Mountain Meadows Massacre

[KevinG]

Would anyone here support legal repercussions for Imams who preach jihad of members of their Mosque commit murder?

If not why would you feel differenly about Brigham Young and Lee?

[Bob Crockett]

Would anyone here support legal repercussions for Imams who preach jihad of members of their Mosque commit murder?

If not why would you feel differenly about Brigham Young and Lee?

There is no evidence that Brigham Young ordered the murder of the Fancher train.  Or preached it.   I'm not sure that a hyperbolic sermon urging that the President of the United States ought to be hung from the highest tree would be taken as unlawful at any time, including today.  

 

When pushed, Will Bagley's favorite piece of evidence to support Brigham Young's pre-massacre guilt was the event after the massacre at the rock cairn.  As I  have demonstrated, the account for that incident comes from a highly suspicious source, a massacre perp.  

 

Lee, of course, is guilty.  He was excommunicated when the details were found, and according to the prosecuting attorney, the Church helped secure witnesses for his conviction.  

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Thinking]

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

 

Why should something that happened over 150 years ago help to build faith now? What about 2000 years?

 

Time doesn't change the foundational events of the LDS Church. I wouldn't call the MMM a foundational event, but if a person sees too many questionable things from the past, doubt might just start to form.

 

It amazing to me how critical LDS apologists can be towards someone who resurrects this topic. Yet how many times have we heard about Governor Boggs' extermination order (which also happened over 150 years ago) or the Haun's Mill Massacre.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why should something that happened over 150 years ago help to build faith now? What about 2000 years?

 

Time doesn't change the foundational events of the LDS Church. I wouldn't call the MMM a foundational event, but if a person sees too many questionable things from the past, doubt might just start to form.

 

It amazing to me how critical LDS apologists can be towards someone who resurrects this topic. Yet how many times have we heard about Governor Boggs' extermination order (which also happened over 150 years ago) or the Haun's Mill Massacre.

Mountain Meadows Massacre was an anomaly in Church history. Faith-building incidents are not. Nor are incidents of oppression and persecution in the Missouri period, Hawn's Mill among the rest.

 

(By the way, that's the newly corrected spelling of the name Hawn, thanks to the research of Alex Baugh.)

Edited October 23, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

It amazing to me how critical LDS apologists can be towards someone who resurrects this topic. Yet how many times have we heard about Governor Boggs' extermination order (which also happened over 150 years ago) or the Haun's Mill Massacre.

 

Not from me.  The long past events precipitates a faith crisis nor builds my faith.  My faith is built on the personal revelation and spiritual experiences I experience.  If one is bringing up Boggs or Hauns Mill in conjuction with those contemporary with the events it is valid.

[KevinG]

Why should something that happened over 150 years ago help to build faith now? What about 2000 years?

 

Time doesn't change the foundational events of the LDS Church. I wouldn't call the MMM a foundational event, but if a person sees too many questionable things from the past, doubt might just start to form.

 

It amazing to me how critical LDS apologists can be towards someone who resurrects this topic. Yet how many times have we heard about Governor Boggs' extermination order (which also happened over 150 years ago) or the Haun's Mill Massacre.

Perhaps because of its frequent use as a brickbat to stamp guilt by association on Mormons for 150 years?

Naw. That can't be it.

And yet we fully admit the events happened, condemn them and often only argue they were not condoned by Brigham Young. How defensive! (Cue history Channel spooky music and shaky camera shots of corpulent men in 19th century garb).

[UtahTexan]

I challenge any religious body to condemn MMM.  Not a single one wants to open the closet and look at their own skeletons.

 

Sigh

[Pahoran]

I'm fine with that addition. NO problem at all. Not sure we can safely say the massacre wouldn't have happened. After all the army is completely separate from the group the was trying to pass by.

 

To the extent that it is ever safe to say anything about "what if" something was different in the past, it is pretty safe to say that the MMM would not, could not have happened without Johnston's Army.

 

No Buchanan's Blunder, no Utah War.

 

No Utah War, no warning orders, evacuation plans, "scorched earth" strategy, or any of the other factors that provoked the Fanchers and got the Cedar City people in a state of panic.

 

None of those things, and the Baker-Fancher party becomes just another of the dozens (if not hundreds) of emigrant parties between 1847 and the opening of the railroad that found the Utah crossing to be the safest leg of the trip to California.

 

The MMM was a unique event that happened in a unique time; and what made 1857 different from 1856 and 1858 was, more than any other single factor, the approach of Albert Sidney Johnston's army.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Because it has been white washed for umpteen years way before the apology.  Why forget that..seriously.

