Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[frankenstein]

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...

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

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

http://en.wikisource..._Kingdom_of_God

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

BY if he was advocating anything it is Section 98ish. What he advocated was Law first, when that fails - run to the hills (BY prophesied an Iron Maiden song - ), when that fails and they continue to provoke fight them and cut their throats.

Also, what you provided, thanks for the context, provides ample grounds for "reasonable" minds to disagree as to whether fighting was an option, there does not seem to have been any or much redress at law for the Saints in Utah Terrority, and the Saints had already run to the hills, thus fighting seems a reasonable last option.

(I take no position on the LDS Church or BY and MMM.)

Edited October 25, 2011 by frankenstein

[Pahoran]

There is no "justification" for the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

In all my extensive reading on the subject, I have never seen any Latter-day Saint (with the possible exception of some of the perpetrators themselves) attempt to provide any "justification" for that particular crime.

Therefore the premise for this thread seems fundamentally flawed, and I am at a loss to understand what Citizen28 expects to accomplish by it.

As for the spiteful accusations levelled against Brigham Young: while modern "religious zealots" and wannabe witch-hunters are more than willing to subject him to trial by innuendo, the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it.

The further fact that those who accuse him continually demonstrate their own partisan spite adds even more weight to the inescapable conclusion that he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Anijen]

rcrocket, on 24 October 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

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.

You are putting words in here. How did you get that they were going to California from Bobs post? There is no proof that the church was involved and you are trying to twist it to make up your own. Have you answered every CFR you have been issued?

Edited October 25, 2011 by Anijen

[Pahoran]

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.

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

Your smarmy attempt at accusation by innuendo is vacuous at best.

As Rob has pointed out, you've got it exactly backwards; if Brigham had ordered the massacre, or even just an attack, there would be no need to ask for further instructions. Anyone less dedicated than you are to manufacturing a false accusation would realise that Haight's request for instructions is at least prima facie evidence that he had none covering the situation that then presented itself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

......if Brigham had ordered the massacre, or even just an attack, there would be no need to ask for further instructions.

Regards,

Pahoran

How many time was Joseph Smith told no concerning the 118 pages but he kept asking wanting a different answer?

[Bob Crockett]

How many time was Joseph Smith told no concerning the 118 pages but he kept asking wanting a different answer?

You're asking Haight to act illogically. To ask for further instructions when he had them in hand, directly from the prophet.

But those instructions don't exist do they?

And, further, as I point out in my published paper, Bagley asserts that George A. Smith delivered these instructions on September 1 or thereabouts at modern day Kanosh. But, Bagley didn't realize that Smith was speaking in the Bowery that day and the day before, and that he was headed north to serve as a military advisor for the operations against the army.

So, if Smith didn't deliver the "written orders of destruction" who did? There's no evidence of any such thing at all. Oh wait, there is. John D. Lee's Confessions, puts George A. Smith at Kanosh on September 1. I stand corrected. Smith, an apostle, had the ability to be in two places at once.

Edited October 25, 2011 by rcrocket

[Daniel Peterson]

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 remember something that my late, and much lamented, friend Davis Bitton once said to me during a conversation about Will Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Davis, a superbly trained scholar (Princeton Ph.D.) who had written extensively on both European and Mormon history -- he served for years as the assistant Church historian, had presided over the Mormon History Association, was director of graduate studies in history at the University of Utah, etc. -- commented that he had, he believed, read everything, published or not, that Brigham Young had ever written. That included journal entries, letters, and every other kind of document. He had also researched and written extensively on people surrounding Brigham Young in nineteenth-century Utah (e.g., a prize-winning biography of George Q. Cannon, and other, similar, things).

He felt that he had a pretty good sense of Brigham's character and personality.

If, he said, Brigham Young was capable of authorizing a mass murder like that at Mountain Meadows, that aspect of Brigham's character had entirely eluded him, and he (Davis) was unworthy of being called a historian.

For whatever it may be worth.

