Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[ERayR]

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.

CFR that early Mormons early Mormons were having a very different kind of religious experience than modern Mormons.

[Calm]

Why does not everyone accept all the things Obama says? he speaks to large groups as well. You are trying to prove innocence in one incident by claiming an absence of similar incidents. That simply does not work.

It's not like only one limited group of people accepts what he says. Enough do in fact that he was able to get elected. You have only proved my point. And are you suggesting that all the rest ofbthe saints merely ignored what he said? If so, then again the reason becomes not BY's rhetoric but the individuals involved just as some serial killers heard Beatles music and went out and killed. Would you claim the Beatles were accessories before the fact in that case? Addon...apparently Revelations was part of Manson's motivation just as the Beatles' music was. Do you claim that the writer of Revelation was a guilty party involved in the murder?

And you are attempting to assign guilt based on vague connections....since when did that work.

Would prosecutors ever take a case to court solely because a man was heard to threaten an individual and that person was later found dead? Of course not, it would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence. How is your accusation any more substantial.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

By the way, you keep focusing on one or two comments without answering the rest. I hope your next response is more complete addressing why no other wagon train was attacked before or after this one.

[Zeta-Flux]

citizen28,

To answer your call for references:

The evidence I'm aware of can be found most easily by contacting the authors of "Massacre at Mountain Meadows" and/or reading their book (and the one that will follow).

[stevedallas]

It's not like only one limited group of people accept what he says. Enough do in fact that he was able to get elected. You have only proved my point.

And you are attempting to assign guilt based on vague connections....since when did that work.

Would prosecutors ever take a case to court solely because a man was heard to threaten an individual and that person was later found dead? Of course not, it would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence. How is your accusation any more substantial.

Let's see. Let us compare 2 cases. BY and OJ

BY

1. BY ordering Oaths of Vengeance.

2. The Vengeance being carried out.

3. Lee claiming he believed BY was a part

4. The coverup activities conducted by BY

5. BY's conduct and comments at the site after the fact

OJ

1. Conduct before the killing (various things he had said and done

2. Certain circumstantial evidence at the scene (bloody footprints, etc.)

3. His conduct and comments afterwards (the things he said during his slow flight down LA highways)

Is it enough to prosecute? It was in OJ. You CAN convict on circumstantial evidence, though it failed in the OJ trial. Is it enough to get a conviction? Depends on the jury. A different jury might have convicted OJ. OJ was acquitted, does anyone really believe him to be innocent?

We will never know if BY was guilty or not. We can all reach our own opinions. Most LDS will never admit there is even a chance he was guilty in the massacre. Many historians believe he was. So?

My whole point was that every denomination has their issues and bad history. If BY did it, so what? Does it make him less a prophet if you believe he was?

Frankly, I would be surprised if he was NOT involved. Read his speeches of vengeance and blood. Heck, the Mormons were harassed, killed, assaulted and chased from every home they had. They were finally in a position to push back.

But it doesn't matter. Or, it shouldn't matter. It is in the past.

[Deborah]

This whole argument that BY's rhetoric was responsible for MMM is so ridiculous it shouldn't require argument. BY's rhetoric was the rhetoric of the day and not in any way unusual. Furthermore the saints went out of their way to avoid conflict, even moving out of SLC and covering up the temple site when the army came into the state. Personal accounts of BY by those closest to him recount him a man of great compassion and love, as evidenced by his actions with the stranded handcart companies. It is totally out of character for him to have ordered revenge for past injustices by attacking a party of men, women and children traveling through regardless of where they were from. The one thing BY and the saints wanted was to be left alone. Such an action would assure they weren't.

[stevedallas]

By the way, you keep focusing on one or two comments without answering the rest. I hope your next response is more complete addressing why no other wagon train was attacked before or after this one.

I have refrained from commenting about trains because it is a red herring and superfluous argument.

[Calm]

Lee was the instigator of the attack...how could he only be suspicious of BY? Wouldn't he know for sure?

If you are going to claim he did, please provide documentation.

As far as the desecration of the site, even if one assumes it was reported correctly, since it is after the fact it only demonstrates BY's attitude at that time. You need more than this to demonstrate a personal intent to take vengeance into his own hands (or through his agents) as opposed to his assuming that the Lord had acted through whoever had killed them.

[Zeta-Flux]

BY

1. BY ordering Oaths of Vengeance.

I'd like a reference to BY ordering oaths of vengeance, and the specific wording and context to those oaths.

2. The Vengeance being carried out.

I'd like a reference to any of the lay perpetrators to the MMM citing such an oath as the reason for their actions.

3. Lee claiming he believed BY was a part

Why do you think he is a believable witness? What evidence does Lee present?

[ERayR]

So much for staying out of it...

I have been thinking about the OP, citizen28 and bear in mind I don't speak as an LDS, I am an evangelical.

