Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Hestia]

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?

You keep stating you have your opinion but then you list a bunch of "facts" and many CFR's have been requested. If you are stating something as a fact and someone asks for a source you are expected to give the source. Otherwise leave it at your opinion and stop trying to present something as a fact. Inferences are not facts.

[inquiringmind]

The book Mormon Doctrine. Isn't.

But it was, wasn't it?

[annewandering]

not that I know of but I might be wrong. doubt it though.

[Calm]

I do not need better evidence to convince me, and I will never have enough evidence to convince you.

On the contrary, you could very easily have enough evidence for me. A letter signed by BY ordering the murders would be quite sufficient for me, also a journal entry, several of his closest associates who have nothing to gain by blaming him, etc. A close associate with nothing to gain saying so would cause me to reconsider. Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But it was, wasn't it?

Nope, just a logical inference on his part much like the Jews who asked Christ who had sinned in regards to the blind man.

For all we know it might be the stronger, more valiant spirit that is placed in a life of hardship and deprivation because they can handle it spiritually while we who have massive amounts of comforts and luxuries were the ones that got through by the skin of our teeth and the Lord has placed us here because he needs to baby our spirits.

As to why the letter didn't miraculously arrive, it would have been more efficient for God to speak directly to Haight or Dame when they had doubts about the appropriateness of their plan. However, we believe that God allows men their free agency, not only to see how good they will be if they truly love him, but just how far they are willing to be ruled by their carnal, devilish side.

Edited October 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[stevedallas]

On the contrary, you could very easily have enough evidence for me. A letter signed by BY ordering the murders would be quite sufficient for me, also a journal entry, several of his closest associates who have nothing to gain by blaming him, etc. A close associate with nothing to gain saying so would cause me to reconsider.

This will be last post on this topic. My main point was disregarded. As a prosecutor, you rarely get evidence that cut and dried. Many cases are determined on circumstantial evidence. Reasonable minds can differ on the weight to give that evidence and if that evidence is enough for them.

Thank you for discussing this with me.

[Calm]

This will be last post on this topic. My main point was disregarded. As a prosecutor, you rarely get evidence that cut and dried. Many cases are determined on circumstantial evidence. Reasonable minds can differ on the weight to give that evidence and if that evidence is enough for them.

Thank you for discussing this with me.

Or you could start another thread to answer all the unanswered CFRs people gave you.

[citizen28]

Surely, if your supposition is true, then Mountain Meadows cannot have been an isolated incident, now can it?

The Mountain Meadows massacre is just another item on the long list of acts of religious/ideological violence. The Danites are a second clear cut example from Mormon history (also with biblical parallels). I'd put violent opposition to the Mormons in Kirtland/Missouri/Nauvoo in the same category. In each of these cases there were numerous motivations from greed to jealousy to desire for vengeance, but religion/ideology played a key role.

In my lifelong experience in the church, I've seen very little resembling the over-the-top religious zeal displayed by early church members

Which you've yet to prove existed outside your own subjective opinion..

Take for example the Kirtland Temple dedication complete with ecstatic charismatic displays, speaking and singing in tongues, and everything else you might see at a modern Pentacostal service. I've heard everyone from institute and BYU religion teachers, to scholarly faithful LDS historians make the very point I made. I don't see how it undermines the LDS position in any way. These were people operating in a different culture at a different time with a different worldview, just as the people in the Old Testament. It's naive to project our modern LDS experience onto the saints of the past.

Also, I reject your insinuation of "group-think". I find it distasteful and offensive.

I apologize. I've labored to be as respectful as possible.

I personally believe (and the facts seem to support) that they were generally good men terrified at being driven from their homes yet again, and seeing their families raped and murdered by an invading army that was not interested in facts or justice.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, the evidence does nothing to support your supposition- in fact, you've offered no evidence to support your reasoning at all.

Certainly fear was a factor. I believe religious motivation was also a primary factor. Lee made it clear that religion was a factor for him. I'd be interested to read primary sources from other perpetrators detailing their perceived motivations for the massacre, particularly if they said that at the time they believed that God didn't approve of their actions.

you think the Church is lying about it.

I don't think the current church is lying about anything. The Turley book was a big step in the direction of candid (but faithful) Mormon studies, on the same level as RSR. I'm excited for the second volume which will apparently treat the aftermath of the massacre where the situation gets (in my opinion) a little more sticky for the institutional church.

[citizen28]

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

I agree with you in every way. Thanks for your response!

[citizen28]

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).

