Mountain Meadows Massacre

[VideoGameJunkie]

I read up on wiki about this event and quite frankly it shocked me. What is the official church statement on this event? And did the church leaders at the time have anything to do with it? Someone on another message board who knows I'm Mormon accused our religion of being mass murderers and brought up the Mountain Meadows Massacre as the reason.

Edited September 4, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[tonie]

LDS Church apologizes for Mountain Meadows Massacre

"A Mormon apostle, speaking Tuesday at the 150th anniversary memorial service for victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, apologized for the church's role, expressing "profound regret for the massacre."

In a statement considered ground breaking, Elder Henry B. Eyring, a member of the Quorum of Twelve, said new research shows local Mormon leaders were responsible for recruiting Paiute Indians to participate in the crime during which 120 men, women and children of the Fancher-Baker wagon train, en route to California from Arkansas, were brutally killed by a group of Mormon militia members and some Paiute allies, although the Paiutes' participation remains disputed.

"What was done here long ago by members of our church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct," said Eyring, who choked up while reading a statement delivered on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.""

The Mountain Meadows Massacre Esign September 2007

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm impressed the church offered that statement. That takes guts.

[katherine the great]

Our religion is not mass murderers.  (That doesn't even make any sense.)  This event was a terrible and shameful event in our religion's history--that is true.  I had some great great uncles who participated in it but I don't know to what extent because there was an effort to hide the crime.  Journals were burnt, people relocated, the participants didn't talk much about it afterwards except maybe amongst themselves.  There was an air of secrecy around the entire event and many of the participants eventually moved out of southern Utah during the ten or twenty years subsequent to the massacre, partly because the newer Mormon settlers stayed away from them.  Most members of the church were horrified by it.  There was a very thorough report of it several years back by Walker, Turley and Leonard.  It should probably answer most of your questions.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'll have to check it out. Hopefully Brigham Young had nothing to do with it.

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng

What message board are you hanging out on?

[Guest]

I read up on wiki about this event and quite frankly it shocked me. What is the official church statement on this event? And did the church leaders at the time have anything to do with it? Someone on another message board who knows I'm Mormon accused our religion of being mass murderers and brought up the Mountain Meadows Massacre as the reason.

It was cold blooded murder...not a good chapter in Church history. Though the Church did not do it, but John D Lee and his followers.

[why me]

I read up on wiki about this event and quite frankly it shocked me. What is the official church statement on this event? And did the church leaders at the time have anything to do with it? Someone on another message board who knows I'm Mormon accused our religion of being mass murderers and brought up the Mountain Meadows Massacre as the reason.

To understand MMM we would need to put the event in context for that time. The mormons who eventually settled in Utah did so to escape outside pressure and persecution. Many were shell shocked from the move west and from their experiences in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Not to mention a general suspicion of gentiles. I do believe that some lds were damaged by past experiences and were suffering from a persecution complex and from a shell shock. To put it in this light is to understand the problem that some lds were faced with. I am not offering excuses but I am implying an understanding of just what happened and why.

 

Also, there were some hostility coming from california at that time of the massacre. Some califorians were calling for mormon extermination and federal troops were threatening to come to Utah to deal with the mormon problem.

 

If all this is true, I can not judge or condemn but I can offer understandings and support and hope that such persecution will never come to pass again. Can we blame the indians for their hostility to white settlements and for their own reaction for their own persecution?

[Alan]

The MMM is a good example of what religious fanaticism does to people.

They will engage in conduct which is the antithesis of what they profess in the name of what they profess in order to protect what they profess.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I read up on wiki about this event and quite frankly it shocked me. 

 

The wikipedia is not a reliable source. 

 

 

I'll have to check it out. Hopefully Brigham Young had nothing to do with it.

 

There is no evidence that Brigham Young ordered the attack 

 

I do not understand why you are shocked, I think the hardest topics have nothing to do with science or history. 

[Tacenda]

It was cold blooded murder...not a good chapter in Church history. Though the Church did not do it, but John D Lee and his followers.

