Daniel Peterson Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 The evidence appears to show that religion had surprisingly little to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and, no, God didn't command it.
citizen28 Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 The evidence appears to show that religion had surprisingly little to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and, no, God didn't command it.CFRI have a hard time believing that religion had little influence in the MMM, especially considering that most early Mormons were more-or-less religious zealots, and Utah was basically a theocracy.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Whatever you want to call it, plural wives were being taken, and there was a sexual dimension in the relationships, but this is another discussion for another day.Joseph only had one wife, and that was Emma. There is a reason she to her dying breath claimed Joseph never practiced Polygamy. There is no good evidence at all that there was a "sexual dimension" to ANY of the sealings. What little evidence there might be is easily countered by just as good evidence that there wasn't anything going on. The "rumor mill" and some women trying to claim notoriety after his death is not good evidence of him having sexual relations, especially when just as many claimed he never did such a thing.Thus, it's called lying when you make a claim based on "assumption" rather than fact. You should learn the difference.I think there are many things God has done with no justification given (take the priesthood ban for example).True, but that doesn't mean the "reasons" can't be often sussed out. For example, some can be wrong, such as some of the reasons that were false for the ban, and then others can be more right such as the ban existing primarily due to the racism in the world toward the African race, and the ban ended when that racism ended. Coincidence? I don't think so.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 No justification is possible for MMM.. Even assuming that some members of the Francher party were doing bad things to the Saints in Missouri(They weren't). It in no wasy justifies taking the law into your own hands.True, but just to clarify little is known how some of them might have been involved in previous events or related to those who were. Further, they clearly were not innocent while in their travels toward the mormons. It seems clear that they said a lot of things they shouldn't have, which ultimately rilled feelings and thoughts.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 CFRI have a hard time believing that religion had little influence in the MMM, especially considering that most early Mormons were more-or-less religious zealots, and Utah was basically a theocracy.Religious zealots....? Please, clearly you don't know mormons especially the ones of history that well to make such a judgment.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 CFRCFR yourself..... You're talking to people who are well studied of LDS history, and not simply the anti-mormon version of it, but we are well familiar with them moronic bearing false witness tombs as well.
Anijen Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 CFRI have a hard time believing that religion had little influence in the MMM, especially considering that most early Mormons were more-or-less religious zealots, and Utah was basically a theocracy.I agree with Dr. Peterson, religion had little to do with it. For one reason it was local militia (gone nuts). We can tell it was not religious, because the senior officer for the militia leader was in charge yet (not so in his Stake), if we look at it from a religious perspective he was subordinate to his Stake President. It would be exactly like a Bishop telling the Stake President his duties.
Ray Callis Hatton III Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Its not possible. John D Lee was acting against orders killing the train, Brigham had sent a letter back to Ceder City ordering them [not] to meddle with the emigrants, "In regards to immigrant wagon trains passing through our settlements, you must not meddle with them. If those who are there will leave, just let them go in peace." The letter was found in Brigham's 1857 letterpress copybook that was made available to the prosecution in the trial that led to John D. Lee's conviction and subsequent execution.Its possible God ordered MMM... if John D Lee was a prophet of God. As Latter-day Saints, by our faith, its not possible.As far as LDS views on the character of God... We are Christians. So I'm not entirely sure we fully accept how supposedly "cruel" Jehovah was considering what a nice guy he was when he was born as Jesus. Perhaps this character difference may be distortions, by apostate scribes, or faulty preservation of the original text. Certainly in the Old Testament there are numerous examples of God’s kindness, patience, and long-suffering with the people of Israel. Perhaps Israel’s apostasy may help us understand. We do not find exactly the same portrayal of God, yet we are told that God himself didn’t change, only the way in which those people perceived God as it varies by their faithfulness or lack of faith, when people are wicked, the Lord cannot reveal himself fully to them. Thus, their fundamental perception of him is thereby limited and altered, and accordingly their records portray only the selected characteristics of God they experience or see through their glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12).So, God and the interpretation of his laws and actions may therefore not be God fully revealed; and as Christians, that his true virtue, holiness, justice, and mercy seemed to be not fully expressed until the gospel of Jesus Christ was accurately understood. Edited October 23, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III 1
stevedallas Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 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.
