Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I will happily discuss it. There is no evidence that BY "expressly or implicitly authorized the underlying attack".

Ready, set, go!!!

[ERayR]

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.

It has been shown that his EXPLICIT instructions were to leave the wagon train alone. The perpetrators just didn't wait long enough to receive them.

[stevedallas]

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.

I made no dogmatic assertions. I gave an opinion. As that opinion was not the point of my post, I chose not to get into a full discussion. I chose to speak more philosophically on law. Not engaging is only abrasive to those who wish to fight.

[Rivers]

I would like to see somebody create another movie about the MMM in which events and people are more accurately portrayed. Septmeber Dawn was just plain awful.

[Jaybear]

It has been shown that his EXPLICIT instructions were to leave the wagon train alone. The perpetrators just didn't wait long enough to receive them.

That's odd. Why would BY feel the need to tell Mormons not to attack the wagon train?

[stevedallas]

I would like to see somebody create another movie about the MMM in which events and people are more accurately portrayed. Septmeber Dawn was just plain awful.

Wrong. September Dawn was not good enough to be considered awful

[stevedallas]

That's odd. Why would BY feel the need to tell Mormons not to attack the wagon train?

That sounds like Tom Cruise questioning Jack Nicholson in A Few Good men

[LeSellers]

That's odd. Why would BY feel the need to tell Mormons not to attack the wagon train?

Because they asked about this wagon train specifically. Why do you suppose the rider/messenger was in Salt lake City that day?

Lehi

[Bob Crockett]

That's odd. Why would BY feel the need to tell Mormons not to attack the wagon train?

Because he was asked. He answered. When he got the letter from Haight, he could have (1) ignored it, (2) recommended an attack, or (3) instructed Haight to leave the train alone. He picked option 3.

Why did Haight feel compelled to ask him? According to Bagley and Brooks, there was substantial disagreement in the high council as to whether the attack would be supported or authorized, and to mollify the dissenters, Haight sent the letter.

Why did the council not wait for Haight's return? Any answer would require an analysis of criminal intent, and I don't pretend to defend it at all, but things had progressed with the Indians and John D. Lee too far for them to wait further. The Indians were not succeeding and the whites were believing that they had been discovered. They couldn't wait any further for a complete wipe out.

Your suggestion that there is something untoward about a need to ask Brigham Young about the attack is something Bagley has invented, and the logic is fuzzy and the argument is odd. Brooks took Haight's request and Young's response at face value. Bagley reads into it something not contained in the record anywhere.

[Nevo]

I will happily discuss it. There is no evidence that BY "expressly or implicitly authorized the underlying attack".

Ready, set, go!!!

Well, one could argue that Brigham Young tacitly authorized Indian attacks against emigrant companies when he "gave" the Indians "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout[e]." (The emigrants could not reasonably have been expected to give up their cattle without a fight.)

[Bob Crockett]

Well, one could argue that Brigham Young tacitly authorized Indian attacks against emigrant companies when he "gave" the Indians "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout[e]." (The emigrants could not reasonably have been expected to give up their cattle without a fight.)

There is nothing in Huntington's notes which indicate that Brigham Young was talking about anything other than the army. And, the "south route" was the common description for the cut-off south of Landers' pass in Wyoming where the army was located.

[Nevo]

There is nothing in Huntington's notes which indicate that Brigham Young was talking about anything other than the army. And, the "south route" was the common description for the cut-off south of Landers' pass in Wyoming where the army was located.

I hope you're right about this. However, Huntington's journal entry is ambiguous.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Nevo

[ERayR]

I made no dogmatic assertions. I gave an opinion. As that opinion was not the point of my post, I chose not to get into a full discussion. I chose to speak more philosophically on law. Not engaging is only abrasive to those who wish to fight.

OK but I am just pointing out how you came across.

[stevedallas]

OK but I am just pointing out how you came across.

I accept that. Like I said earlier, perception is everything. I think many Mormons here are on the defensive most of the time and see attacks where none are intended. I do not blame them. I have seen some of the posts here.

[ERayR]

That's odd. Why would BY feel the need to tell Mormons not to attack the wagon train?