Yes, but John D. Lee is the adopted son of Brigham Young and the so called followers were mostly Priesthood Holders. 

 

VGJ, read Juanita Brooks book if you have the time, it is the most accurate I believe.  And if you are, don't feel bad about just learning of this, I'd been a member in good standing for at least 40 yrs. before I learned of it.  It was one of the most well hidden bits of Mormon history out there, I believe.  But with the day of the internet it's now where we hear more about it. 

 

It was a stepping stone to my faith crisis, but put in context I believe these poor men had to live with a mighty big mistake all for the sake of a religion possibly.  And they were avenging the death of their beloved prophet Joseph Smith.  I believe they had heard some of the Baker-Francher party had some of the men that had killed Joseph Smith, riding with them.  And the days leading up to the massacre are very telling and put it all in context.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

Their scriptures spoke of a group of people who would rather die than violently battle with their enemies and yet they killed unarmed innocent people because they bought into the fear that they themselves created.

Humanity is so weak, so foolish.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, but John D. Lee is the adopted son of Brigham Young and the so called followers were mostly Priesthood Holders. 

 

VGJ, read Juanita Brooks book if you have the time, it is the most accurate I believe.  And if you are, don't feel bad about just learning of this, I'd been a member in good standing for at least 40 yrs. before I learned of it.  It was one of the most well hidden bits of Mormon history out there, I believe.  But with the day of the internet it's now where we hear more about it. 

 

It was a stepping stone to my faith crisis, but put in context I believe these poor men had to live with a mighty big mistake all for the sake of a religion possibly.  And they were avenging the death of their beloved prophet Joseph Smith.  I believe they had heard some of the Baker-Francher party had some of the men that had killed Joseph Smith, riding with them.  And the days leading up to the massacre are very telling and put it all in context.

 

It is more complicated than that. The Saints had been driven from state to state and after finally settling in Nauvoo were forced at cannon point out to the US entirely. The US government was at war against the Saints in Deseret, and had sent the army to pacify(destroy) them.  I'm not condoning what those members of the Church did. It was truly repugnant to the principles of the Church, and its leaders. However it was more complicated than just avenging the death of JS.

[ERayR]

Yes, but John D. Lee is the adopted son of Brigham Young and the so called followers were mostly Priesthood Holders. 

 

VGJ, read Juanita Brooks book if you have the time, it is the most accurate I believe.  And if you are, don't feel bad about just learning of this, I'd been a member in good standing for at least 40 yrs. before I learned of it.  It was one of the most well hidden bits of Mormon history out there, I believe.  But with the day of the internet it's now where we hear more about it. 

 

It was a stepping stone to my faith crisis, but put in context I believe these poor men had to live with a mighty big mistake all for the sake of a religion possibly.  And they were avenging the death of their beloved prophet Joseph Smith.  I believe they had heard some of the Baker-Francher party had some of the men that had killed Joseph Smith, riding with them.  And the days leading up to the massacre are very telling and put it all in context.

 

Why should something that somebody did over 150 years ago precipitate a faith crisis now?

[Calm]

The Turley, Walker book is the best for up to and including the massacre. The authors had access to documents that Brooks did not have and in my opinion do a much better job at explaining (not excusing) the "perfect storm" of circumstances and (poor) judgment calls that led to the tragedy.

It is a very hard read but if you are going to criticize or get hung up on it, the victims deserve the full treatment and I think anyone continues to use them as a talking point who does not investigate at least as deep as reading this text is disrespecting them and using their deaths for selfish reasons.

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=342

There is a second book that cover after the massacre, but that has been delayed. I am not sure what book is best for that, possibly Brooks for now, but my memory is vague.

[Calm]

Their scriptures spoke of a group of people who would rather die than violently battle with their enemies and yet they killed unarmed innocent people because they bought into the fear that they themselves created.Humanity is so weak, so foolish.