 

Call for references, please.  Where, when and by whom was it "white washed?"

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Exactly. The question isn't "why did this happen?" The correct question is, "Why did this group of people choose to commit this act of mass murder?"

It isn't unreasonable to hold Brigham Young responsible for the coordinated actions of his subordinates.

 

That's glib.  But what does it actually mean?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If this happened in the army, one would expect senior officers to take a lot of responsibility for the decisions of their subordinates. If the army did something like this in Afganastan, I'd expect generals and Secrararies of Defense to resign in disgrace.

The fact is, the Saints had a violent, vengeful mindset in those days. Without that mindset, would they have chosen to do what they did? If Brigham Young would have instructed the Saints to follow Jesus' example on the cross and pray that God would forgive their enemies, I seriously doubt they would have done what they chose to do.

 

In my view, the "mindset" of the Saints in those days was no more "vengeful" than the mindset of anti-Mormons and apostates in these days.

 

They weren't cowardly with it, though.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

That's glib. But what does it actually mean?

Regards,

Pahoran

Near as I can tell that means Brigham and his minions had GPS battlefield technology and weren't afraid to use it on the poor innocent victims of his nefarious plots.

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[Analytics]

That's glib.  But what does it actually mean?

 

Regards,

Pahoran 

 

it pronoun \ˈit, ət\ : that one just mentioned

—used as the subject of a verb that describes a condition or occurrence

—used in the place of a noun, phrase, or clause that usually comes later

 

More information about it can be read here.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Analytics

[USU78]

That's glib. But what does it actually mean?

Regards,

Pahoran

It means that a critic will impose any old ad hoc definition on agency in order to give BY a black eye.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I challenge any religious body to condemn MMM.  Not a single one wants to open the closet and look at their own skeletons.

 

Sigh

I am not sure what you are talking about here?

[Vanguard]

The MMM was a unique event that happened in a unique time; and what made 1857 different from 1856 and 1858 was, more than any other single factor, the approach of Albert Sidney Johnston's army.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Indeed it was a unique time. This "unique" event reminds me of how quickly we as members will argue for "context" when the event in question involves "our own" but for some reason "context" lacks when discussing the atrocities of what the Saints experienced before coming across the plains at the hands of those in Missouri and elsewhere. The folly of human nature rears its sometimes ugly head when any group will castigate those who would oppose them (i.e., Missourians) but will bend as far over as possible when trying to lessen the blow of equally atrocious events at the hands of their own. The fact is that there was ugliness everywhere (according to our 21st Century sensibilities) from the highest ranks in the church on down as well as with those who were not members. Once we (collectively speaking) come to terms with this we can then change the conversation toward something more inspiring than "yes but, this was a unique time in our history" blah, blah, blah...

I'm good with using the same metric with our own history that we do with those histories outside of the church. Our leaders were as fallible a lot as any other group. They were the best men for the job at the time and not necessarily "the best men". By the same token, what those critics also need to understand is that admitting wrong behavior even from our leaders is not in and of itself a commentary on whether they were really inspired of God. That does seem the implication of critical commentary though many times they dance around the topic as though to wait until we concede the point. This dynamic is a natural consequence of one group claiming direct revelation from God in modern times. In these days we are able to scrutinize everything about the claim whereas we are unable to do so with the prophets of old. I'm sure they "got away with" a whole heck of a lot that we will never know about.

 

MMM was awful. As was Haun's Mill. But I get it. These atrocities were at the hands of folks who were less able to consider the larger picture as we now are able to do. Not necessarily bad people but woefully ignorant folks making the best of what information they had. And I can appreciate that...

[USU78]

MMM was awful. As was Haun's Mill. But I get it. These atrocities were at the hands of folks who were less able to consider the larger picture as we now are able to do. Not necessarily bad people but woefully ignorant folks making the best of what information they had. And I can appreciate that...

 

While I largely agree with the sentiment of "not necessarily bad people," I cannot agree that we are somehow better than they were.  Each acts according to the lights he perceives, and just as we should not impose upon others of other times and other places the lights we perceive, so too should we not ascribe to ourselves virtues that we don't necessarily possess.

 

"Less able to consider the larger picture" makes no sense to me.

 

Just how can we say Abraham had a lesser conception of the world than me, just because I know a little physics and once or twice took an ethics class?

[USU78]

I am not sure what you are talking about here?

 

St Bartholomew's Day maybe?

 

Or the Baptist cannonade of Nauvoo?

