Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Nevo]

(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.

None of that is true. Walker, Turley, and Leonard nowhere claim that the perpetrators, as a group, "believed they were fulfilling God's will." Nor do they claim that the massacre was "entirely unprovoked." You must be thinking of Will Bagley's book.

Walker, Turley, and Leonard cite the following conditions as contributing to the massacre:

• "The settlers began to see the emigrants as the 'other' or enemy, believing the outsiders somehow threatened the values and well-being of the Mormon community."
  
• "Rumors circulated that were untrue or enlarged beyond proportion, and southern Utah society was vulnerable to this excitement."
  
• "The region was isolated from Salt Lake City. Mixed signals floated down the trail about Indian and emigrant policy."
  
• "Civil, religious, and military power was dangerously held in the hands of a few. Impoverished settlers knew the virtues of obeying" (p. 128).
  

According to the authors, Cedar City residents "believed the emigrants were a threat.... From the Cedar City leaders' point of view, outsiders had defied the law, faced them down in front of their own people, and resisted arrest. They had threatened townspeople, mocked the values of the community, and announced themselves ready to support the army that seemed at southern Utah's doors" (p. 135).

Granting "that Brigham Young's new Indian policy... may have confused some local leaders," Walker et al. note that "[isaac] Haight and other leaders in Cedar City decided 'to arm the Indians, give them provisions and ammunition, and send them after the emigrants' to 'give them a brush' and take their cattle" (p. 137). The plan was later modified to sending the Indians "to kill the men of the company and take their cattle" (p. 143) and Indian agent John D. Lee was brought in to incite the local Paiutes to attack the train.

Iron County militia leader William Dame only gave the order to destroy the entire company after it became clear that the emigrants knew that whites were involved in the initial attack, and that one company member had actually witnessed a Mormon (William Stewart) murder his companion while they were out searching for cattle and making pine tar. Dame worried that if this were to "come to the ears of President Buchanan, it would endanger the lives of the Brethren." The massacre was deemed necessary to cover up the other crimes. As one observer noted, "It seemed to become necessary to kill all [the Arkansas emigrants] to silence the rest" (p. 179).

Regarding the Mormon perpetrators, Walker, Turley, and Leonard write: "Until they heard the plan announced, some of the men remained uncertain how the scene would wind up. Some had gone to the Meadows without a clear understanding of what was to take place there, and speculation had continued in the ranks about just what they might be expected to do. When the plan was finally explained, some were stunned. 'A good many objected,' [Nephi] Johnson said years later, 'but didn't dare to say anything.'... Though 'a good many' may have inwardly objected, Johnson conceded that 'most of the men who took part in the killing, also considered them [the emigrants] as their common enemies, and under the excitement caused by the advent of the [approaching] Army they felt partly justified in destroying them'" (p. 191).

Nevertheless, "despite all their uncertainties and fears, their feelings of anger or hatred, and their willingness to obey leaders, they struggled when faced with the reality of what they were about to do..." (p. 199). After the deed was done, "some militiamen may have rested well, but the sleep of others must have been more fitful. However much they sought solace thereafter, memories of the massacre at Mountain Meadows would lurk in their minds and haunt them to their deaths. Some sought refuge in excuses or denial. Others fled the land in a vain hope of escaping the recurring visions of that day. None was ever the same again" (p. 209).

What was Isaac Haight's reaction after receiving Brigham Young's letter instructing him to let the emigrants "go in peace"? According to the authors, "Haight took the letter, read through it, and broke down. For half an hour, he sobbed 'like a child' and could manage only the words, 'Too late, too late'" (p. 226).

Nothing here suggests that these men believed they were specifically commanded of God to massacre the emigrant company. They did so entirely of their own initiative.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Nevo

[Calm]

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?

Would you suggest that an article describing how a drug gang slaughtered a rival drug gang painted the US in a bad light if it pointed out that the gang were all Americans?

[Calm]

Thank you, Nevo, my book is currently unavailable so I appreciate you stepping in.

[citizen28]

Nothing here suggests that these men believed they were specifically commanded of God to massacre the emigrant company. They did so entirely of their own initiative.

First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed your summary of Turley et al's description of the motivations for the MMM (I also do not have the book at hand). I assume they cited primary documents from the perpetrators to reach their conclusions. I don't think anyone would argue that there weren't numerous motivations for the MMM (it appears to have been a "perfect storm" kind of event). I think the nonreligious motivations would have been heavily emphasized by people who had already endured immense religious persecution.

I still think it's highly likely that the perpetrators believed that Brigham Young had ordered the killings (though there's little evidence that he actually did). They would have had every reason to conceal this fact from the public and the authorities, and it's clear there was an extensive effort to cover up the fact that Mormons were involved in the massacre, demonstrating willingness to deceive. Lee was the only man who eventually had very little to lose in describing the massacre as accurately as possible, though he would have been motivated to make himself look a little better. Overall, I think the historical record is very foggy on possible religious motivations, as I would expect it to be.

