Justification For The Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Calm]

Very interesting. Could you perhaps provide a CFR, please?

For PPP?

[Peppermint Patty]

For PPP?

This is significantly different from the claim of vengeance against the members of the wagon train where it was said that among them were the murderers of Parley P Pratt. The murderers themselves had been victims of persecution' date=' etc.[/quote']

calmoriah,

Yes. I was asking if by chance you could provide a CFR for your above statement. Any help would be appreciated.

[Calm]

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=129

Let me know if you need more.

[Peppermint Patty]

http://www.encyclope...spx?entryID=129

Let me know if you need more.

If you have more sources I would greatly appreciate it. Your cited source only talks about some possible hostility the Saints may have had towards Arkansas, because of PPP' murder, not that there were any of PPP's murderes in the wagon train.

From your CFR:

Another reason the Mormons may have resented the Fancher party was that it had its roots in Arkansas. Shortly after the wagon train left Beller’s Stand, Parley P. Pratt, a beloved Mormon leader and one of their twelve apostles, was murdered in another part of the state. Several years before, Pratt had converted a woman named Eleanor McLean to the Church. When she left her husband to join the Mormons in Utah, her husband, Hector McLean, began to harass Pratt as he went about his missionary work. Pratt was in New York preaching and Eleanor in New Orleans visiting family. The two decided to meet in May at Fort Smith (Sebastian County) and travel back to Utah together. Hector McLean heard of their intended rendezvous and beat them to Arkansas, where he filed charges against them and got warrants for their arrests. When Pratt and Eleanor McLean arrived, they were arrested and put on trial, but on May 13, 1857, the judge quickly dismissed the cases. Realizing that Hector McLean had stirred up a large crowd against the couple, the judge allowed Pratt to escape out the back door of the courthouse. The mob chased Pratt, and when McLean caught him, he stabbed Pratt twice and shot him in the heart. News of the slaying was filtering into Utah as the wagon train from Arkansas arrived.

Anything else that you are willing to share, would be much appreciated.

[citizen28]

I accept that from the POV of the Israelites he commanded them. I have no insight or inspiration into what actually caused their actions if this event actually took place so I make no judgment one way or the other save to say it does not match my own perception of what God desires of us, but it was a different place and time of which may require something different from those who obey the Lord so who really knows these days what they were going through save God?

Fair enough. The "I don't know" approach is probably the most rational to take here. I just find the account a dangerous scriptural precedent that we'd be best distancing ourselves from theologically (granted this isn't one of the top 10 most popular scripture stories). It makes sense to me that the perpetrators could have had the slaughter of the Amalekites in mind as justification when committing the MMM, even though it is clear from our perspective that God was not commanding it. Certainly, the vast majority of sane adults in the modern developed world would never take seriously the idea that God was commanding them to kill children (or even adults, thankfully). Since the people in the Bible were in such different circumstances, I guess the idea of "likening the scriptures" is in many cases a bit of a stretch.

[ldsfaqs]

No...

However, it's entirely clear that the wagon train were not "innocent" in their actions, and that the mormons believed they were exacting justified vengeance.

Thus, while what they ultimately did was wrong and completely unacceptable, they weren't just a bunch of rabid fanatic mormons who decided to kill an "innocent" wagon train. Everyone there had responsibility of the events going the way they did. However, those leaders who made the ending evil decision, are the ones who ultimately are responsible.

They believed they were justified, but they were wrong. Some of their contempt may have been justified, but their ultimate act was not.

Edited October 22, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.

The early denials of Polygamy were actually true. Only the "sealing ordinance" was practiced at first, not Polygamy. Polygamy didn't start until Utah.

Thus, while the Church didn't "volunteer" complex doctrinal information, it wasn't lying either.

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Summary

It's been awhile since I read the Turley book(or rather the parts of their book I could handle) so i am unclear on the details of what triggered the fear and anger present in the community. If you want the best and most accurate examination into the motivations of the murderers you should read that book. I am afraid my memory is quite porous and overly flexible these days so I can't remember which claims of atrocities were actually present in the community at that time and which were retroactively imposed upon them to explain or justify their actions.