That's a great idea. Thanks for the advice!

[citizen28]

It proves no such thing. I believe whatever God does is right. He knows a lot of things that I don't, and whatever He does, for reasons best known to Himself, is right. It is not for me to act as God's moral arbiter, and decide the rights and wrongs of His actions based on my limited understanding. Whatever God does is right, even though the reasons why He does them may not always be apparent to us. Were there no "innocent man, women, or children" who died in the Flood? Were there no such people who died in Sodom and Gomorrah? So what is the difference between that, and God commanding the Israelites exterminating whole cities? Do not such people get hurt in major hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis? I don't judge God by my limited understanding. Whatever God says or does is always right.

Natural disasters, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorah were all acts of God. I object to the idea that God uses righteous people to dispose of innocents He sees fit to dispose of.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

CFR. What evidence do you have that is contrary to President Brigham Young's letter press book?

[stevedallas]

Or you could start another thread to answer all the unanswered CFRs people gave you.

I could, but it is not that important to me or my search. The main point of my post was overlooked, and I spent too much time discussing the minor point.

[Calm]

As friendly advice, if you make a habit of ignoring CFRs you will get banned. The mods already warned you once, I believe I've seen someone banned on the second occasion their attention was brought to it but that was like involving uncivil behaviour as well. You would likely get at least one more warning if they repeat their patterns...but it also depends on which mod draws the short straw and has to deal with us.

[annewandering]

Well I hope you dont get banned but maybe it would be better to concede on minor points to stick to what you see as your main point? Perhaps you could restate that?

[Mudcat]

If you interpreted that scripture in that way, it would through the whole of the Bible out of sync with itself. It was Samuel the prophet who commanded Saul to go and exterminate the Amalekites:

I don't think it would throw the Bible out of sync. But yes, I understand the claim about God via Samuel commanding Saul. Hopefully we can agree Samuel didn't actually pen this manuscript, given he was dead before the end of the book of 1 Samuel. More likely it was an oral tradition that was put to "paper" quite some time after.

1 Samuel 15:

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a.s.s.

4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.

5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.

Then Saul disobeyed Samuel in that he did not carry out the extermination to the full extent that God had commanded:

1 Samuel 15:

10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying,

11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night.

As a result of which Saul lost his kingdom, and David was anointed kind in his place, through whose lineage the Savior was born. And as a result of which we also have one of the most memorable verses in the whole Bible: “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). If your theory is true, it throws into confusion and disarray everything that is implied by the above. How can the Bible be trusted at all if one were to read into it anything one likes as you suggest?

Underline mine Zerinus. I don't actually think I am reading in something I like, and I don't see any reason that my thoughts on the matter interrupt a Davidic lineage to Christ. However, you have some conflicting paradigms.

Samuel's Yahweh tells us it's to wipe out women, children and infants. Destroy our enemies.. that sort of thing.

Christ as depicted in the NT reaches out to the weak and marginalized people of his day, instructs to not harm children, love our enemies.

I did not come to faith in Christ, because of OT claims of God. I came to Christ because the Holy Spirit led me. I believe he led me to this fellow called Jesus. I try to follow the OT where it is consistent with Christ, but I don't mind questioning it, when it strays.

IMO, it is the NT, not the OT that is the charter of the Christian church and our standard. I don't think it wrong to read the OT, with "New Testament eyes".

[zerinus]

Natural disasters, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorah were all acts of God. I object to the idea that God uses righteous people to dispose of innocents He sees fit to dispose of.

I object to your force-reading into my words, as well as into the scriptures, whatever you want to read into them, which was not said, nor intended to be inferred by either me or the scriptures.

[zerinus]

I don't think it would throw the Bible out of sync. But yes, I understand the claim about God via Samuel commanding Saul. Hopefully we can agree Samuel didn't actually pen this manuscript, given he was dead before the end of the book of 1 Samuel. More likely it was an oral tradition that was put to "paper" quite some time after.

Underline mine Zerinus. I don't actually think I am reading in something I like, and I don't see any reason that my thoughts on the matter interrupt a Davidic lineage to Christ. However, you have some conflicting paradigms.

Samuel's Yahweh tells us it's to wipe out women, children and infants. Destroy our enemies.. that sort of thing.

Christ as depicted in the NT reaches out to the weak and marginalized people of his day, instructs to not harm children, love our enemies.

I did not come to faith in Christ, because of OT claims of God. I came to Christ because the Holy Spirit led me. I believe he led me to this fellow called Jesus. I try to follow the OT where it is consistent with Christ, but I don't mind questioning it, when it strays.