Though I am an evangelical, I am not a Biblical literalist when it comes to ethical issues, such as the attribution of genocide to an injunction from God, as we see in Samuel. The malevolent slaughter of women and children, seems a far cry from the character of Christ that we see expressed in the NT. Quite a bit different than the notion that we are to love our enemies, don't you think.

I think it would be more likely that the Hebrews of the time wanted to vindicate their actions towards the Amalekites, by attributing this to God.

One has to be careful, when making such assumptions.

But I think it fair to ask ourselves, Would Christ have been a willing soldier in the army or Saul. Would the Savior himself, kill infants, children and women in cold blood with a sword?

I don't think Christ would, any more than he would slaughter a wagon train of families, or gun down people at mill, or lay assault to a small jail to murder the prisoners... and so on. Such actions are motivated by hatred and fear and I don't see any room for God in them at all. Rather, man fulfilling the worst that it is in him.

If LDS took the position that MMM was a divine command, I think they would be making the same mistake I believe the Hebrews made.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Mudcat:

I know of no LDS who has ever taken that position. In fact our trolling friend who posted the OP is the first I have ever heard that argument and I have been hearing MMM stories since I was a boy. My grandfather was born and raised not far from the Cedar City area.

[Calm]

1. BY ordering Oaths of Vengeance.

2. The Vengeance were carried out

Then why only these people and not those who murdered Joseph and Hyrum or the perpetrators of Haun's Mill? Why were not hit men sent out to kill those they swore vengeance on?

Most LDS will never admit there is even a chance he was guilty in the massacre.

I definitely believe he did not help the situation with his "fiery" rhetoric or his choice of sending George A. Smith to visit the area, but MMM is such a contrast to other actions taken that it seems completely contrary to BY's way of doing things. Plus I don't think he'd be that stupid to commit such an act that would be used as justification for any action the army wanted to take.

,

Do you deny that historians believe the impending war do to Buchanan sending out the army was a major factor in creating the environment that led to the massacre? Do you hold him guilty for the crime? If not, why not?

Also see my previous post for additional comments and questions I added apparently after you read them. I am working on an iPad so it would be difficult to edit and repost. Thank you in advance.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Flyonthewall]

So much for staying out of it...

I have been thinking about the OP, citizen28 and bear in mind I don't speak as an LDS, I am an evangelical.

Though I am an evangelical, I am not a Biblical literalist when it comes to ethical issues, such as the attribution of genocide to an injunction from God, as we see in Samuel. The malevolent slaughter of women and children, seems a far cry from the character of Christ that we see expressed in the NT. Quite a bit different than the notion that we are to love our enemies, don't you think.

I think it would be more likely that the Hebrews of the time wanted to vindicate their actions towards the Amalekites, by attributing this to God.

One has to be careful, when making such assumptions.

But I think it fair to ask ourselves, Would Christ have been a willing soldier in the army or Saul. Would the Savior himself, kill infants, children and women in cold blood with a sword?

I don't think Christ would, any more than he would slaughter a wagon train of families, or gun down people at mill, or lay assault to a small jail to murder the prisoners... and so on. Such actions are motivated by hatred and fear and I don't see any room for God in them at all. Rather, man fulfilling the worst that it is in him.

If LDS took the position that MMM was a divine command, I think they would be making the same mistake I believe the Hebrews made.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

If you believe Jesus Christ was responsible for the 10 plagues of Egypt, then you certainly believe He would take part in the slaughter of innocents. All the first born of the Egyptians were killed as the final plague. The first born of the Egyptians was sure to include newborns as well as adults and every age in between.

Everyone in this world will die at some point. To the Lord, death is not the same thing as to us. When someone dies, they go to stand before Him to be judged. It is not a departure from loved ones, but a return to their God.

[Calm]

The problem with your outline is that even if the Oaths of Vengeance are exactly as you believe (and if they are why were more acts of vengeance not taken out?), you have not demonstrated but only assumed that the massacre was an act of vengeance and not one of fear of retribution. Without that piece in place your logic fails. You have also made a claim of coverup by BY himself but have not demonstrated it or that it occurred due to guilt and not out of a concern for the safety of his people.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you want to say that BY is guilty because my gut tells me so, then I'm not going to challenge that, butbifbyou are claiming he's guilty because the evidence says he likely did it when it demonstrates no such thing, then I will disagree with with you. If you want to demonstrate a probability that BY participated in the massacre by instructing it to take place either specifically or generally you need better evidence then you are presenting.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have refrained from commenting about trains because it is a red herring and superfluous argument.

Then you shouldn't have used it as if it supported your position... Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

Are children who have not reached the age of accountability innocent? It would seem clear from the lds perspective they are.

What if they committed sins in their pre-mortal existence?

Weren't blacks denied the priesthood (up until 1978) because they had been less than valiant in their pre-mortal life?

