Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Cobalt-70]

As you no doubt realise, Lee was not following the counsel of any Priesthood leaders when he set out to commit murder. The Southern Utah leaders did in fact ask for such counsel, but instead of waiting for it, they panicked and acted of their own volition.

Lee was acting on orders from his Stake President, Isaac Haight, and Haight's first counselor John Higbee.

[Jaybear]

Ah yes, the Jaybear method: argument by innuendo.

I shall answer your question with another: when Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, A. P. Hill, Leonidas K. Polk, James Longstreet and Robert E. Lee -- all contemporaries of John D. Lee -- exhorted their troops to "do your duty," to what religious duty did they refer?

The MMM was carried out by units of the Utah militia, under the command of their militia officers. "Do your duty" was a standard piece of military phraseology at the time; thus, if indeed it was said, in the context of a military operation carried out by soldiers under military command, then it would have been referring to military duty.

Regards,

Pahoran

Right. I am sure you believe that these men were acting out of a sense a duty and obligation that they owed to the Iron County Militia. That must have been a fine and noble institution to have been the clarion call for these men to slaughter unarmed men, women and children.

[Zeta-Flux]

Lee was acting on orders from his Stake President, Isaac Haight, and Haight's first counselor John Higbee.

And yet you fail to tell us the important parts. Like how the High Council voted to wait. Like how Isaac Haight was also the military leader, and it was by that authority that the action was carried out.

[katherine the great]

the church authority were not involved. The paranoid bad person lead the other bad people to the massacre. No matter the religion, there will always be bad people that want to kill people regardless.

The problem with this hypothesis is that none of the perps were killers before the massacre, and there is no evidence that they continued to kill afterwards. These were not people who just "want to kill people regardless." I have ancestors who were there and one who refused to participate (and mysteriously died a few months later.) I think John D. Lee's primary purpose was to get gain. If you look at the 1856 census, he was a very poor man, but the 1860 census records his net worth at $50,000.00--a huge sum of money in that time. I think he gained the most from the attack, and I think they got the right guy when they finally brought him to justice. Many other people participated in the attack, but Lee got most of the monetary gain. It's also possible that the attack was not actually Lee's idea, but he was the only one who didn't feel guilty enough afterward to shun the "booty." It was a horrible and fascinating tragedy, and we just never will really know for sure what was going though those people's minds while they did it. I think we can be sure that some didn't even know about it until they showed up, and that almost all of them felt horribly guilty afterward. Other than that, they newest book has the most information on the conditions surrounding the attack.

[stevedallas]

Ah yes, the Jaybear method: argument by innuendo.

I shall answer your question with another: when Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, A. P. Hill, Leonidas K. Polk, James Longstreet and Robert E. Lee -- all contemporaries of John D. Lee -- exhorted their troops to "do your duty," to what religious duty did they refer?

The MMM was carried out by units of the Utah militia, under the command of their militia officers. "Do your duty" was a standard piece of military phraseology at the time; thus, if indeed it was said, in the context of a military operation carried out by soldiers under military command, then it would have been referring to military duty.

Regards,

Pahoran

Not to belabor the point, because I believe too much emphasis is being placed on MMM, but could you provide a reference to your assertion that "do your duty" was a "standard piece of military phraseology"? I am ex-military and enjoy military history. I would love to see your reference.

[LeSellers]

I am sure you believe that these men were acting out of a sense a duty and obligation that they owed to the Iron County Militia. That must have been a fine and noble institution to have been the clarion call for these men to slaughter unarmed men, women and children.

A bit out of loyalty to the Militia, but far more out of loyalty to their families, to their homes, to their political and economic situations. In the Utah of 1857 or Afghanistan 2011, men fight for their families and for the legacies they hope to be able to leave.

I do not have the book any longer (having lost it to the fire some decades back), but Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels has one of the most powerful speeches given by a commander to his troops immediately prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. Twentieth Maine's Colonel Joshua Chamberlain tells his men, holding and letting fall through his fingers a bit of Pennsylvania dirt (as I recall): "Dirt. You don't fight for dirt. You fight for a cause. We are battling for the freedoms of men!" (I doubt Shaara wrote any of those words as I portrayed them, but it is what I remember from reading it thirty years ago. I equally doubt that anyone here will recreate the impact that speech had on me as I read it back then because of my gross oversimplification.) The point I attempt here is that armies are really "soldiers", not automatons. Each soldier must create his own motivation, and those combined motivations arise from one (or both) of two sources: love and hate. Hate does not last long on the battlefield, except among the completely evil (like Satan). Love alone compels men to offer their lives so that others may live.

