Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Jaybear]

Yet another instance of the fallacy of guilt by association.

Yet another instance of Scott Lloyd's rush to judge anyone who does not share his faithful interpretation of mormon history.

I have not assigned any guilt to Young.

I have simply asked the question that must be asked and answered, before assigning guilt.

You know it really could have been the reptillian aliens.

If the residents of Cedar City considered reptilian aliens to be their prophet seer and revealator, who spoke to and for God, and whose obedience was warranted, and expected, yeah then I suppose it would be fair to ask if these reptilian alien had expressly or implicitely authorized the attack that led to the siege, that led to the mass murders.

Otherwise, its just a stupid comment, by one who is trying too hard to overlook an obvious connection that should be explored.

[ERayR]

Otherwise, its just a stupid comment, by one who is trying too hard to overlook an obvious connection that should be explored.

Has been and has been answered. It appears that you don't accept the answer. My stupid comment was meant to highlight that.

[Sleeper Cell]

Sigh, no, this was not a closing argument. I will forgive your sarcasm. I had hoped that everyone would see my reticence to discuss further as the BY aspect was not the main point of my post.

Unfortunately, you were not too reticent to bring up the “BY aspect” in the first place.

Your first post:

My research is that BY ordered the killings, but not God. Having said that, it is a short-sighted Christian who condemns the LDS Church for MMM. There is ugly history in EVERY denomination.

You could have made your “main point” without accusing BY of anything. For example, you could have simply omitted your first sentence and the first three words of your second sentence. Then your post would have been:

“It is a short-sighted Christian who condemns the LDS Church for MMM. There is ugly history in EVERY denomination.”

Another possibility:

“Even if one believes BY ordered the killings, it is a short-sighted Christian who condemns the LDS Church for MMM. There is ugly history in EVERY denomination.”

Taken by itself, your “main point’ appears to be an effort to promote tolerance and understanding between Mormons and other Christians. Combined with your accusation that BY -- a man revered by Mormons as a prophet of God -- was really a mass murderer, your plea for tolerance and understanding rings a bit hollow. It comes across more like a tactic to enable you to deflect any rebuttal, should a Mormon attempt to defend one of their prophets against your accusation. For example:

I simply did not wish to discuss this further because I did not see the point. I am here to discuss certain issues I have in order to work toward a testimony I desire to have. I had hoped to find LDS here willing to put up with my questions and help me to see other aspects of those issues.

As an attorney and experienced litigator, part of your “stock-in-trade” is the ability to anticipate the likely affect that your choice of words will have on a jury and the ability to tailor your words accordingly.

You address a largely Mormon audience on a discussion board and accuse one of their most respected leaders of ordering the murder of 120 innocent men, women, and children. How did you think they were going to react? Do you really think it was reasonable to expect that they would not defend him against such an accusation, simply because you decide that you don’t wish to discuss it? For that matter, do you really think it is reasonable to say something on an internet discussion board unless you are willing to discuss it?

And just because there might not be enough evidence to convict does not mean the accused is innocent. Many guilty people are not convicted. And to say "there is no evidence" is simply incorrect. There is. Perhaps not enough, perhaps not solid enough. That depends on the researcher and his or her bias/reasoning.

It certainly means that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Yes, I am aware that an internet board is not a court of law. However, the principle that the accuser has the burden of proof has long been regarded as fundamental to our concept of basic fairness (at least in this country) -- even in ordinary discourse. So is defending an accused person who is not able to be present to defend himself.

[Thinking]

• Lee may have thought that BY would order aggressive action.
  
• 
  
• There I changed the emphasis to illustrate what I meant. You are all so full of convictions for BY on MAYBE's and MIGHT HAVE'S so I threw out a might have that had about as much evidence as yours and as ridiculous as it sounded was just as plausible.
  

This is amazing. By suggesting that Lee acted on what he thought BY might order, I am actually defending BY because as I said in my original post, Lee acted before he received BY's message to leave the party alone. I placed the blame on Lee yet you somehow think I'm blaming BY. As I said in my original post, I think Lee may have panicked because the Fancher party was moving farther and farther from Cedar City.

[why me]

When you say "the Mormons involved" do you mean just the killers or a larger group? If a larger group, would you specify who you mean, please.

If you mean just the killers, I strongly disagree. Even with all the factors playing on their fears, they still had a choice to step back and not kill and instead place themselves in God's hands or even choose to take their families north where there would be larger numbers for safety. Nothing the antis did forced their hand into killing, even if others' actions did encourage the paranoia.