Maybe because they sent a rider to SLC asking him.

[Bob Crockett]

I hope you're right about this. However, Huntington's journal entry is ambiguous.

Yes, if you look only at the one entry. But the rest of entries show that when he's talking about cattle, he's talking about the army's cattle. Stenhouse clearly supports this interpretation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because he was asked. He answered. When he got the letter from Haight, he could have (1) ignored it, (2) recommended an attack, or (3) instructed Haight to leave the train alone. He picked option 3.

Why did Haight feel compelled to ask him? According to Bagley and Brooks, there was substantial disagreement in the high council as to whether the attack would be supported or authorized, and to mollify the dissenters, Haight sent the letter.

Why did the council not wait for Haight's return? Any answer would require an analysis of criminal intent, and I don't pretend to defend it at all, but things had progressed with the Indians and John D. Lee too far for them to wait further. The Indians were not succeeding and the whites were believing that they had been discovered. They couldn't wait any further for a complete wipe out.

Your suggestion that there is something untoward about a need to ask Brigham Young about the attack is something Bagley has invented, and the logic is fuzzy and the argument is odd. Brooks took Haight's request and Young's response at face value. Bagley reads into it something not contained in the record anywhere.

Haight's letter is not extant, and it cannot be definitively ascertained from the response whether President Young was explicitly asked if the settlers should attack the train. It could have been more open-ended than that, something along the lines of "What should we do about this troublesome company of emigrants who have flouted our laws and insulted our women and whom the Indians are threatening to attack?"

[Jaybear]

Your suggestion that there is something untoward about a need to ask Brigham Young about the attack is something Bagley has invented, and the logic is fuzzy and the argument is odd. Brooks took Haight's request and Young's response at face value. Bagley reads into it something not contained in the record anywhere.

There is nothing "untoward" about their need to ask BY what do about the settlers they had under siege, IF the initial attack was done with the blessings, express of implicit of BY.

It only become an odd request, if one assume that the participation by the LDS in the initial attack leading to the siege was an operation carried out by rogue Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is nothing "untoward" about their need to ask BY what do about the settlers they had under siege, IF the initial attack was done with the blessings, express of implicit of BY.

It only become an odd request, if one assume that the participation by the LDS in the initial attack leading to the siege was an operation carried out by rogue Mormons.

I don't think anyone here insists they were "rogue Mormons." At least not at first. By-and-large, they were otherwise decent people caught up in war-time hysteria and group-think occasioned by the perceived threat of mass annihilation at the hands of the U.S. Army.

This is explained very well in the excellent 2008 chronicle by Richard Turley Jr., Ronald W. Walker and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

[Zakuska]

The research is out there. One can look at the speeches of BY and his fiery, violent oratory. While I believe he gave the order (followed by the CYA "don't touch" order") he actually did not need to. His violent oratory that demanded violence and retribution was heard by all. He was the prophet, so, coming from the prophet it carried the weight of God. That, in itself, makes him an accessory before the fact. In fact, the words shouted during the massacre were "do your duty!" Sounds like they were taking BY's Oath of Vengeance speeches seriously.

Ah yes... but if you had bothered to read the discourse rather than the Anti-Mormon decontextualization of a few cherry picked statements you would have noticed that BY wasn't calling for violence in the least. It was a rhetorical question. In the same discourse he told everyone present that violence wasn't the answer to redress wrongs against the LDS.

Here is what the cherry picked Anti-Mormons quote you'll find plastered all over the internet says:

"if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats.(All the people said, Amen.)"

Now lets put it in context so we can see the rhetorical question... and what really was said...

We have the proof on hand, that instead of the laws being honored, they have been violated in every instance of persecution against this people; instead of the laws being made honorable, they have been trampled under the feet of lawyers, judges, sheriffs, governors, legislators, and nearly all the officers of the government; such persons are the most guilty of breaking the laws.

To diverge a little, in regard to those who have persecuted this people and driven them to the mountains, I intend to meet them on their own grounds. It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken, viz., mobocracy, and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats. (All the people said, Amen.)