IMO, it is the NT, not the OT that is the charter of the Christian church and our standard. I don't think it wrong to read the OT, with "New Testament eyes".

You can't force the OT into the NT mould. Jesus Himself admitted that some of His teachings were diametrically opposite to teachings of the OT. "Ye have heard that it has been said, ... But I say unto you, ..." is the constant refrain in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus never said, "What was said of old was not true," or "it never happened". He said that is what they did say or do, but now I am telling you to do something different. Jesus didn't try to fit the OT into the NT mould; and neither should we. He taught that we should put "old wine" into "old bottles" and "new wine" into "new bottles". He didn't put old and new wine in the same bottle. If you are intending to follow Jesus, then you should go by His example, not invent one of your own.

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Skylla]

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?

Stop the bomb throwing or you can take a break from the board.

Skylla

[Cobalt-70]

No. The church had zero responsibility. It was done outside of church authority, although members did it, it was not sanctioned, condoned, or ordered, by the church.

That's not exactly correct. It was organized and carried out by the church (which at that time was also the state), but only at the Stake level. There is no direct evidence of an order from Brigham Young to carry out the massacre.

But that's not to say that Young is entirely blameless. His violent rhetoric at the time, and talk of retribution upon "this nation" for the "blood of the prophets" (meaning Joseph and Hyrum Smith, killed in Illinois; David W. Patton, killed by Missourians; and Parley P. Pratt, killed in Arkansas), was easy to be misinterpreted by the frightened but horribly misguided Mormons in southern Utah, who were working with incomplete information as to the nature of the Fancher party.

[Lord of Strange Deaths]

CFR.

Anyway, congratulations. You managed to get one Mormon to say the words that you were looking for: that it is possible that God commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You must be very pleased with yourself.

(Written in response to Citizen28’s assertion that the perpetrators of the massacre believed they were acting under the commandment of God.)

On the contrary, Turley and his co-authors make the same assertion in Massacre at Mountain Meadows. The Mormons who perpetrated the massacre believed they were fulfilling God’s will…or so they were led to believe by their ecclesiastical leaders. Turley et al also make it very clear that the massacre was entirely unprovoked and that the members of the Fancher Train were completely innocent.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows paints the Church in a very bad light, but the authors draw the line at directly implicating Brigham Young.

[Mudcat]

You can't force the OT into the NT mould. Jesus Himself admitted that some of His teachings were diametrically opposite to teachings of the OT. "Ye have heard that it has been said, ... But I say unto you, ..." is the constant refrain in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus never said, "What was said of old was not true," or "it never happened". He said that is what they did say or do, but now I am telling you to do something different. Jesus didn't try to fit the OT into the NT mould; and neither should we. He taught that we should put "old wine" into "old bottles" and "new wine" into "new bottles". He didn't put old and new wine in the same bottle. If you are intending to follow Jesus, then you should go by His example, not invent one of your own.

I think you are adapting the parable to fit your issue

Mat 9:14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

Mat 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Mat 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

His parable, seems directly related to fasting .

Certainly Jesus quoted heavily from the OT, but I don't think he was ever quoted as saying that killing women, children and infants is something he thought we might have some good reason to do.

[Calm]

(Written in response to Citizen28’s assertion that the perpetrators of the massacre believed they were acting under the commandment of God.)

On the contrary, Turley and his co-authors make the same assertion in Massacre at Mountain Meadows

Cfr please just for the specific claim since considering your last comment I think you are overstating the case.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows paints the Church in a very bad light.

. CFR on this one too please.

[citizen28]

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.

I think there's a clear distinction to be made between believing that God brings death on people by natural disasters, diseases, etc and that God commands righteous men to kill innocent children. I'll admit I'm also dubious on the story of Abraham (nearly) sacrificing Isaac, though it is much deeper rooted in Christian theology. I'd hope that no one today would attempt to sacrifice their child, even if they were under the strong impression that God had commanded it.

[Lord of Strange Deaths]

From the first paragraph of the preface of Massacre at Mountain Meadows:

ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1857, Mormon settlers in southern Utah used a false flag of truce to lull a group of California-bound emigrants from their circled wagons and then slaughter them. When the killing was over, more than one hundred butchered bodies lay strewn across a half-mile stretch of an upland meadow. Most of the victims were women and children. The perpetrators were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aided by Indians.

How can this paint the Church in anything other than a “very bad light”?

And what, specifically, am I overstating?