The ensign had a good summary article when the book was published, if you can't find that on your own, let me know and after I've digested my food, I'll find it for you.

[Calm]

No...

However, it's entirely clear that the wagon train were not "innocent" in their actions.

Meaning what exactly?

[Peppermint Patty]

http://en.fairmormon...assacre/Summary

It's been awhile since I read the Turley book(or rather the parts of their book I could handle) so i am unclear on the details of what triggered the fear and anger present in the community. If you want the best and most accurate examination into the motivations of the murderers you should read that book. I am afraid my memory is quite porous and overly flexible these days so I can't remember which claims of atrocities were actually present in the community at that time and which were retroactively imposed upon them to explain or justify their actions.

The ensign had a good summary article when the book was published, if you can't find that on your own, let me know and after I've digested my food, I'll find it for you.

Thank you very much, Sister.

[ldsfaqs]

BTW.... The entire premise of the OP is that God may have Justified the massacre.

Well, the biggest problem with that view is that if God DID do so, we would know about it. He would have revealed His justifications, and the Church would have accepted them. Since, he hasn't done so either way, those responsible for the massacre are the ones responsible, and it wasn't sanctioned by God.

[ldsfaqs]

Meaning what exactly?

Why do I have to address the obvious and known with you all the time?

They weren't innocent.... Meaning, they weren't simply a wagon train of innocents who said and did nothing to contribute to the problem.

[Calm]

It is likely the majority of them were just that...innocents who had done nothing except be in the company of a group of jerks who like to brag about how important and macho they were.

As a whole the wagon train was innocent just as LDS as a whole are innocent of the crimes of those who participated in the massacre.

Edited October 22, 2011 by calmoriah

[citizen28]

The early denials of Polygamy were actually true. Only the "sealing ordinance" was practiced at first, not Polygamy. Polygamy didn't start until Utah.

Thus, while the Church didn't "volunteer" complex doctrinal information, it wasn't lying either.

Whatever you want to call it, plural wives were being taken, and there was a sexual dimension in the relationships, but this is another discussion for another day.

BTW.... The entire premise of the OP is that God may have Justified the massacre.

Well, the biggest problem with that view is that if God DID do so, we would know about it. He would have revealed His justifications, and the Church would have accepted them. Since, he hasn't done so either way, those responsible for the massacre are the ones responsible, and it wasn't sanctioned by God.

I think there are many things God has done with no justification given (take the priesthood ban for example).

[Zakuska]

Thanks for your response. The reason given by God for destroying the Amalekites was that they had wronged the children of Israel. It's quite possible that some of the members of the Fancher train were involved in the mobbing of the saints in Missouri, and God required retribution.

I wonder if the brothers of Dana were justified in tricking the family and friends of the rapist into circumcising themselves and then when they were locked up in a cave on their bed of sorrose [sic] went in and killed every last one? That seems like a bit of a scandle and an attemped cover up as well.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Zakuska

[Glenn101]

I think that there are too many things that are being ignored ot maybe misunderstood here. It is fruitless to compare the conditions etc. of the Old Testament to life and laws in the United States and its territories. The Church and its people were (and are) under the jurisprudence and (often dubious) protection of the laws of the United States. The twelfth Article of Faith states that "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." In the Old Testament, except when in bondage to another country, the Israelites were a law unto themselves, and their actions were directed against other nations (ignoring for the moment, the viewpoint that the Lord would have never ordered the destruction of whole nations with innocent men, women, and children).

There were times when Gods commandments caused some conflict with the laws of the country, as in the instance of polygamy. We have to remember that this practice was suspended via a revelation from God to protect the Church from the hypocritical wrath of the U.S. society after all appeals had failed.

Jesus, in His beattitudes, pretty clearly signaled that the times and ways of the Old Testament were at an end and He was the New Beginning. I do not think that God would order anyone her in the United States to perform an atrocity such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre based upon the scriptures that I have read.