The Nehor Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I have a hard time believing that religion had little influence in the MMM, especially considering that most early Mormons were more-or-less religious zealots,CFR
selek1 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 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.Research is a misnomer. at best, Steve Dallas..NO credible historian nor any of the factual, reliable evidence implicates Young, and the evidence which exonerates him is nigh overwhelming..As a bit of an intellectual exercise (something beyond bearing your non-testimony, that is), please provide five solid facts which implicate Brigham Young in ordering the Massacre.And then explain the contradiction between that evidence and the irrefutable fact that Young ordered the Fancher train left strictly alone.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) 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.Your "research" is anti-mormon based, thus an absolute LIE..... See Ray Callis Hatton III's post.....Brigham Young gave specific orders to leave the train alone, and the letter is "carbon copy" triplicated in date order thus NO WAY to have been forged after the fact or otherwise. Anti-mormons don't tell you that very important fact because truth isn't their purpose, destroying the Church is. Unfortunately, the letter arrived "after" the massacre. Edited October 23, 2011 by ldsfaqs
citizen28 Posted October 23, 2011 Author Posted October 23, 2011 Religious zealots....? Please, clearly you don't know mormons especially the ones of history that well to make such a judgment.I agree with Dr. Peterson, religion had little to do with it. For one reason it was local militia (gone nuts). We can tell it was not religious, because the senior officer for the militia leader was in charge yet (not so in his Stake), if we look at it from a religious perspective he was subordinate to his Stake President. It would be exactly like a Bishop telling the Stake President his duties.I understand the term "zealot" is pejorative, but I can think of no better term to describe it. My readings of original documents (especially as quoted extensively in ISL) give me the strong impression that early Mormons were having a very different kind of religious experience than modern Mormons. It's clear that the church is vastly different today than it was back then. I understand that faithful Mormons are likely to disagree with this interpretation, but to me, the record speaks for itself. How could religion have been a secondary issue when these extremely religious early Mormons were faced with a huge moral judgement? My understanding is that there was almost complete silence on the issue from the perpetrators, and federal investigations took place many years after the act due to an extensive cover-up.
ldsfaqs Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Sorry, then you haven't read 'enough' of the history..... Mormons are the same people today as we were yesterday, save some minor culture changes as society itself has changed.Mormons always were "regular people" who simply had a strong faith. We were never Jesus Jesus Evangelicals, never cult member like, never anything otherwise. Of course, anti-mormons and ignorant society at large had some views, but the rumor mill is not the truth.
Mudcat Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) nevermind.. none of my business. Edited October 23, 2011 by Mudcat
selek1 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I understand the term "zealot" is pejorative, but I can think of no better term to describe it. My readings of original documents (especially as quoted extensively in ISL) give me the strong impression that early Mormons were having a very different kind of religious experience than modern Mormons. It's clear that the church is vastly different today than it was back then. I understand that faithful Mormons are likely to disagree with this interpretation, but to me, the record speaks for itself. Thank you for taking care to make it clear that the above are your opinions rather than incontrovertible facts.This habit lends itself to a far more reasonable discussion.How could religion have been a secondary issue when these extremely religious early Mormons were faced with a huge moral judgement? For the record, you still haven't established that these early Mormons were "extremely religious" as compared to their neighbors or their descendants. While that may be a conceit of your argument, it remains to be established as fact.Second, the preponderance of evidence from credible sources and reputable historians shows that the "call to arms" (as Calmoriah pointed out above) was done independently of the Church leadership structure- including the local Church leadership (even those who later participated in the Massacre).Accounts show that Lee (as ringleader) lied to both the membership of the mob and the leadership of the local militia in order to get his aim (the massacre) carried out. There are modern-day parallels in this between then-Colonel Douglas MacArthur and the Veteran's Army massacre in Washington D.C.While the Massacre may have been presented as a civic duty and responsbility, there is simply no