendition of an old theme) it is not hard to understand why "Gentiles" in Utah, on the outside looking in, might come to believe the things they did, and to report those things in letters to friends and relatives "back east."

It gave me a little more understanding of just why the settlers acted so wary toward the Army, emigrants traveling through as well as the govt. agents who were sent out to oversee them.

Indeed.

As for Will Bagley, I thought his book was informative and it would have been great if he'd tried to remain objective and just put forth the evidence and let the reader decide--but his own bias influenced how he presented the information and the evidence he provided did not warrant his conclusions.

Your assessment is hopelessly at odds with itself. I think it is quite revealing of what I personally consider to be your flagrant naivete when it comes to your dealings with apostate enemies of the restored gospel: you fail to appreciate the nature and depth of their animus towards us, as well as the design and intent of the tactics they employ in consequence of that animus. You are always trying to find a redeeming quality in something that is irredeemably tainted. That is the case with both Bagley and his book.

I feel no need to strain to find a redeeming quality in Bagley. At least not as he is at present. And what he is at present is a second-rate propagandist whose sense of relevance has been artificially inflated by the indiscriminate audience to whom he plays.

[O-Brother]

Thanks Anijen and JWhitlock for coming to my defense. I appreciate it.

O-brother, All I can say is "OH BROTHER!"

If you didn't want to apologize, you should have just gotten out of the thread like you said you were going to...At least then you would have been able to preserve some dignity.

Imaginary attacks, dignity, should have gotten out... Listen to yourself. Let me clarify a couple of things here:

#1. I didn't attack you, your handle or your dignity as you have me.

#2. I owe you no apology for asking a question.

#3. I decide what I do or my own actions not anyone else.

Having said that, my dignity is intact despite your misunderstanding. Your "Oh, Brother" and "dignity" remark only shows immaturity. If you want to apologize to me for making fun of my handle and your "dignity" remark, apology accepted. If not, I won't hold it against you.

[lukas_s]

Thank you for expressing your understanding of this doctrine. I guess since you claim to have received a direct revelation on the matter, there is no point in discussing it with you.

I wish you all the best.

I have never received revelation on the matter of blood atonement, but I have received personal revelation about the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice and its power to cleanse ALL sin, save the sin against the Holy Spirit.

So, I suppose you could say I've received indirect revelation about the matter of blood atonement. I would, however, still be interested in hearing what you believe Young's words mean, and how that squares with whether Christ's atonement is infinite and total, or limited.

It has always been my understanding, growing up in the Church, that salvation is universal. Christ paid the price for all sin, and because of that all men will be resurrected (except for the Sons of Perdition).

[oremites]

... all men will be resurrected (except for the Sons of Perdition).

Not adding anything to the conversation, just playing the part of doctrinal-purity nazi.

"Those who become sons of perdition in mortality will be resurrected but will not be redeemed in a kingdom of glory."

from http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-31-37-33.asp

[lukas_s]

Not adding anything to the conversation, just playing the part of doctrinal-purity nazi.

"Those who become sons of perdition in mortality will be resurrected but will not be redeemed in a kingdom of glory."

from http://institute.lds...sp-31-37-33.asp

Interesting. It has always been my understanding that the Sons of Perdition would not receive their bodies back after death, because Satan does not have a body.

I guess I was wrong! Thanks for this post!

[O-Brother]

--dp--

[Droopy]

I agree with you 100%. I don't think Young ordered the Massacre, but I do think his particularly fiery sermons the summer before the Massacre helped set those who were guilty for the act in the right state of mind to carry such an atrocious rampage out. I believe the doctrine of blood atonement to be one of the most damnable things to ever be taught across the pulpit in the Church, and I think those guilty for the crime were just carrying that doctrine out as they saw fit because the Fancher party was supposedly comprised of some of the murderers of the Prophet Joseph.

So while I don't believe that Young ordered the MMM or any such thing, I do think the public teaching of blood atonement and some of the language he used the summer before will implicate him partially in the hereafter.

This is just my opinion on the subject though, and I know it isn't popular amongst many LDS. Ah well.

This smacks just a little too much of the Rush-Limbaugh-was-responsible-for-the-Oklahoma-bombing mindset for my taste, and is a slippery slope upon which to base an argument, especially considering the context of the times. After having been driven by unrestrained mobs from several states, having had the protections of the Constitution essentially removed from them as Americans, and after a genocidal plot by an American state governor (that fortunately never materialized), at all events, the Saints felt themselves to be at war with the United States government and/or states within that jurisdiction, and emotions were running high. Young appeared to believe that further full scale aggression against the Saints in Utah was forthcoming.

I see no reason to second guess any fiery rhetoric coming form Young under theses historical circumstances.

The doctrine of blood atonement was nothing more than the Church's accepted understanding of capital punishment for capital crimes, and had no relation to the lurid concept of it as created and perpetrated by the Church's enemies from the 19th century to the present.

[lukas_s]

This smacks just a little too much of the Rush-Limbaugh-was-responsible-for-the-Oklahoma-bombing mindset for my taste, and is a slippery slope upon which to base an argument, especially considering the context of the times. After having been driven by unrestrained mobs from several states, having had the protections of the Constitution essentially removed from them as Americans, and after a genocidal plot by an American state governor (that fortunately never materialized), at all events, the Saints felt themselves to be at war with the United States government and/or states within that jurisdiction, and emotions were running high. Young appeared to believe that further full scale aggression against the Saints in Utah was forthcoming.

I see no reason to second guess any fiery rhetoric coming form Young under theses historical circumstances.