[frankenstein]

You're asking Haight to act illogically. To ask for further instructions when he had them in hand, directly from the prophet.

Paharon suggests that to ask means one has not yet had instruction on a matter. Joseph smith after being told No; kept asking. Joseph had instruction yet he asked; this exposes the hole in paharon reasoning

And, further, as I point out in my published paper, ...

Hubris much?

No personal jabs please. -Ares

Edited October 25, 2011 by Ares

[stevedallas]

I remember something that my late, and much lamented, friend Davis Bitton once said to me during a conversation about Will Bagley's book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Davis, a superbly trained scholar (Princeton Ph.D.) who had written extensively on both European and Mormon history -- he served for years as the assistant Church historian, had presided over the Mormon History Association, was director of graduate studies in history at the University of Utah, etc. -- commented that he had, he believed, read everything, published or not, that Brigham Young had ever written. That included journal entries, letters, and every other kind of document. He had also researched and written extensively on people surrounding Brigham Young in nineteenth-century Utah (e.g., a prize-winning biography of George Q. Cannon, and other, similar, things).

He felt that he had a pretty good sense of Brigham's character and personality.

If, he said, Brigham Young was capable of authorizing a mass murder like that at Mountain Meadows, that aspect of Brigham's character had entirely eluded him, and he (Davis) was unworthy of being called a historian.

For whatever it may be worth.

Thank you. I have read a few of his speeches that were, shall we say, a little scary? But my comments about the justice system were not meant specifically for BY, but simply a comment that a lack of evidence does not always mean innocence.

Did BY order it either directly or indirectly? Dunno. Not relevant. I get tired of Christians harping on it. It was an ugly episode in LDS history, but let the church without sin cast the first stone.

But I truly appreciate your comments and taking the time to talk to me.

Edited October 25, 2011 by stevedallas

[ERayR]

There is no "justification" for the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

In all my extensive reading on the subject, I have never seen any Latter-day Saint (with the possible exception of some of the perpetrators themselves) attempt to provide any "justification" for that particular crime.

Therefore the premise for this thread seems fundamentally flawed, and I am at a loss to understand what Citizen28 expects to accomplish by it.

As for the spiteful accusations levelled against Brigham Young: while modern "religious zealots" and wannabe witch-hunters are more than willing to subject him to trial by innuendo, the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with it.

The further fact that those who accuse him continually demonstrate their own partisan spite adds even more weight to the inescapable conclusion that he was innocent of any wrongdoing.

Regards,

Pahoran

I agree that there is no justification for the actions that were taken. However given what their past experience had been, Johnsons army coming into the territory and the rhetoric coming from Johnson and from the California gold fields I can understand how an atmosphere of panic might take over. There actions were extreme amd irrational indicating panic thinking. I have seen and heard of paniced people doing extremly irrational things. I once knew of a man whose tent was ripped off of him in the middle of a late October night by a sudden wind and snow storm. He paniced and literally ran 10 miles through snow and crossing icy streams in his bare feet and long johns. He ran untill he collapsed and died.

[ERayR]

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.

Nobody is saying the army was going to California. What they said is that they were coming through the Sout Pass route in Wyoming, commonly known as the southern route.

[Cobalt-70]

You are putting words in here. How did you get that they were going to California from Bobs post? There is no proof that the church was involved and you are trying to twist it to make up your own. Have you answered every CFR you have been issued?

This was responding to the quote that Young "gave" the Indians "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout[e]." I was saying that it is not plausible to interpret this as referring to the cattle owned by the U.S. Army, because the Army was not going to California. Note that Young also gave the Northern Utah tribes the cattle of emigrants going to California by the "North route" as well. To the Northern tribes, Young gave "all the beef cattle & horses that was on the road to Calfornia, the North rout[e]."

Edited October 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[ERayR]

This was responding to the quote that Young "gave" the Indians "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout[e]." I was saying that it is not plausible to interpret this as referring to the cattle owned by the U.S. Army, because the Army was not going to California, and everybody knew what the "south route" going to California was, and it wasn't in Wyoming.