Generals and others who lead soldiers use two things to arouse and focus the motivation of their troops: fear and greed. There was not much to use as greed (and evidently Lee used that for his own motivation). Fear was the tool Haight used to get his troops out and to ignore their innate ethics.

In the case of the massacre at Mountain Meadows, we have little to go on beyond the history of the events that, together, are the context. Few men left their impressions of the lead-up to that morning. But we can safely suppose that each man was in desperate fear for his family and friends. That context ran from New York through Missouri and Illinois, to Echo Canyon, east of Salt Lake City. It included Arkansas and Haun's Mill and bloody footprints in the snow west of Nauvoo eleven years earlier.

Fear, in that context, is not hard to generate. I believe tht the Iron County Militia was, nearly to a man, deathly afraid that the US Army (already on the march from the east) was on its way, or would soon be, from the west. They, the residents of Iron County, were ill-armed, ill-trained, and ill-defended by nature. The road to California ran both ways, and it was a "high speed avenue of approach". Stopping the message getting to California was the most obvious way of delaying, at least, the arrival of US troops.

What happened that September morning was heinous and indefensible, but it is not difficult to understand how men, fearful on the one hand and dedicated to their homes and families on the other, could have been pressed to the point of following the order to do their duty (a call that has not been shown to have been raised in any case). And that duty was far from monolithic. It was not a Priesthood Service Project they undertook. They were defending their homes, a duty higher than which is hard to envision.

Lehi

Edited October 31, 2011 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

1) I never said Nephi was a Judge. God was the Judge. Even in Deuteronomy.

19:17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

So then according to your reading of the verse the one that was being wronged could only lie in return to about the person who was bearing false witness and trying to get him killed?

What don't you understand about "and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?

Yes, what don't you understand? You have failed to demonstrate that relatives of an attempted murder have the right to kill the person who made the attempt.

What don't you understand about "eye for an eye", Can you demonstrate from the scriptures that "eye for eye" means that if some attempts murder and fails that the victim or the family members of the victim have the right to kill the person who failed?

It has already been shown that you misuse the verse about false witness. So maybe now, you can look to the scripture for guidance on what "eye for an eye" meant and post accordingly.

You continuance with trying (and I say failing) to find "mortal" justification for Nephi is what is wrong with some things in the Church. Nephi, is justified in what he did because as far as the LDS are concerned God "commanded" or "instructed" Nephi to kill Laban. The conversation needs to end there, else, we have the situation we now have where mortals try to find mortal justification, but all that we end up with is holes.

[Sleeper Cell]

Not to belabor the point, because I believe too much emphasis is being placed on MMM, but could you provide a reference to your assertion that "do your duty" was a "standard piece of military phraseology"? I am ex-military and enjoy military history. I would love to see your reference.

Perhaps the most famous naval battle message of all time:

“England expects every man to do his duty” -- Lord Nelson at Trafalgar

See post # 370 for a few 19th century examples.

[stevedallas]

Perhaps the most famous naval battle message of all time:

“England expects every man to do his duty” -- Lord Nelson at Trafalgar

See post # 370 for a few 19th century examples.

I saw none in post 370, just a reference to people made famous by a war in the 1860s. As to Lord Nelson, one man in Britain (who died in 1805) certainly does not prove that a phrase was common among military personnel in 1857 Frontier America.

[LeSellers]

Perhaps the most famous naval battle message of all time:

“England expects every man to do his duty” -- Lord Nelson at Trafalgar

See post # 370 for a few 19th century examples.

I saw none in post 370, just a reference to people made famous by a war in the 1860s. As to Lord Nelson, one man in Britain (who died in 1805) certainly does not prove that a phrase was common among military personnel in 1857 Frontier America.

One of the most famous military speeches of all time is known by its "catchline": "Duty, Honor, Country". Gen. Douglas MacArthur's address is played time and again by aspiring young officers (older ones, as well).

You now face a new world, a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite spheres and missiles mark a beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human race, there has never been a more abrupt or staggering evolution. We deal now, not with things of this world alone, but with the illimitable distances and asº yet unfathomed mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier. We speak in strange terms: of harnessing the cosmic energy; of making winds and tides work for us; of creating unheard synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard basics; to purify sea water for our drink; of mining the ocean floors for new fields of wealth and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundreds of years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of spaceships to the Moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all time.