Whatever the case, I think it's nearly impossible that the perpetrators didn't believe at the time that their act was at least justified in God's eyes, whether or not they believed he had commanded it directly.

[Lord of Strange Deaths]

Calmoriah wrote:

Would you suggest that an article describing how a drug gang slaughtered a rival drug gang painted the US in a bad light if it pointed out that the gang were all Americans?

No, I would not. Here’s how M at MM describes the Mormons who perpetrated the massacre:

…most of the killers led exemplary lives before and after the massacre. Except for their experiences during a single, nightmarish week in September 1857, most of them were ordinary humans with little to distinguish them from other nineteenth-century frontiersmen.

And in a later chapter:

For the most part, the men who committed the atrocity at Mountain Meadows were neither fanatics nor sociopaths, but normal and in many respects decent people.

Nevo wrote:

None of that is true. Walker, Turley, and Leonard nowhere claim that the perpetrators, as a group, "believed they were fulfilling God's will."

They certainly believed that obedience to their priesthood leaders who ordered the massacre was in accordance with God’s will. Here, for example, is what the authors have to say about the ecclesiastical atmosphere in Southern Utah that preceded the massacre:

As the enthusiasm (for the ongoing Mormon Reformation) grew, the language of some church leaders became especially harsh, particularly beyond Salt Lake City where distance seemed to magnify the revival. In several communities, gangs of zealots—usually young men led both by a spirit of adventure and religious excess—engaged in acts of intimidation: “hellish murderous conduct,” said one victim.38 Their assaults were aimed at those considered of weak faith or apostate, or even those who might speak against their activity.39 In Cedar City in the southern part of the territory, church leaders spoke of clear lines of judgment—of “blood sucking gentiles,” pruning the “bitter branches” of disbelief, and the need to obey strictly “those who are over us.”40

And this, from your reply: Civil, religious, and military power was dangerously held in the hands of a few. Impoverished settlers knew the virtues of obeying.

Nevo wrote:

Nor do they claim that the massacre was "entirely unprovoked." You must be thinking of Will Bagley's book.

No, I’m not…I’m pretty sure the following comes from Massacre at Mountain Meadows:

A persistent element in the stories told against the emigrants was that one boasted of having a gun that killed Joseph Smith. The Benevolent Society minutes suggest that vengeance for Smith’s death was a current topic during the week of the massacre. If an emigrant in fact made such a boast, it was probably just part of the venting that went on in Cedar City. None of the identified victims of the massacre is known to have had anything to do with the Smith brothers’ deaths.

Even if local Saints believed they had identified a killer of Joseph Smith, however, that would not have justified a massacre. Mormon doctrine strongly held that men should be punished for their own sins and not for the sins of others, and Latter-day Saint scripture declared the shedding of innocent blood to be unforgivable.38 A year and a half before the massacre, Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff were discussing a scripture on the topic, and Young observed that it “was a vary nice point to distinguish between innocent Blood & that which is not innocent.” He observed that if the Saints were commanded of God “to go & avenge the Blood of the prophets,” they would not know “what to do in such a case” because they wouldn’t be able to tell who was innocent and who was not. “There is one thing that is a consolation to me,” Young concluded, “and that is I am satisfied that the Lord will not require it of this people until they become sanctifyed & are led by the spirit of God so as not to shed inocent Blood.”39

After the Arkansas company left town, Cedar City leaders discussed what to do. As often happens in times of conflict, they focused not on the peaceful emigrants, who made up the vast majority of the company, but on a minority whose actions colored their view of the whole...

Of course, if Brigham Young’s orders to leave the Francher Train in peace had arrived in time, there would have been no massacre in the first place.

[Daniel Peterson]

(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.

Wow. Maybe I need to go back and read the book a third time, because what you got out of it and what I got out of it have virtually no relationship to one another.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Federal prosecutors badly, badly, badly wanted to convict Brigham Young for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Yet they never even indicted him. Why? Because they lacked sufficient evidence, and they knew it.

[Storm Rider]

Federal prosecutors badly, badly, badly wanted to convict Brigham Young for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Yet they never even indicted him. Why? Because they lacked sufficient evidence, and they knew it.

That is one point that is not given nearly as much as it should. The US Government was committed to stopping Brigham Young and the Mormon Church. They were viewed warily and with great concern. IF there was any evidence that could have indicted BY they would have done so with gusto. They did not and there remains no evidence that suggests BY was involved.