That group of people were pacifists because they had previously been murderers (or more likely partakers in murders as possibly part of rituals that ended in human sacrifices) and after repenting were so determined not to do anything even close to what they had done before, they swore never to pick up their swords again. But they had no problem with their sons going off to war on their behalf to help in what they saw as a fight for liberty.

There was an army on the way to Utah. Newspapers boasted about how the Mormon menace was going to be taken care of and iirc there were those who had been with the wagon train who boasted of going to California and bringing back men to wipe them out.

It was not a fear they created themselves out of nothing.

"In 1857 an army of roughly 1,500 United States troops was marching toward Utah Territory, with more expected to follow. Over the preceding years, disagreements, miscommunication, prejudices, and political wrangling on both sides had created a growing divide between the territory and the federal government. In retrospect it is easy to see that both groups overreacted—the government sent an army to put down perceived treason in Utah, and the Saints believed the army was coming to oppress, drive, or even destroy them....

As the troops were making their way west in the summer of 1857, so were thousands of overland emigrants. Some of these emigrants were Latter-day Saint converts en route to Utah, but most westbound emigrants were headed for California, many with large herds of cattle. The emigration season brought many wagon companies to Utah just as Latter-day Saints were preparing for what they believed would be a hostile military invasion. The Saints had been violently driven from Missouri and Illinois in the prior two decades, and they feared history might repeat itself.

Church President and territorial governor Brigham Young and his advisers formed policies based on that perception. They instructed the people to save their grain and prepare to cache it in the mountains in case they needed to flee there when the troops arrived. Not a kernel of grain was to be wasted or sold to merchants or passing emigrants. The people were also to save their ammunition and get their firearms in working order, and the territory’s militiamen were put on alert to defend the territory against the approaching troops if necessary.

These orders and instructions were shared with leaders throughout the territory. Elder George A. Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles carried them to southern Utah. He, Brigham Young, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric against the enemy they perceived in the approaching army and sought the alliance of Indians in resisting the troops.

These wartime policies exacerbated tensions and conflict between California-bound emigrants and Latter-day Saint settlers as wagon trains passed through Utah’s settlements. Emigrants became frustrated when they were unable to resupply in the territory as they had expected to do. They had a difficult time purchasing grain and ammunition, and their herds, some of which included hundreds of cattle, had to compete with local settlers’ cattle for limited feed and water along the trail....

The plan to attack the emigrant company originated with local Church leaders in Cedar City, who had recently been alerted that U.S. troops might enter at any time through southern Utah’s passes. Cedar City was the last place on the route to California for grinding grain and buying supplies, but here again the emigrants were stymied. Badly needed goods weren’t available in the town store, and the miller charged a whole cow—an exorbitant price—to grind a few dozen bushels of grain. Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith. Others threatened to join the incoming federal troops against the Saints. Alexander Fancher, captain of the emigrant train, rebuked these men on the spot.

The men’s statements were most likely idle threats made in the heat of the moment, but in the charged environment of 1857, Cedar City’s leaders took the men at their word. The town marshal tried to arrest some of the emigrants on charges of public intoxication and blasphemy but was forced to back down. The wagon company made its way out of town after only about an hour, but the agitated Cedar City leaders were not willing to let the matter go. Instead they planned to call out the local militia to pursue and arrest the offending men and probably fine them some cattle. Beef and grain were foods the Saints planned to survive on if they had to flee into the mountains when the troops arrived.....

Cedar City mayor, militia major, and stake president Isaac Haight described the grievances against the emigrant men and requested permission to call out the militia in an express dispatch to the district militia commander, William Dame, who lived in nearby Parowan. Dame was also the stake president of Parowan. After convening a council to discuss the matter, Dame denied the request. “Do not notice their threats,” his dispatch back to Cedar City said. “Words are but wind—they injure no one; but if they (the emigrants) commit acts of violence against citizens inform me by express, and such measures will be adopted as will insure tranquility.”

Still intent on chastening the emigrants, Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company “a brush,” killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle....