evidence that this was ever approached as a religious duty.The Massacre was enacted without authorization from Church leaders, in direct contravention of LDS belief and practice, and in violation of the Church's "chain of command", and what cover-up did later exist did so in defiance of Church instructions.Whatever each of the participants might have told himself to rationalize his behavior, there is simply no extant evidence to make the claim that they felt they were justified- let alone commanded- by God to carry out these acts.My understanding is that there was almost complete silence on the issue from the perpetrators, and federal investigations took place many years after the act due to an extensive cover-up.Your information is incorrect.Concurrent to the events of the Massacre (either during or just after Lee was commiting cold-blooded murder) Young was relieved of his post of Governor of the Utah Territory (the order was written much earlier, and travelled essentially in company with the army). As word of the Massacre (and rumors of the settler's complicity) reached Salt Lake, Brigham Young pressed the new governor for an immediate investigation and for the perpetrators to be brought to the bar at once. The record shows that the new governor (I can't remember his name) declined, feeling that the Mountain Meadows Massacre fell under the "General Amnesty" decreed by the President.Without the governor's support, Young had neither the right nor authority to pursue criminal investigations.The investigations that Young pressed for were pursued later, but for the express purpose of implicating him- and facts be damned. These later investigations were political witch-hunts in which the Prosecutor and a couple of judges behaved unethically (at best).The first trial of Lee ended up in a deadlock because the prosecutor made no attempt to prosecute Lee, but insisted instead on attacking Young. That jury was an even mix Mormon and non-Mormon.The second jury- composed almost exclusively of Mormons- later convicted Lee (and if memory serves, at the hands of a different, competant prosecutor).The Church pushed from the outset to see the matter investigated properly and the guilty punished, going so far as to repeatedly offer LDS apostles and General Authorities to the investigators to ensure cooperation. They were rebuffed in every instance, with the Federal marshall and other law-enforcement types refusing in nearly every instance.It didn't help that a couple of corrupt Territorial officials (appointed by Washington) were more worried about turf-wars and building up their political fortunes than enforcing the law.The time lost between the murders and the prosecution of Lee lies solely at the feet of appointed Federal officials- some corrupt, some not.But neither the Massacre nor the delay in prosecution can be laid at the feet of Brigham Young or the Church itself. Edited October 23, 2011 by selek1 1
Sleeper Cell Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 I understand the term "zealot" is pejorative, but I can think of no better term to describe it. My readings of original documents (especially as quoted extensively in ISL) give me the strong impression that early Mormons were having a very different kind of religious experience than modern Mormons. It's clear that the church is vastly different today than it was back then. I understand that faithful Mormons are likely to disagree with this interpretation, but to me, the record speaks for itself. “My readings” … [my] “strong impression” … [my] “interpretation.” If the record speaks for itself, why do you find it necessary to speak for it?
Robert F. Smith Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 The early denials of Polygamy were actually true. Only the "sealing ordinance" was practiced at first, not Polygamy. Polygamy didn't start until Utah.Thus, while the Church didn't "volunteer" complex doctrinal information, it wasn't lying either.No, the early denials were not true.The RLDS Historian, Richard P. Howard published the correct historical information that Joseph Smith and the brethren had been practicing polygyny long before the death of Smith. Howard published this information in the official RLDS Church magazine at the behest of the RLDS Church Presidency. This was only one of the factors leading to schism within the Reorganization, since RLDS members had long held to the false story that Brigham began polygyny.
stevedallas Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 Research is a misnomer. at best, Steve Dallas..NO credible historian nor any of the factual, reliable evidence implicates Young, and the evidence which exonerates him is nigh overwhelming..As a bit of an intellectual exercise (something beyond bearing your non-testimony, that is), please provide five solid facts which implicate Brigham Young in ordering the Massacre.And then explain the contradiction between that evidence and the irrefutable fact that Young ordered the Fancher train left strictly alone.No, it is not a misnomer. It is what my research has led me to believe. The self-serving "don;t touch them" after the fact means very little. Young's conduct afterwards in kicking over the memorial and claiming vengeance speaks volumes.