I mean that ones that did the killings. I can't judge the mormons who commited the murders. I have no idea of their fears and past experiences nor the state of their minds. What they did was wrong but were they sane when they commited the murders? The antis put what happened into motion as they continued to bother the mormons and disturb their peace with threats.

[Calm]

I mean that ones that did the killings. I can't judge the mormons who commited the murders. I have no idea of their fears and past experiences nor the state of their minds. What they did was wrong but were they sane when they commited the murders? The antis put what happened into motion as they continued to bother the mormons and disturb their peace with threats.

It seems to me you are passing judgement of the killers, but choosing to judge the antis for their actions in setting things in motion. Am I right?

[why me]

Why the pious indignation?

I think the truth of Why Me's comment is obvious. Absent the 40-year prelude of oppression against the Mormon people, absent the lying rumors spread by incompetent and disgruntled federal appointees, absent a U.S. president's foolish order to send one-third of the U.S. Army to accomplish an administrative task, absent a general climate of bigotry and ignorance in the nation at the time toward Mormons and Mormonism, there would have been no Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Critics have a difficult time seeing the context behind the killings. No excuses of course but they do not want to see the role that hostile antimormonism played in the minds of many saints in Utah.

[why me]

It seems to me you are passing judgement of the killers, but choosing to judge the antis for their actions in setting things in motion. Am I right?

I am trying to understand the killers by placing myself in their place with all their experiences in Missouri and Nauvoo and what may have entered their mind. And the antis created the atmosphere and the experiences of the mormons through their actions against the mormons.

Edited October 26, 2011 by why me

[Calm]

I think it is even more important to put ourselves in the place of the antis as justification for some of those behaviors are occurring even today, plus the more 'mild' forms of antism are very easy for anyone to pick up if not careful while I don't see most of us stumbling into being mass murderers too often.

[Zakuska]

I think it is even more important to put ourselves in the place of the antis as justification for some of those behaviors are occurring even today, plus the more 'mild' forms of antism are very easy for anyone to pick up if not careful while I don't see most of us stumbling into being mass murderers too often.

<grin>

[Pahoran]

You just can't stop.

I don't believe it is especially controversial to assert that the MMM did happen in the context of Buchanan's Blunder; that it did not happen in all the years before and after; and that it cannot be understood without reference to that context.

Only the most rabidly ideological anti-Mormon zealots attempt to locate the causes of the MMM in LDS life and teaching. Why Me's observation is really not all that difficult to someone who actually does some "thinking" and does not merely pay lip service to the concept as a convenient slogan.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

I don't believe it is especially controversial to assert that the MMM did happen in the context of Buchanan's Blunder; that it did not happen in all the years before and after; and that it cannot be understood without reference to that context.

Were it not for the fact that Buchanan ordered an army west, the militia wouldn't have mustered and the massacre wouldn't have occurred.

Were it not for the fact that John D. Lee was the closest person to the Indians that week, the massacre wouldn't have occurred.

Were it not for the fact that Jacob Hamblin was out of town (he was the mission president to the Indians), the massacre wouldn't have occurred.

Were it not for the fact that the Fanchers refused to respect the rules of the community grazing grounds, the massacre wouldn't have occurred.

Were it not the fact that Higbee was mayor and Haight was stake president, the massacre wouldn't have occurred.

Lots of "were it nots" but there were a number of bad factors that led to the massacre. But I doubt that Brigham Young's rhetoric in the bowery would have made much difference because I doubt the saints would have really been knowledgeable about what he said 300 miles away.

[citizen28]

I think that we all need to understand the context of this event. But of course, there is no excuse for what happened. But it is not as simple as some critics contend it was. Antimormons were just as responsible for this event as the mormons involved, including the army.

Was anyone 'just as' responsible for Haun's Mill? Was anyone 'just as' responsible for 9-11?

[Cobalt-70]

cobalt-70:

Interesting that it was BY that told those Saints to leave to Francher party alone.

Because although Young was the author of violent rhetoric and policy, when it was he that actually was holding the executioner's axe, his sense of empathy was allowed to kick in. His followers are to blame largely because they relied too much on the violent words of their religious leaders, and not enough on their inborn human empathy.