[citizen28]

That is one point that is not given nearly as much as it should. The US Government was committed to stopping Brigham Young and the Mormon Church. They were viewed warily and with great concern. IF there was any evidence that could have indicted BY they would have done so with gusto. They did not and there remains no evidence that suggests BY was involved.

If Brigham Young had actually ordered the massacre, how effectively do you think he could have completely covered up his involvement?

[Stargazer]

If Brigham Young had actually ordered the massacre, how effectively do you think he could have completely covered up his involvement?

Jeeze, if I had actually kidnapped the Lindberg baby, how effectively do you think I could have covered up my involvement? If wishes were horses, then beggars could ride. If Wilford Woodruff was actually the lost incarnation of the Dalai Lama how ...

Speculation, inuendo and need I continue? Can't get him on actual charges, fine, then let's get him on rumor. Is that how you operate as a general principle?

[citizen28]

Jeeze, if I had actually kidnapped the Lindberg baby, how effectively do you think I could have covered up my involvement? If wishes were horses, then beggars could ride. If Wilford Woodruff was actually the lost incarnation of the Dalai Lama how ...

Speculation, inuendo and need I continue? Can't get him on actual charges, fine, then let's get him on rumor. Is that how you operate as a general principle?

To be clear, I don't believe Brigham Young ordered the MMM. There is no evidence, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[Stargazer]

To be clear, I don't believe Brigham Young ordered the MMM. There is no evidence, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Sigh. I suppose so. And then it's likely you'd get people who will argue until they're blue in the face that the Oddysey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name.

[Storm Rider]

If Brigham Young had actually ordered the massacre, how effectively do you think he could have completely covered up his involvement?

You do understand how silly your position is? They know a great deal about Joseph Smith from historical research, but BY is a mastermind of cover ups. You are stretching to support your position. This is called the actions of a zealot. Nothing matters except your agenda and what you WANT history to say. If the facts do not support you, you will create the story that you want and stick your head in the sand. Not a good position.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Storm Rider

[zerinus]

Delete. This software has more bugs than there are holes in a sieve!

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I think you are adapting the parable to fit your issue

His parable, seems directly related to fasting .

It was more than that. He was contrasting His way of doing things with the Pharisees’ way, which was rooted in the Old Testament tradition. He was saying that He was bringing a new tradition which does not fit in with the old way of doing things.

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.

LOL! Jesus was the God who commanded it to be done. He also said:

Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He also prophesied terrible judgments on the wicked at the time of His Second Coming, indicating that they would be fulfilled in the same way as the disasters in the Old Testament, like the Sodomite destruction or the Flood:

Matthew 24:

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

So, just as there were innocent little kids who perished in the Flood, likewise in Sodom and Gomorrah, there will also be innocent little kids among the wicked who will likewise perish at the time of the Second Coming. Indeed, such an event took place at the time of His First Coming among the wicked of the Nephites (see 3 Nephi chapters 8 and 9).

Edited October 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

And this, Mr. Prosecutor, is your closing statement to the jury? You got to be kidding!

As a juror, you rarely get a case so weak that even the prosecutor tells you that he hasn’t met his burden of proof.

[Calm]

And this, Mr. Prosecutor, is your closing statement to the jury? You got to be kidding.

As a juror, you rarely get a case so weak that even the prosecutor tells you that he hasn’t met his burden of proof.

I have to admit I was thinking the same exact thing, but felt this might be one comment too much from me...so thank you for saying it instead, lol.

[Bob Crockett]

That is one point that is not given nearly as much as it should.

Because that is in volume 2, yet to be published.

[stevedallas]

And this, Mr. Prosecutor, is your closing statement to the jury? You got to be kidding!

As a juror, you rarely get a case so weak that even the prosecutor tells you that he hasn’t met his burden of proof.

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

And just because there might not be enough evidence to convict does not mean the accused is innocent. Many guilty people are not convicted. And to say "there is no evidence" is simply incorrect. There is. Perhaps not enough, perhaps not solid enough. That depends on the researcher and his or her bias/reasoning. I simply did not wish to discuss this further because I did not see the point. I am here to discuss certain issues I have in order to work toward a testimony I desire to have. I had hoped to find LDS here willing to put up with my questions and help me to see other aspects of those issues.

I, too, can be sarcastic, ingratiating, and mean. But to what end? Does it make you or me or anyone else look better in the eyes of investigators? I chose to end my part in this discussion with an "we can agree to disagree" mindset and focus on more important issues in the Plan of Salvation. I apologize sincerely if that offends you. It is certainly not my intent.

In Christ

Edited October 24, 2011 by stevedallas

[ERayR]

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

And just because there might not be enough evidence to convict does not mean the accused is innocent. Many guilty people are not convicted. And to say "there is no evidence" is simply incorrect. There is. Perhaps not enough, perhaps not solid enough. That depends on the researcher and his or her bias/reasoning. I simply did not wish to discuss this further because I did not see the point. I am here to discuss certain issues I have in order to work toward a testimony I desire to have. I had hoped to find LDS here willing to put up with my questions and help me to see other aspects of those issues.