This would be meting out that treatment to wicked men, which they had measured to innocent persons. We could meet them on their own ground, when they will not honor the law, but will kill the Prophets and destroy the innocent. They could drive the innocent from their homes, take their houses and farms, cattle and goods, and destroy men, women, and children, walking over the laws of the United States, trampling them under their feet, and not honoring a single law.

Suppose I should follow the example they have shown us, and say, "Latter-day Saints, do ye likewise, and bid defiance to the whole clan of such men?" Some who are timid might say, "O! our property will be destroyed, and we shall be killed." If any man here is a coward, there are fine mountain retreats for those who feel their hearts beating, at every little hue and cry of the wicked, as though they would break their ribs.

Did you notice Brighams rhetorical question and "suppositions" and "we could" statements?

Continuing we see what Brigham Young actuall offered as the final solution.

You know that almost every time that Gentiles address us in public, they are very mindful to caution the Latter-day Saints "not to fight, now don't fight." Have we ever wanted to fight them? No, but we have wanted to preach to them the Gospel of peace.

Again, they say, "We are afraid that you, Latter-day Saints, are becoming aliens to the United States; we are afraid your hearts are weaned from the brotherhood down yonder." Don't talk about weaning now, for we were weaned long ago, that is, we are or should be weaned from all wickedness and wicked men. I am so perfectly weaned that when I embraced "Mormonism," I could have left father, mother, wife, children, and every relation I had, and I am weaned from everybody that will turn a deaf ear to the voice of revelation. We are already weaned, but remember, we are not weaned from the constitution of the United States, but only from wickedness, or at least we should be. Let every man and woman rise up in the strength of their God, and in their hearts ask no favors of the wicked; that is the way to live, and then let the wicked persecute, if they choose.

Are we going to fight? NO, unless they come upon us and compel us either to fight or be slain.

http://en.wikisource..._Kingdom_of_God

So, Peace and diplomacy is what BY is advocating not violence.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Zakuska

[Glenn101]

I understand the idea that the people of the Old Testament were in a very different situation (and under a different law) than people today. I'm curious if either of you believes that God commanded the slaughter of infants in Old Testament times (as recounted e.g. in 1 Sam 15). So far, it seems like most people here do not.

Until I get some authoritative word that those are some of the things not translated correctly, I will have to assume that God did indeed command the slaughter of infants and that Samuel the prophet personally killed an unarmed Agag.

Until I get some authoritative word that Noah and the Flood is also some of the parts that are not translated correctly, I will have to assume that God himself caused a flood that killed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people.

At the same time, I do not accept the idea that God may have ordered the MMM (Mountain Meadows Massacre, not Modern Mormon Men).

Glenn

[Glenn101]

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. That has been an insinuation from long ago, yet the evidence says otherwise.

Glenn

[Zakuska]

Wrong. September Dawn was not good enough to be considered awful

AMEN! For once.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Zakuska

[Bob Crockett]

There is nothing "untoward" about their need to ask BY what do about the settlers they had under siege, IF the initial attack was done with the blessings, express of implicit of BY.

It only become an odd request, if one assume that the participation by the LDS in the initial attack leading to the siege was an operation carried out by rogue Mormons.

Boy, I disagree with that.

Bagley argues that George A. Smith handed off the explicit and written "orders of destruction" to Lee at Kanosh.

So, as he argues, those written orders of destruction led to the attack.

A further letter would not be necessary. With written orders of destruction, all Haight would have had to do was show the letter to the Cedar City malcontents to silence them.

But, no such letter existed. Haight made the decision on his own; some good men questioned him to the point he thought he had better ask.

[Cobalt-70]

There is nothing in Huntington's notes which indicate that Brigham Young was talking about anything other than the army. And, the "south route" was the common description for the cut-off south of Landers' pass in Wyoming where the army was located.

I don't think that is a plausible explanation. The U.S. Army was not going to California. They were headed to the Utah Territory to depose Young, and Young knew that. And there were two routes to California that passed through Utah, the southern one being the one that the Fanchers took.

That said, I don't think that Young was contemplating a cold-blooded massacre. I think he just wanted the Indians to cause troubles with the settlers passing through Utah.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70