Where do you live?

[Cobalt-70]

Where do you live?

The question is where Brigham Young lived, and where the Indians lived to whom he have the cattle and horses.

[Nevo]

This was responding to the quote that Young "gave" the Indians "all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia] the south rout[e]." I was saying that it is not plausible to interpret this as referring to the cattle owned by the U.S. Army, because the Army was not going to California, and everybody knew what the "south route" going to California was, and it wasn't in Wyoming. Plus, Young had no de facto jurisdiction over Indians in Wyoming, as he did in Utah during the war against the United States.

Walker, Turley, and Leonard note the following:

"As part of his developing war policy, [brigham] Young wanted Indian leaders to ally themselves with the Saints against the approaching troops and prepare for a long siege. The day before the meeting, Huntington had met with Indians camped near Ogden north of Salt Lake. In the meeting, he 'gave them all the Beef cattle & horses that was on the Road to CalAfornia the North Rout,' telling them that 'they must put them into the mountains & not kill any thing as Long as they can help it but when they do kill take the old ones & not kill the cows or young ones.' Running off cattle and saving them in the mountains would help assure food for the Indians—and perhaps the white settlers—in the event of an anticipated siege. Having horses to ride during the coming war would also prove an advantage. Similarly, in the September 1 meeting, the native leaders from central and southern Utah were told, apparently by Young himself, that they might take 'all the cattle that had gone to Cal the southe rout'" (Massacre at Mountain Meadows, 146).

The "north rout" and "southe rout" in this context clearly refer to the northern and southern trails to California.

Will Bagley's take: "The Paiute leaders had camped with the Fancher party only a week earlier at Corn Creek, so Young did not have to paint a picture for the chiefs to know whose cattle he was giving them. The donation of the cattle to the Paiutes was not a direct order to massacre every Mericat in southern Utah, but Indian Superintendent Young...understood it was likely that innocent women and children would die in the Indian attacks he tacitly authorized" (Blood of the Prophets, 114).

Walker, Turley, and Leonard's take: "Young's invitation for Indians to take cattle was a generalized war policy, not an order to massacre the Arkansas company." Furthermore, "Haight and his associates were recruiting Paiutes before word of the September 1 meeting reached southern Utah. In addition, the Indians attending the September 1 meeting in Salt Lake were reluctant to take part in the crisis." The Indian leaders also remained in Salt Lake through September 4. "Indian recruitment for the massacre was local, not influenced by the September 1 meeting, and it built on the trust that southern Utah leaders had already developed with the Paiutes" (Massacre at Mountain Meadows, 146–147).

For what it's worth.

[Cobalt-70]

Will Bagley's take: "The Paiute leaders had camped with the Fancher party only a week earlier at Corn Creek, so Young did not have to paint a picture for the chiefs to know whose cattle he was giving them. The donation of the cattle to the Paiutes was not a direct order to massacre every Mericat in southern Utah, but Indian Superintendent Young...understood it was likely that innocent women and children would die in the Indian attacks he tacitly authorized" (Blood of the Prophets, 114).

Walker, Turley, and Leonard's take: "Young's invitation for Indians to take cattle was a generalized war policy, not an order to massacre the Arkansas company." Furthermore, "Haight and his associates were recruiting Paiutes before word of the September 1 meeting reached southern Utah. In addition, the Indians attending the September 1 meeting in Salt Lake were reluctant to take part in the crisis." The Indian leaders also remained in Salt Lake through September 4. "Indian recruitment for the massacre was local, not influenced by the September 1 meeting, and it built on the trust that southern Utah leaders had already developed with the Paiutes" (Massacre at Mountain Meadows, 146–147).

So all things considered, I don't think there is direct evidence that Brigham Young actually ordered a cold-blooded massacre. He was a man of violent rhetoric, but when it came down to it, he was no murderer, even to further what he perceived to be the will of God. Young was not, for example, a Nephi. Isaac Haight and John D. Lee, on the other hand, were.