[Cobalt-70]

While they were definitely undeserving of their fate, the wagon train members were not entirely innocent. There was that incident in Cedar City, related in the book by Turley et al, in which members of the party (don't know if they were Fanchers or hangers-on) were rowdy and disorderly, insulted some of the women of the town, evidently boasted about atrocities committed against Mormons in Missouri, evidently threatened to raise an army in California and return to hem in the settlers, and defied the authority of local law enforcement. This, perhaps, contributed to the flashpoint in which all the volatile elements were ignited.

Again, I hasten to say I am not justifying the actions of the perpetrators.

I haven't read the original quotes on this for a while, but if I remember correctly, this is what the perpetrators later claimed the Fanchers had said, to justify themselves. I don't know how credible these allegations are. There was a lot of self-justification and coverup that went on after the event. The people who did it had a motive to claim that the Fanchers "had it coming." The idea that some of the Fancher party was boasting about being part of Haun's Mill massacre doesn't strike me as very plausible.

[Pahoran]

Because although Young was the author of violent rhetoric and policy, when it was he that actually was holding the executioner's axe, his sense of empathy was allowed to kick in. His followers are to blame largely because they relied too much on the violent words of their religious leaders, and not enough on their inborn human empathy.

In doing what they did, the MMM perpetrators comprehensively failed to follow Brigham's counsel. The notorious anti-Mormon canard that they were simply following their leaders is not available to anyone attempting to discuss this issue in good faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I haven't read the original quotes on this for a while, but if I remember correctly, this is what the perpetrators later claimed the Fanchers had said, to justify themselves. I don't know how credible these allegations are. There was a lot of self-justification and coverup that went on after the event. The people who did it had a motive to claim that the Fanchers "had it coming." The idea that some of the Fancher party was boasting about being part of Haun's Mill massacre doesn't strike me as very plausible.

Nevertheless, these stories showed up very early and remained fairly consistent over time. Given (and it is a given) that there is no valid evidence that the MMM perpetrators were acting under orders from Brigham Young (or anyone else 300 miles away in Salt Lake City) the claim that the victims were making such boasts is at least as plausible as the notion that the people in Cedar City just decided to up and massacre themselves a few emigrants one day, for no particular reason.

Incidentally, I'm reminded of one of the more virulent anti-Mormons here (you'd like him, a lot) who, a few months ago, claimed that most Mormons had been taught all their lives that the Fancher train "had it coming" -- his exact words, just like yours. When we investigated that claim, it was found -- like most such accusations -- to be a complete fabrication.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jack]

No, there is never justification for murder. From Abraham to Nephi, both of whom failed the test, to the present day.

"Follow your leaders even when you know they are wrong and you will be blessed for it" is straight from Satan. It is wrong and has always been wrong. It did not work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it has no place in religion.

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

[ERayR]

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

Nobody here has argued that there was.

[Scott Lloyd]

Nevertheless, these stories showed up very early and remained fairly consistent over time. Given (and it is a given) that there is no valid evidence that the MMM perpetrators were acting under orders from Brigham Young (or anyone else 300 miles away in Salt Lake City) the claim that the victims were making such boasts is at least as plausible as the notion that the people in Cedar City just decided to up and massacre themselves a few emigrants one day, for no particular reason.

Incidentally, I'm reminded of one of the more virulent anti-Mormons here (you'd like him, a lot) who, a few months ago, claimed that most Mormons had been taught all their lives that the Fancher train "had it coming" -- his exact words, just like yours. When we investigated that claim, it was found -- like most such accusations -- to be a complete fabrication.

Regards,

Pahoran

I had essentially the same thoughts. While I have no doubt that there was some after-the-fact rationalization that occurred, the notion that the behavior of all the wagon train members was absolutely above reproach does not ring true to me in the least.

Speaking to the Mormon History Association in 2006 -- a couple of years before their book was published -- Turley, Walker and Leonard said the truth lies somwhere between the polarized extremes in how people have regarded the massacre over the years.

I covered their presentation at the MHA conference for the Church News. Here's a link to my story.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven't read the original quotes on this for a while, but if I remember correctly, this is what the perpetrators later claimed the Fanchers had said, to justify themselves. I don't know how credible these allegations are. There was a lot of self-justification and coverup that went on after the event. The people who did it had a motive to claim that the Fanchers "had it coming." The idea that some of the Fancher party was boasting about being part of Haun's Mill massacre doesn't strike me as very plausible.