If the victims of the MMM were involved in the murders of Joseph, Hyrum, and Pratt, is it possible that their children had been sinners before they were given to them, and they were all meant to die in the way they did?

And if BY had been meant to stop the massacre, why didn;t his order get there in time to stop it?

[Zeta-Flux]

Weren't blacks denied the priesthood (up until 1978) because they had been less than valiant in their pre-mortal life?

No. Although some people (wrongly) thought that-contrary to what the President of the church taught on the subject.

And if BY had been meant to stop the massacre, why didn;t his order get there in time to stop it?

Travel time. It took horses and riders time to travel, rest, and return. When the messenger arrived at Brigham's door, he urged him to return with all possible haste with the message to leave the wagon train alone. Unfortunately, the messenger arrived too late.

[thesometimesaint]

stevedallas:

Obama is the Commander in Chief of the US military. What he commands the military to do gets done. As I am a civilian now Mr. Obama is my President not my Commander in Chief. I've had only one Commander in Chief Richard M. Nixon when I was in the US Air Force.

The Church is not now nor has ever been a military organization. But even going on the assumption that Brigham Young as Territorial Governor could have control of a local militia. He ordered them to not attack that wagon train. So the question given that assumption if the Saints were so brain washed by violent Brigham Young why would they deliberately disobey a direct order?

Edited October 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

What if they committed sins in their pre-mortal existence?

We don't teach that anyone being born in mortality were sinners in the preexistence. Even the wrong less valiant concept was about not being as good or 'fence sitting' not committing sins.

The only ones we point to as sinners are those who followed Satan.

It is not something that there is any revelation on (save that infants are innocent of guilt) but speculating if we did commit sin in our previous existence, it would have likely been paid for in some fashion prior to moving on to the next stage.

[annewandering]

My grandfather, who was antimormon, read everything he could get his hands on to prove the MMM was ordered by Brigham Young and that the church was guilty. He did this for years. There were some descendants of Brother Lee in our village. He said many bad things about everyone he thought was involved.

We have found out now that before he died he went to the Lee family and apologized for his hardheadedness and attacks. He spent the last few years before he died quietly doing what he could to make good on his mistakes.

Now why I am bringing this up is that he is such a good example of how we can get an idea into our hearts and spend a LOT of time defending that view. Knowing him as I did it was clear to me that he suffered from an excess of pride and stubborness so I was shocked to learn he had changed his mind and went about to try to fix the damage he had done. It was a testimony to me that he had truly changed and that he had finally come to understand he was wrong.

I know no one can know what he discovered but it might pay to rethink the reason for such intense focus on this event. Is it true questioning or maybe a bit of stubborn pride?

Edited October 23, 2011 by annewandering

[Calm]

Anne, there are a lot of people out there willing to admit they were wrong, but much fewer who accept the consequences of their actions based on that wrong beyond dismissing them by saying something along the lines of "I was trying to do my best with the knowledge I had at the time...."

My response to that is "who isn't?"

And to try to do something to right those wrongs..? Fewer still sad to say.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

What if they committed sins in their pre-mortal existence?

Weren't blacks denied the priesthood (up until 1978) because they had been less than valiant in their pre-mortal life?

If the victims of the MMM were involved in the murders of Joseph, Hyrum, and Pratt, is it possible that their children had been sinners before they were given to them, and they were all meant to die in the way they did?

And if BY had been meant to stop the massacre, why didn;t his order get there in time to stop it?

In view of the fact that LDS view little children as innocent and pure before God your post is offensive to me.

[stevedallas]

If you want to say that BY is guilty because my gut tells me so, then I'm not going to challenge that, butbifbyou are claiming he's guilty because the evidence says he likely did it when it demonstrates no such thing, then I will disagree with with you. If you want to demonstrate a probability that BY participated in the massacre by instructing it to take place either specifically or generally you need better evidence then you are presenting.

I do not need better evidence to convince me, and I will never have enough evidence to convince you. I am sorry that the main point of my original was missed and that we have discussed this so much.

[inquiringmind]

In view of the fact that LDS view little children as innocent and pure before God your post is offensive to me.

I'm sorry about that, but if God did order the Israelites to kill Canaanite children, and there is a premortal existence, isn't it possible that those children weren't wholly innocent?

And isn't it also possible that the same was true of the children who perished in the MMM?

It's not politically correct today, Bruce R. Mcconkie said this.

In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself...The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 114.)

Mightn't this explain both the conquest of Canaan and the MMM?

Travel time. It took horses and riders time to travel, rest, and return. When the messenger arrived at Brigham's door, he urged him to return with all possible haste with the message to leave the wagon train alone. Unfortunately, the messenger arrived too late.

But if past, present, and future are one eternal round to God, and He wanted the message to get there in time, wouldn't it have gotten there in time?

Edited October 23, 2011 by inquiringmind

[annewandering]

The book Mormon Doctrine. Isn't.