And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes,all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishment; but you are the ones who are trained to fight. Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

"Duty" is the lynchpin of all military units and acts. We, as young (and not-so-young) soldiers, learn to do our duty, obey the last order first, follow commands without question because, with exceedingly rare exception, the commander knows more than we do. Without the concept of "duty" armies disintegrate and nations fall.

Julius Casar']The greatest ills to which men are exposed arise from a certain inner conflict between duty and will ...

Julius Caesar,']At this point, the unarmed standard bearer of Julius Caesar's prized tenth legion said, "Soldiers, follow me unless you want this eagle to fall into the hands of the enemy. I am at least going to do my duty to my country and general."

Throughout history, without "duty", there is no military—not an army, not a corps, not a militia. "Duty" is paramount, it is the heart of the soldier.

Lehi

[Sleeper Cell]

Nephi, is justified in what he did because as far as the LDS are concerned God "commanded" or "instructed" Nephi to kill Laban. The conversation needs to end there, else, we have the situation we now have where mortals try to find mortal justification, but all that we end up with is holes.

Except that the conversation did not end there, even for Nephi.

It seems to me that everybody has missed the most important point. Nephi, himself, did not feel that even a direct command from God was sufficient justification for him to kill Laban. That is why he tried to find mortal justification from the scriptures and from his own reasoning and his own assessment of his situation.

I find it hard to believe that a person who would question a direct command of God, would, in its absence, rely solely on scriptural precedent or human reasoning to justify killing an unconscious man.

This is hardly a scripture that supports blind obedience to religious authority.

[Nevo]

I saw none in post 370, just a reference to people made famous by a war in the 1860s. As to Lord Nelson, one man in Britain (who died in 1805) certainly does not prove that a phrase was common among military personnel in 1857 Frontier America.

You're being obtuse. "Do your duty" was a commonplace injunction in the nineteenth century. But this is ultimately irrelevant because, as Scott Lloyd has already pointed out, Higbee's signal to begin the massacre was actually "Halt."

[LeSellers]

The crime here is perjury, not attempted murder.

The crime the perjury was attempting to "prove" was murder.

As we have seen, the Law of Moses required that the punishment for perjury was the same one that would have been inflicted on the accused had the perjurer been successful.

What, therefore, was the punishment for murder? That is the punishment demanded for Laban.

Lehi

[stevedallas]

One of the most famous military speeches of all time is known by its "catchline": "Duty, Honor, Country". Gen. Douglas MacArthur's address is played time and again by aspiring young officers (older ones, as well).

"Duty" is the lynchpin of all military units and acts. We, as young (and not-so-young) soldiers, learn to do our duty, obey the last order first, follow commands without question because, with exceedingly rare exception, the commander knows more than we do. Without the concept of "duty" armies disintegrate and nations fall.

Throughout history, without "duty", there is no military—not an army, not a corps, not a militia. "Duty" is paramount, it is the heart of the soldier.

Lehi

I see. A quote from a guy who died in 1805 and a quote from a guy who was fired by Truman in 1950s to prove that a phrase was common in 1857.

Got it.

[stevedallas]

You're being obtuse. "Do your duty" was a commonplace injunction in the nineteenth century. But this is ultimately irrelevant because, as Scott Lloyd has already pointed out, Higbee's signal to begin the massacre was actually "Halt."

There is no need to be rude. I am not being obtuse. Someone made an assertion that a certain phrase was very common in the military in 1857. I simply wanted a reference. Is that so bad? As to duty being important, no one knows that better than me. And before you begin preaching about military duty, please be aware I served my country proudly and am a disabled vet (due to a knee injury). I am currently in the Guard and hold the rank of Major. And on top of that, I just said goodbye to my youngest who left this very day for Navy Bootcamp to serve HIS time in the military. So, please, do not preach to me about the military.

And please do not lower yourself to standards of rudeness. It does not speak well of you or the faith you represent. As a military guy, I was simply asking for a reference to someone asserting facts about military history. Do not let a person;s curiosity force you to rudeness. I have been nothing but gracious in my time here and in my search.

Edited October 31, 2011 by stevedallas

[Scott Lloyd]

I see. A quote from a guy who died in 1805 and a quote from a guy who was fired by Truman in 1950s to prove that a phrase was common in 1857.

Got it.

Why do you continue to beat this drum? As Nevo has reiterated, the order was not "Do your duty," it was "Halt."

[stevedallas]

Why do you continue to beat this drum? As Nevo has reiterated, the order was not "Do your duty," it was "Halt."