Glenn

[thesometimesaint]

No justification is possible for MMM.. Even assuming that some members of the Francher party were doing bad things to the Saints in Missouri(They weren't). It in no wasy justifies taking the law into your own hands.

[ERayR]

No justification is possible for MMM.. Even assuming that some members of the Francher party were doing bad things to the Saints in Missouri(They weren't). It in no wasy justifies taking the law into your own hands.

Nope. All the needed to do is call 911.

[zerinus]

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?

I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.

Anything is "possible," but I would say highly unlikely, to say the least. The times are different. The rules of the game have changed. The rule today is, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" (Mormon 3:15; 8:20). In this dispensation the Lord has said, "you are forbidden to shed blood" (D&C 63:31). Also, "renounce war and proclaim peace" (D&C 98:16). "And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth; And make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you" (D&C 105:38-40). In another place the Lord has said, "I will fight your battles" (D&C 105:14). The murder of those people cannot be justified by any rule that God has revealed in this dispensation. Today's message of the Lord to the world is a message of peace, not of vengeance or war.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Funny, but a nonanswer.

[ERayR]

ERayR:

Funny, but a nonanswer.

In small frontier communities the people of the community were essentially the law. There was usually a part time sheriff or marshal backed up by the citizens. In this case it went off the rails.

It wasn't meant to be funny it was meant to be sarcastic.

[Zeta-Flux]

Here are the original questions starting this thread.

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?

I understand that the church at the time, and currently, denies any part in the massacre, but I think it could easily have been the same kind of situation that made early public denials of polygamy necessary.

It seems to me that people have not given the most straightforward answer to this question: how did the perpetrators of the act behave afterwards and what did they say on the subject. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that they were ashamed of what they did, that they received instructions only from their local leaders, and never claimed to have acted out of a command from God.

[ERayR]

Here are the original questions starting this thread.

It seems to me that people have not given the most straightforward answer to this question: how did the perpetrators of the act behave afterwards and what did they say on the subject. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that they were ashamed of what they did, that they received instructions only from their local leaders, and never claimed to have acted out of a command from God.

Why do say the answers were not straight forward? I really don't see anybody here buying into the proposal that it was ordered by God.

[citizen28]

The evidence overwhelmingly showed that they were ashamed of what they did, that they received instructions only from their local leaders, and never claimed to have acted out of a command from God.

CFR

[citizen28]

I think that there are too many things that are being ignored ot maybe misunderstood here. It is fruitless to compare the conditions etc. of the Old Testament to life and laws in the United States and its territories. The Church and its people were (and are) under the jurisprudence and (often dubious) protection of the laws of the United States. The twelfth Article of Faith states that "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." In the Old Testament, except when in bondage to another country, the Israelites were a law unto themselves, and their actions were directed against other nations (ignoring for the moment, the viewpoint that the Lord would have never ordered the destruction of whole nations with innocent men, women, and children).

There were times when Gods commandments caused some conflict with the laws of the country, as in the instance of polygamy. We have to remember that this practice was suspended via a revelation from God to protect the Church from the hypocritical wrath of the U.S. society after all appeals had failed.

Jesus, in His beattitudes, pretty clearly signaled that the times and ways of the Old Testament were at an end and He was the New Beginning. I do not think that God would order anyone her in the United States to perform an atrocity such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre based upon the scriptures that I have read.

Glenn

Anything is "possible," but I would say highly unlikely, to say the least. The times are different. The rules of the game have changed. The rule today is, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" (Mormon 3:15; 8:20). In this dispensation the Lord has said, "you are forbidden to shed blood" (D&C 63:31). Also, "renounce war and proclaim peace" (D&C 98:16). "And again I say unto you, sue for peace, not only to the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; And lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation of peace unto the ends of the earth; And make proposals for peace unto those who have smitten you" (D&C 105:38-40). In another place the Lord has said, "I will fight your battles" (D&C 105:14). The murder of those people cannot be justified by any rule that God has revealed in this dispensation. Today's message of the Lord to the world is a message of peace, not of vengeance or war.

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.