selek1 Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) No, it is not a misnomer. It is what my research has led me to believe. The self-serving "don;t touch them" after the fact means very little. Young's conduct afterwards in kicking over the memorial and claiming vengeance speaks volumes. It is "research" that is the misnomer. I don't doubt that you believe what you claim to believe- it's your methodology (and how you arrived at that conclusion) which I find questionable.Two Ouija boards, the entrails of a live newt, an IRR article, and three Chick pamphlets simply don't count as "research" to any reasonable reader.The smple fact of the matter is this: had you done any kind of academic research, you wouldn't be having so much difficulty in meeting the challenge I laid out for you. You would simply be better versed on the issues at the heart of the matter.It goes without saying that Young's comment (if recorded accurately- and there's considerable doubt that this is the case) would be considered offensive and insensitive.Yet even conceding that he said it, or that he ordered the destruction of the stone cairn, your riposte lacks any kind of evidence implicating Young in actually ordering the Massacre.Rather than citing factual evidence, you are attempting to convict based solely on innuendo and whispers.While this is a favored tactic of gossips, demagogues, and propogandists, it is not indicative of even a passing familiarity with the history of Mountain Meadows, or the facts regarding that horror and atrocity.----------------------------------------------------------------------I laid out a very simple challenge for you.Do you have those five facts I asked for?Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your guesstimates and Young's explicit statements and the official records?Or are you still up to your chin in newt entrails? Edited October 23, 2011 by selek1 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 No, it is not a misnomer. It is what my research has led me to believe. The self-serving "don;t touch them" after the fact means very little. Young's conduct afterwards in kicking over the memorial and claiming vengeance speaks volumes.It is very difficult for those who hate Brigham and the Mormons to accept the dispassionate conclusion of professional historians that the messenger sent by horse to SLC to find out the Prophet's orders in the matter simply could not have arrived back in Cedar City in time. Brigham, who loved John D. Lee like a son, certainly had very good reason to feel that he had been betrayed by the man in charge. Had Brigham been allowed by Gen. Johnston to remain Governor, Lee would likely have been executed much sooner.Still there is a certain irony in the fact that some of the key principals involved on both sides during this period (including John D. Lee, Captain Fancher, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, et al., all of whom got a bullet) had all been involved many years before in the massacre of Sauk & Fox men, women, and children at the close of the 1832 Black Hawk War in Illinois. Even Abe Lincoln had been a militia captain in that "War," although he had no direct hand in the massacre of the innocent men, women, and children on that horrific occasion. The policy of exterminating Indians would continue through most of the rest of the 19th century. At Mountain Meadows the Indians got a rare chance to even the score . . . 1
Storm Rider Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 To me the MMM is a historical event which leaves few unscathed. There are simply too many unanswered questions for any historian to be definitive. What is clear is that some LDS planned and murdered innocent children, women, and men. There is no justification for such an action and it is a blotch on the history of LDS people who had been persecuted for so long.
Anijen Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 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.Your research simply stated is poor, perhaps you should learn to do better research.
Anijen Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 It is very difficult for those who hate Brigham and the Mormons to accept the dispassionate conclusion of professional historians that the messenger sent by horse to SLC to find out the Prophet's orders in the matter simply could not have arrived back in Cedar City in time. Brigham, who loved John D. Lee like a son, certainly had very good reason to feel that he had been betrayed by the man in charge. Had Brigham been allowed by Gen. Johnston to remain Governor, Lee would likely have been executed much sooner.Still there is a certain irony in the fact that some of the key principals involved on both sides during this period (including John D. Lee, Captain Fancher, Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston, et al., all of whom got a bullet) had all been involved many years before in the massacre of Sauk & Fox men, women, and children at the close of the 1832 Black Hawk War in Illinois. Even Abe Lincoln had been a militia captain in that "War," although he had no direct hand in the massacre of the innocent men, women, and children on that horrific occasion. The policy of exterminating Indians would continue through most of the rest of the 19th century. At Mountain Meadows the Indians got a rare chance to even the score . . .This post is one reason you are one of my favorite posters to read. I enjoy history and can tell you have did your homework! Only if we had more posters like yourself.
Storm Rider Posted October 23, 2011 Posted October 23, 2011 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 are correct; every denominaton or church as some skeletons in their historical closet. It is also admirable that you have done some research before making a conclusion. I did find coincidences and unanswered questions, but I never found direct evidence that BY was involved. AND it is acceptable to come to different conclusions.
Recommended Posts