The doctrine of blood atonement was nothing more than the Church's accepted understanding of capital punishment for capital crimes, and had no relation to the lurid concept of it as created and perpetrated by the Church's enemies from the 19th century to the present.

Brigham Young was the leader of the Church. He was the Prophet. To say that his words and opinions did not carry a bit more weight than those of other leaders is to just be blind to all that had developed in Mormonism since the Kirtland period. His fiery rhetoric, combined with the insular attitudes of the Saints forced upon them by necessity, made for an extremely volatile situation. I wasn't there. All I can express is my opinions on the matter after having read through Young's sermons as found in the Journal of Discourses and other publications.

Rush Limbaugh, as far as I know, is not considered a prophet by anyone, so I think the comparison you're trying to make is moot. If anybody in the world actually believes Limbaugh speaks for God I would ask them to get their head checked.

As for what you say about blood atonement, if Young's words expressed ANYTHING like that, I would not see a problem with it. If you know of any place where such an expression can be found, I would love you to show it to me. I would love for nothing more that to believe that the doctrine of blood atonement was not what the JoD makes it seem to be. What they do express, however, is that there are certain sins which are not covered by the work that Christ did on the earth. I think the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. In my opinion (and as I said, I realize this isn't popular with most members) Young's idea of blood atonement cheapens the sacrifice that Christ made for us all, past, present, and future.

I don't believe he was a fallen prophet or anything like that, because I believe prophets can have their own opinions and theological stances on matters, even if those opinions and stances happen to be wrong. I just believe that, according to what I have read, he was wrong in this matter, and that's exactly why such a teaching is no longer found in the Church.

[USU78]

Brigham Young was the leader of the Church. He was the Prophet. To say that his words and opinions did not carry a bit more weight than those of other leaders is to just be blind to all that had developed in Mormonism since the Kirtland period. His fiery rhetoric, combined with the insular attitudes of the Saints forced upon them by necessity, made for an extremely volatile situation. I wasn't there.

That's the point the Saints have been making ever since the awful truth came out. None of us was there.

But blaming BY, as Bagley is determined to do at the drop of the hat, and which the SLFib is all too happy to accommodate, is flat out wrong.

When you're the secular as well as ecclesiastical leader of a community threatened by war, there are things you do. Get the population ready to fight, if necessary, is one of those things. BY would have been negligent if he hadn't prepared folks as well as drawn up plans for defense, including the scorched earth + guerrilla scheme ultimately almost put into play.

But don't blame BY for the pressure finding an outlet in Cedar City. A horrible thing to have happen, to be sure, but it's actually quite surprising that that was the only even where violence came to a head. Why not Brigham? Why not Provo? Why not Tooele? Or Twin Falls? Only in the middle of BFE Deseret did it happen.

[lukas_s]

That's the point the Saints have been making ever since the awful truth came out. None of us was there.

But blaming BY, as Bagley is determined to do at the drop of the hat, and which the SLFib is all too happy to accommodate, is flat out wrong.

When you're the secular as well as ecclesiastical leader of a community threatened by war, there are things you do. Get the population ready to fight, if necessary, is one of those things. BY would have been negligent if he hadn't prepared folks as well as drawn up plans for defense, including the scorched earth + guerrilla scheme ultimately almost put into play.

But don't blame BY for the pressure finding an outlet in Cedar City. A horrible thing to have happen, to be sure, but it's actually quite surprising that that was the only even where violence came to a head. Why not Brigham? Why not Provo? Why not Tooele? Or Twin Falls? Only in the middle of BFE Deseret did it happen.

I agree with all of this. But, I think Young's sermons could have been a bit more "prepare yourself for war" and a lot less "if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." As I said, I don't think Brigham ordered the MMM, and I believed had that messenger gotten to Mountain Meadow in time, the whole thing never would have happened.

This is just another timeless example of people taking the words of their leaders a little too literally, and acting out.

[USU78]

I agree with all of this. But, I think Young's sermons could have been a bit more "prepare yourself for war" and a lot less "if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." As I said, I don't think Brigham ordered the MMM, and I believed had that messenger gotten to Mountain Meadow in time, the whole thing never would have happened.

This is just another timeless example of people taking the words of their leaders a little too literally, and acting out.

Nonsense. It's unrealistic to "let slip the dogs of war" as Buchanan did and not expect people in Deseret to act as though there were a war. An entire people's survival was at stake: and, in their view, the whole fate of the world depended upon their surviving and going forward with the missionary and temple-building work. How can you expect someone to do what's necessary in war and not speak to what is

We can worry our hankies and twist our knickers all we want about it all. But if we're going to refrain from presentizing the whole thing in our trying to learn its lessons, we cannot fall into the trap of thinking we're oh so much better and more wise and "regret" the verbal "excesses" in response to the entirety of the armed might of the US. That might was not inconsiderable, as those in Chapultepec and Vicksburg discovered.

[Obiwan]

From Wikepia: "Scholars debate whether the massacre was caused by any direct involvement by Brigham Young, who was never officially charged and denied any wrongdoing. However, the predominant academic position is that Young and other church leaders helped create the conditions which made the massacre possible."

1. There is clear evidence that Brigham wasn't involved, by a letter which arrived like a day after which clearly verifies his wishes at the time, a fully found legit letter. Wikipedia ignoring this important fact like anti-mormons do is just sad as usual.

2. I would submit that the "most" blame for the "conditions" which led up to the massacre lies more on the anti-mormon bigots who persecuted the saints through theft, violence, driving them place to place etc. NOT Brigham Young and others, save the locals maybe who clearly at the time milked the wrath of God beyond the mark, thus ultimately causing the massacre. So, Wikipedia again gets it wrong.

Why is there never full honesty and intellectual professionalism anymore.....