Haight and Lee from what I have read were the ones responsible for setting things up so they went so very bad. I see them as criminally responsible even if Haight wailed later on he wished they had abided by the Council's (including Dame) decision.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, but John D. Lee is the adopted son of Brigham Young and the so called followers were mostly Priesthood Holders. 

 

Guilt by association? That information you just gave is completely irrelevant. And the only reason you would give it is to try and paint the whole church guilty specifically BY. I have seen no evidence that BY was involved with the MMM. Essentially you some circumstances that lead to some rogue members do something horrific.

[Calm]

Yes, but John D. Lee is the adopted son of Brigham Young and the so called followers were mostly Priesthood Holders. 

 

VGJ, read Juanita Brooks book if you have the time, it is the most accurate I believe.  And if you are, don't feel bad about just learning of this, I'd been a member in good standing for at least 40 yrs. before I learned of it.  It was one of the most well hidden bits of Mormon history out there, I believe.

So well hidden it was in the Church History Institute manuals since early 70s at least (and maybe 60s, I will have to check the text sitting on my shelf).

[ERayR]

So well hidden it was in the Church History Institute manuals since early 70s at least (and maybe 60s, I will have to check the text sitting on my shelf).

 

And generally known in the Church in the 50's.  My grandfather told me about it in the early 50's.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So well hidden it was in the Church History Institute manuals since early 70s at least (and maybe 60s, I will have to check the text sitting on my shelf).

Yeah but normal members don't have access to that.

 

I have to be honest I was not really familiar with the MMM until I came on this board in 2007. I mean I had heard something on my mission from investigators but it was more like a passing comment. I have read a few things here and there. I am not really even shocked about this event. I think the thing that drives me nuts is when people try and make it bigger than it really was. Meaning those that actually were involved.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Yeah but normal members don't have access to that.

 

I have to be honest I was not really familiar with the MMM until I came on this board in 2007. I mean I had heard something on my mission from investigators but it was more like a passing comment. I have read a few things here and there. I am not really even shocked about this event. I think the thing that drives me nuts is when people try and make it bigger than it really was. Meaning those that actually were involved.

 

You should have had a grandfather that grew up in the middle of Utah. 

[ERayR]

Yeah but normal members don't have access to that.

 

I have to be honest I was not really familiar with the MMM until I came on this board in 2007. I mean I had heard something on my mission from investigators but it was more like a passing comment. I have read a few things here and there. I am not really even shocked about this event. I think the thing that drives me nuts is when people try and make it bigger than it really was. Meaning those that actually were involved.

 

Duplicate.

Edited September 4, 2014 by ERayR

[stemelbow]

Guilt by association? That information you just gave is completely irrelevant. And the only reason you would give it is to try and paint the whole church guilty specifically BY. I have seen no evidence that BY was involved with the MMM. Essentially you some circumstances that lead to some rogue members do something horrific.

It's not a guilt by association thing. I think pointing that out clarifies that even people who may be seen as good and wholesome do do and have done pretty terrible things.

[ERayR]

It's not a guilt by association thing. I think pointing that out clarifies that even people who may be seen as good and wholesome do do and have done pretty terrible things.

 

The thing I object to is the "hidden" mantra and what it suggests.

[stemelbow]

That group of people were pacifists because they had previously been murderers (or more likely partakers in murders as possibly part of rituals that ended in human sacrifices) and after repenting were so determined not to do anything even close to what they had done before, they swore never to pick up their swords again. But they had no problem with their sons going off to war on their behalf to help in what they saw as a fight for liberty.

There was an army on the way to Utah. Newspapers boasted about how the Mormon menace was going to be taken care of and iirc there were those who had been with the wagon train who boasted of going to California and bringing back men to wipe them out.

It was not a fear they created themselves out of nothing.

They created the fear, not sure out of nothing would be accurate. An army coming does not justify murdering defenseless people who have no part in the army at all.

We don't know whether any of the people had issues with their family going off to war in defense of their people. some might have. But it doesn't matter, in my mind. Defending your family is one thing. Murdering defenseless people for no reason at all is miles away from that.