It is no drum I am beating. My interest, as I stated, was not in MMM (which I have said on numerous occasions is not relevant and is overblown by anti-Mormons). My interest was in the military history aspect of the comment irrespective of MMM.

[Pahoran]

Not to belabor the point, because I believe too much emphasis is being placed on MMM, but could you provide a reference to your assertion that "do your duty" was a "standard piece of military phraseology"? I am ex-military and enjoy military history. I would love to see your reference.

I am rather surprised that you would be unaware of such a non-controversial fact.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. Officers exhort soldiers to do their duty. I don't see that any of the three foregoing statements is any less obvious than any of the others.

But since you asked, here is a well-known example: http://www.brainyquo...tele143697.html

Regards,

Pahoran

[stevedallas]

I am rather surprised that you would be unaware of such a non-controversial fact.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. Officers exhort soldiers to do their duty. I don't see that any of the three foregoing statements is any less obvious than any of the others.

But since you asked, here is a well-known example: http://www.brainyquo...tele143697.html

Regards,

Pahoran

If I misunderstood your post, I apologize. Officers throughout history, me included, have told soldiers to do their duty. Your post made it appear that if it was a specific battlecry in 1857 akin to "Remember the Main!" or "Remember the Alamo!". I found that curious, because I had never heard that before.

Edited October 31, 2011 by stevedallas

[stevedallas]

No, I do not feel as if I was mistaken. You stated . "Do your duty" was a standard piece of military phraseology at the time". You made it sound like specific to THAT TIME. I see now, you had nothing more in mind that ALL TIME desire for military personnel to "do their duty"

Thank you. I thought there was some military history with which I needed to become more familiar.

Edited October 31, 2011 by stevedallas

[Pahoran]

If I misunderstood your post, I apologize. Officers throughout history, me included, have told soldiers to do their duty. Your post made it appear that if it was a specific battlecry in 1857 akin to "Remember the Main!" or "Remember the Alamo!". I found that curious, because I had never heard that before.

No, my point was merely that it was a common expression in a military context. That's why I get irritated when pig-ignorant individuals (who shall remain nameless) produce that phrase with such triumphant flourish, as if it somehow proves that the MMM was purely a religious exercise.

Which, of course, it was not. (That is the point.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

I see. A quote from a guy who died in 1805 and a quote from a guy who was fired by Truman in 1950s to prove that a phrase was common in 1857.

There is no need to be rude. I am not being obtuse. Someone made an assertion that a certain phrase was very common in the military in 1857. I simply wanted a reference. Is that so bad? As to duty being important, no one knows that better than me. And before you begin preaching about military duty, please be aware I served my country proudly and am a disabled vet (due to a knee injury). I am currently in the Guard and hold the rank of Major. So, please, do not preach to me about the military.

I have only provided evidence to support the contention that "duty" is a universal military concept, and that "do your duty", as an order would not be at all out of place in the event we are discussing.

That said, however, I remain unconvinced that "Do your duty" was even spoken that morning.

I retired from the service as a Major, more than 15 years ago. Please recognize that I am not preaching about the military, I am trying to demonstrate that "duty" is, was, and will always be central to the military, all militaries, everywhere.

"Do your duty" has been a watchword since, as I showed, Julius Caesar's day, and in the 1950s. Caesar used the concept in his own writings. Here's one example.

De Bello Gallico and Other Commentaries']Caesar replied [Caesar is famous for referring to himself in the third person, "That either to complain or sue for mercy became no man less than him: for that every other person had done his duty: himself, in having declined to engage on favourable terms, in an advantageous situation and time, that all things tending to a peace might be totally unembarrassed: his army, in having preserved and protected the men whom they had in their power, notwithstanding the injuries which they had received, and the murder of their comrades; and even Afranius's soldiers, who of themselves treated about concluding a peace, by which they thought that they would secure the lives of all.

...

For the harshest expressions of the soldiers in general did not proceed from the Marsi and Peligni, as those which passed in the tents the night before; and some of their fellow soldiers heard them with displeasure. Some additions were also made to them by those who wished to be thought more zealous in their duty.

...