[Pahoran]

How many time was Joseph Smith told no concerning the 118 pages but he kept asking wanting a different answer?

Martin was wheedling Joseph, and Joseph was passing on the wheedling. The cases are not parallel.

Paharon suggests that to ask means one has not yet had instruction on a matter. Joseph smith after being told No; kept asking. Joseph had instruction yet he asked; this exposes the hole in paharon reasoning

There's no "hole in paharon [sic] reasoning" at all. I said it was prima facie evidence, not conclusive proof.

The "reasoning" (if such it may be called) that really shows a hole is the jaybear argument to the effect that it's somehow weird to ask a question unless one already has the answer.

Hubris much?

It's not "hubris" to mention that one has published something. Evidently you are unable to answer the evidence Rob put forward, hence the cheap shot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Given that God on several occasions commanded the children of Israel to destroy large groups of people (including women, children, infants, etc e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3), is it possible that he also commanded the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO is was cold blooded murder!

[Pahoran]

Thank you. I have read a few of his speeches that were, shall we say, a little scary? But my comments about the justice system were not meant specifically for BY, but simply a comment that a lack of evidence does not always mean innocence.

Did BY order it either directly or indirectly? Dunno. Not relevant.

Only once we accept that Brigham didn't order it at all. At that point, you are right; how he didn't do it is entirely irrelevant.

But those who want to make this terrible accusation stick are going to have to show the vertebrae to stand behind it.

You are not going to get away with trying to convict Brigham by sly innuendo. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are not going to get away with trying to convict Brigham by sly innuendo. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Which is really all the critics got. There is no evidence, so innuendo is what is next.

[Pahoran]

So all things considered, I don't think there is direct evidence that Brigham Young actually ordered a cold-blooded massacre. He was a man of violent rhetoric, but when it came down to it, he was no murderer, even to further what he perceived to be the will of God. Young was not, for example, a Nephi. Isaac Haight and John D. Lee, on the other hand, were.

Tell us, Cobalt; is it even possible to write anything more cynical than that?

The wonderful talent by which you manage to get in an eye-gouge against a truly admirable person, even while posing as a splendidly magnanimous fellow, shows a practiced mastery in the arts of anti-Mormon deceit and manipulation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

I was prepared to believe the innuendo about Brigham Young wasn't true- but then the History Channel put spooky music in the background of their MMM special.

The spooky music convinced me.

(sarc)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was prepared to believe the innuendo about Brigham Young wasn't true- but then the History Channel put spooky music in the background of their MMM special.

The spooky music convinced me.

(sarc)

[Cobalt-70]

Tell us, Cobalt; is it even possible to write anything more cynical than that?

The wonderful talent by which you manage to get in an eye-gouge against a truly admirable person, even while posing as a splendidly magnanimous fellow, shows a practiced mastery in the arts of anti-Mormon deceit and manipulation.

It's not cynical. It is just a recognition that even truly admirable people from the 19th century (and the Book of Mormon) were sometimes pretty violent, even to the point of committing cold blooded murder in the name of God. Or at least in the case of Young, they spoke with violent rhetoric without actually being responsible for direct murderous acts. You can't judge 19th century minds by 21st century moral and ethical standards. Back then, lynchings and other vigilante murders were a way of life. It was only really murder if you were shedding "innocent blood."

Edited October 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Jaybear]

The "reasoning" (if such it may be called) that really shows a hole is the jaybear argument to the effect that it's somehow weird to ask a question unless one already has the answer.

Regards,

Pahoran

Huh? That wasn't the point at all. That is what is called a straw man.

Let me spell it out for you. The question I asked is whether the attack (not the massacre) was carried out with the express or implicit consent of BY.

My point was that if the underlying attack was carried out with Young's consent, then it absolutely makes perfect sense that, when things get sticky (siege), that some would want Young's further input on how to proceed. It makes less sense, if the attack was a rogue operation.