I, too, can be sarcastic, ingratiating, and mean. But to what end? Does it make you or me or anyone else look better in the eyes of investigators? I chose to end my part in this discussion with an "we can agree to disagree" mindset and focus on more important issues in the Plan of Salvation. I apologize sincerely if that offends you. It is certainly not my intent.

In Christ

I am here to discuss certain issues I have in order to work toward a testimony I desire to have. I had hoped to find LDS here willing to put up with my questions and help me to see other aspects of those issues.

With this as your goal it is too bad you used such an abrasive approach. Perhaps it is your legal training?

[stevedallas]

I am here to discuss certain issues I have in order to work toward a testimony I desire to have. I had hoped to find LDS here willing to put up with my questions and help me to see other aspects of those issues.

With this as your goal it is too bad you used such an abrasive approach. Perhaps it is your legal training?

So much in life is perception. I did not feel I was abrasive. I did not feel abrasive or negative when I wrote the things I wrote. I have seen LDS responses to other people's posts here and feel that sometimes LDS take offense to post where no offense was intended. Maybe, because Mormons are so often attacked, many here feel defensive and look for negative where none exists. I was accused of using Ouiji boards and being up to my neck in entrails, yet you tell me that I was abrasive. Was the LDS comment abrasive? And what was my response? I did NOT respond in kind.

I will admit that my 21 years as an attorney have given me a litigation-style way of communicating. I hate typing. I prefer speaking. So, often my phrasing might appear abrupt when it is actually me not wishing to type.

I hold no ill toward anyone here. I do not feel I have been cruel or mean to anyone here. I come here to learn, discuss, and be around, electronically speaking, Mormons. If I am in the wrong place for that, I would appreciate any feedback suggesting other places for me to learn and, perhaps someday, become a member of the LDS Church.

[thesometimesaint]

stevendallas:

I'm no lawyer and I don't even pretend to play one on television. But it is the responsibility of the accusing party to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did in fact do what he is accused of doing. Lack of sufficient evidence is by defintion reason to acquit.

[stevedallas]

stevendallas:

I'm no lawyer and I don't even pretend to play one on television. But it is the responsibility of the accusing party to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person did in fact do what he is accused of doing. Lack of sufficient evidence is by defintion reason to acquit.

I was not an accusing party. I always stated that what I said was my OPINION based on the research I had done. Opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be changed. I had no desire to prosecute. As a prosecutor, I had a 99.9 % conviction rate. I never prosecuted anyone I did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt was guilty, though I used to joke that "anyone can convict a guilty man, the real challenge is convicting an innocent man." I do not believe there is enough evidence to convict BY, but perhaps the circumstantial evidence WOULD be good enough. I don;t know. We will never know. Nor, do I think, anyone really cares. Nor is it important.

My main point in my original post was to say that no one should chastise BY or the LDS people for MMM as no denomination is without its skeletons. No matter how often I have tried to explain that, that point seems to be lost.

[Jaybear]

My main point in my original post was to say that no one should chastise BY or the LDS people for MMM as no denomination is without its skeletons. No matter how often I have tried to explain that, that point seems to be lost.

How dare you harbor a nuanced opinion about BY, and his role in the MMM.

BTW, have you noticed that Young's culpability is always tied to whether he "ordered the massacre." No one ever seems to want to discuss whether he expressly or implicitly authorized the underlying attack, which lead to the siege, which in turn lead to the massacre.

[ERayR]

I was accused of using Ouiji boards and being up to my neck in entrails, yet you tell me that I was abrasive. Was the LDS comment abrasive? And what was my response? I did NOT respond in kind.

I will admit that my 21 years as an attorney have given me a litigation-style way of communicating. I hate typing. I prefer speaking. So, often my phrasing might appear abrupt when it is actually me not wishing to type.

I hold no ill toward anyone here. I do not feel I have been cruel or mean to anyone here. I come here to learn, discuss, and be around, electronically speaking, Mormons. If I am in the wrong place for that, I would appreciate any feedback suggesting other places for me to learn and, perhaps someday, become a member of the LDS Church.

Your refusal to engage the CFR of that poster, IMNSHO, was abrasive throughout the thread and likely led to that response. You have simply maintained a claim of BY's implications despite evidence given to the contrary and have not provided credible sourcses for that accusation. Also was it you that maintains that early frontier church members were religious fanatics?

Just a suggestion in the future instead of dogmatic assertions and dismissal of counter points you could seriously consider them then give a reasoned response with references. Much like a good court presentation without unswerving conviction that your opponent is wrong.