Here it might be seen what security men derive from a resolute spirit. For the recruits, frightened at the number of vessels, and fatigued with the rolling of the sea; and with sea-sickness, surrendered to Otacilius, after having first received his oath, that the enemy would not injure them; but as soon as they were brought before him, contrary to the obligation of his oath, they were inhumanly put to death in his presence. But the soldiers of the veteran legion, who had also struggled, not only with the inclemency of the weather, but by labouring at the pump, thought it their duty to remit nothing of their former valour: and having protracted the beginning of the night in settling the terms, under pretence of surrendering, they obliged the pilot to run the ship aground: and having got a convenient place on the shore, they spent the rest of the night there, and at daybreak, when Otacilius had sent against them a party of the horse, who guarded that part of the coast, to the number of four hundred, besides

some armed men, who had followed them from the garrison, they made a brave defence, and having killed some of them, retreated in safety to

our army.

Thomas C. Sharp, editor of the virulently anti-Mormon rag, The Warsaw Signal, used the phrase in the edition wherein he called on the citizens of Hancock County to avenge the poor owners of the Nauvoo Expositor for their loss. I don't have the copy in front of me right now, or I'd quote it. That was in the early 1840s. The examples of the use of "duty" and especially "[do] [your] duty" are legion (no reference to Caesar here), they could fill books (and I imagine they have).

Lehi

Edited October 31, 2011 by LeSellers

[stevedallas]

I agree with you. MMM happened. Get over it. It proves nothing. It does not prove Mormons are bad people any more than the heavily-influenced-by-the-Baptists KKK proves that Baptists are bad. I could also care less if BY ordered it. Had I gone thru what he did, and what he watched his leaders and people go thru, I might have jumped the gun on it too. So whether he ordered it or not proves NOTHING.

I was merely curious about that one little part of your post.

[stevedallas]

I have only provided evidence to support the contention that "duty" is a universal military concept, and that "do your duty", as an order would not be at all out of place in the event we are discussing.

That said, however, I remain unconvinced that "Do your duty" was even spoken that morning.

I retired from the service as a Major, more than 15 years ago. Please recognize that I am not preaching about the military, I am trying to demonstrate that "duty" is, was, and will always be central to the military, all militaries, everywhere.

"Do your duty" has been a watchword since, as I showed, Julius Caesar's day, and in the 1950s. Caesar used the concept in his own writings. Here's one example.

Thomas C. Sharp, editor of the virulently anti-Mormon rag, The Warsaw Signal, used the phrase in the edition wherein he called on the citizens of Hancock County to avenge the poor owners of the Nauvoo Expositor for their loss. I don't have the copy in front of me right now, or I'd quote it. That was in the early 1840s. The examples of the use of "duty" and especially "[do] [your] duty" are legion (no reference to Caesar here), they could fill books (and I imagine they have).

Lehi

I agree. I had read the post to which I referred to mean it was some sort of 1857 military battlecry and it sparked my curiosity.

And thank you for your service.

I am currently enrolled and takling courses in the Command General Staff College. I hope to make LTC soon.

My son, however, is in for the time of his life. My wife is distraught to see her youngest marching off to the Navy this morning, but I am incredibly proud of him.

Edited October 31, 2011 by stevedallas

[Nevo]

There is no need to be rude. I am not being obtuse. Someone made an assertion that a certain phrase was very common in the military in 1857. I simply wanted a reference. Is that so bad?

Well, yes, actually.

You already knew that "officers throughout history...have told soldiers to do their duty." Yet you originally professed to be ignorant of the fact that the phrase was a "standard piece of military phraseology." Then, when people responded to your ridiculous CFR, you dismissed their examples outright, insisting that they didn't "prove" that the phrase "was common among military personnel in 1857 Frontier America." When Civil War officers were mentioned (who certainly qualified as "military personnel in 1857 frontier America") you waved them aside as some "people made famous by a war in the 1860s"—as if Civil War examples of "do your duty" had no evidentiary value for 1857.

That is why I said you were "being obtuse" (i.e., playing dumb). But your subsequent rant indicates I may have given you too much credit. See below:

And before you begin preaching about military duty, please be aware I served my country proudly and am a disabled vet (due to a knee injury). I am currently in the Guard and hold the rank of Major. And on top of that, I just said goodbye to my youngest who left this very day for Navy Bootcamp to serve HIS time in the military. So, please, do not preach to me about the military.

Where did I threaten to "preach about military duty" or "the military"? I didn't even mention the military in my post.

I can only assume this was another clumsy attempt to arrogate authority or elicit sympathy for your posts by appealing to your resume. Yes, we know you profess to be a lawyer and ex-military. You mention it in nearly every other post.

Do not let a person;s curiosity force you to rudeness. I have been nothing but gracious in my time here and in my search.

Well, your "curiosity" didn't—and doesn't—strike me as genuine. Sorry.