Apparently it wasn't just boasting but the general behavior of a few troublemakers among the travelers that exacerbated the already heightened tensions. Here's an excerpt of my coverage of Ron Walker's talk to some of the Mormon History Association Conference attendees in 2007 in Cedar City on the evening of a two-day bus tour of Mountain Meadows and other sites related to the massacre:

"Their suspicions heightened by rumors, residents were looking for trouble the moment the Fancher train reached Cedar City," he said, "probably on Sept. 3. They arrived around noon and stayed only a little over an hour. But that was enough to cement the opinions the settlers had already begun forming of the emigrants.... Apparently it had not occurred to the settlers that at least some of the rumors could have been about companies behind the Fancher train. Almost certainly this is the case, that it reflected some of the Missouri parties that were traveling behind Baker-Fancher."

Some of the emigrant men, inebriated from sagebrush whiskey purchased in town, and angered over the unavailability of needed goods and exorbitant prices, reportedly became verbally abusive, Brother Walker recounted. One man claimed to have the gun that killed Joseph Smith, and they threatened to join with the federal troops in killing Mormons.

"If these things transpired," Brother Walker said, "they were certainly taunts and boasts of men who had drunk a little too much of the sagebrush whiskey." He added that one man said the company was a mixed class, and that he remembered hearing Captain Fancher rebuke the boastful ones of the company for making the threats.

The final offense occurred as the emigrants were leaving, he read. "When 63-year-old Barbara Morris attempted to cross the main street that the emigrant train was taking through the fort, a loud-mouthed tall fellow addressed her in a very insulting manner, brandishing his pistol in her face and made use of the most insinuating and abusive language. Polygamy was the likely slur."

Endeavoring to defend her honor, Mormons attempted to seize the man, but his companions stood by him, and the town marshal, Elias Higbee, was forced to back down.

That afternoon or evening, community leaders met to decide what to do. "As so often happens in time of conflict, they focused not on the peaceful emigrants, who seemed to have been the majority, but upon the few trouble makers whose actions colored their view of the whole," Brother Walker said.

"The Cedar City leaders did not take kindly to being challenged and must have felt mortified that their authority had been undermined. These outsiders had defied the law, faced them down in front of their own people and refused to be arrested or fined."

[why me]

Was anyone 'just as' responsible for Haun's Mill? Was anyone 'just as' responsible for 9-11?

The answers to your questions would take good reflection. Unfortunately, the answers would change the topic of the discussion. All actions have intended and unintended consequences. And we see these consequences happening in the world today. Although America was a place where people came from europe for religious freedom and to escape persecution, sometimes the former persecuted become the persecutors. I think that when we look to the antimormons at that time, we see this happening. I don't think that people practiced toleration of difference at that time. And what happened to the mormons is a small blight on US history.

[why me]

.

There is no justification for murder, none at all.

And yet, we see justification for it all the time from heads of state. Libya was a prime example with Gaddafy bruttaly murdered and the rational behind it. When we look to MMM we can see some rationals also. No, there is no excuse for murder. But the rationals still exist. We can not overllook possible rationals of MMM only because the critics do not want to see any.

Edited October 27, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Because although Young was the author of violent rhetoric and policy, when it was he that actually was holding the executioner's axe, his sense of empathy was allowed to kick in. His followers are to blame largely because they relied too much on the violent words of their religious leaders, and not enough on their inborn human empathy.

And yet, when one personally witnesses atrocicities or experiened atrocities in Missouri and in Ohio and in Nauvoo and has their home burned down or lost a loved one to intolerance, and then flees for safety to no man's land (which is what Utah was back then) and then hears rumors of federal troops heading to your land or town, and after reading antimormon sentiments in california newspapers, one just may lose it a little and empathy may take a back seat.

I think that the guilty lds relied too much on their survival instinct which was skewed by past experiences.

[why me]

I think it is even more important to put ourselves in the place of the antis as justification for some of those behaviors are occurring even today, plus the more 'mild' forms of antism are very easy for anyone to pick up if not careful while I don't see most of us stumbling into being mass murderers too often.

I think that you are right. However, whether or not the antis are justified for their actions would be a good debate. When we look at the antis in the early 19th century and their escalating actions against the mormons can their actions be justified? We would probably need to look into the mindset of early protestantism in the colonies and in the early stages of american statehood. Certainly, catholics, jews, indians, africans, mormons and 'witchcraft' did not fair so well. Not to mention the various ethnic prejudices at that time.

That being said, mormonism did have the opportunity to flourish in the United States regardless of the persecution. In europe the new faith would have faired less well.