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed it was a unique time. This "unique" event reminds me of how quickly we as members will argue for "context" when the event in question involves "our own" but for some reason "context" lacks when discussing the atrocities of what the Saints experienced before coming across the plains at the hands of those in Missouri and elsewhere. The folly of human nature rears its sometimes ugly head when any group will castigate those who would oppose them (i.e., Missourians) but will bend as far over as possible when trying to lessen the blow of equally atrocious events at the hands of their own. The fact is that there was ugliness everywhere (according to our 21st Century sensibilities) from the highest ranks in the church on down as well as with those who were not members. Once we (collectively speaking) come to terms with this we can then change the conversation toward something more inspiring than "yes but, this was a unique time in our history" blah, blah, blah...

I'm good with using the same metric with our own history that we do with those histories outside of the church. Our leaders were as fallible a lot as any other group. They were the best men for the job at the time and not necessarily "the best men". By the same token, what those critics also need to understand is that admitting wrong behavior even from our leaders is not in and of itself a commentary on whether they were really inspired of God. That does seem the implication of critical commentary though many times they dance around the topic as though to wait until we concede the point. This dynamic is a natural consequence of one group claiming direct revelation from God in modern times. In these days we are able to scrutinize everything about the claim whereas we are unable to do so with the prophets of old. I'm sure they "got away with" a whole heck of a lot that we will never know about.

 

MMM was awful. As was Haun's Mill. But I get it. These atrocities were at the hands of folks who were less able to consider the larger picture as we now are able to do. Not necessarily bad people but woefully ignorant folks making the best of what information they had. And I can appreciate that...

One obvious difference is that in discussing the oppression of the Latter-day Saints, we are disposed to place -- and limit -- the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrators of the atrocities themselves and, to a lesser extent, the politicians whose policies and acts abetted them. Not so with critics of the Church. They spread the blame all the way up the line even though documentation exhonorates Brigham Young, and outwardly to the Church and its members, including those living today. Which group is the more vindictive?

[Vanguard]

While I largely agree with the sentiment of "not necessarily bad people," I cannot agree that we are somehow better than they were.  Each acts according to the lights he perceives, and just as we should not impose upon others of other times and other places the lights we perceive, so too should we not ascribe to ourselves virtues that we don't necessarily possess.

 

"Less able to consider the larger picture" makes no sense to me.

 

Just how can we say Abraham had a lesser conception of the world than me, just because I know a little physics and once or twice took an ethics class?

 

I don't mean to suggest we are better than they are. We are holders of more information that allows for us to understand context better. It reminds me of CS Lewis' commentary on burning witches. If you really believed there were individuals roaming the earth casting spells on innocent individuals you'd probably think to burn them also. The fact that we don't, however, is no commentary on our being "better" but rather a commentary on our knowledge base about the reality of witches who are able to cast spells in this way.

Regards to Abraham, I do believe we have a better idea about what the finest of Christ-like principles would look like - not that we actually do these things but rather we understand what they should be. We should not be surprised, for example, to find out that women were treated during OT times in a way that would make our blood boil now. This is no commentary on Abraham's faithfulness but rather an appreciation for how far we have come in understanding how all God's children should be treated. I do recognize, however, that too often our actions would speak otherwise...

[Vanguard]

One obvious difference is that in discussing the oppression of the Latter-day Saints, we are disposed to place -- and limit -- the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrators of the atrocities themselves and, to a lesser extent, the politicians whose policies and acts abetted them. Not so with critics of the Church. They spread the blame all the way up the line even though documentation exhonorates Brigham Young, and outwardly to the Church and its members, including those living today. Which group is the more vindictive?

 

I largely agree with you though it seems we're reduced to "yes, but who was more vindictive?" as though this accomplishes something. Both events blew well beyond the ceiling of what we consider civilized behavior. That one appears more inappropriate is almost irrelevant. When we castigate Boggs - though he may well deserve much of the commentary - I see no nuance in appreciating his motivations on the matter. It's "black and white" with him but it's "contextual" with MMM. And that is my point.

 

Regards to Brigham, I haven't a commentary on the matter. There seems evidence that would exonerate him and there seems evidence that would suggest otherwise. I'll be darned if the conclusions don't largely fall along the "member - non-member" fault line! I'm one member who can handle the possibility that Brigham indeed could have done more and perhaps should have. So what of it? Where would a critic want to then take this concession? We all know where...  I'd rather have a conversation at that point. THAT's where the rich commentary lies.

[KevinG]

One obvious difference is that in discussing the oppression of the Latter-day Saints, we are disposed to place -- and limit -- the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrators of the atrocities themselves and, to a lesser extent, the politicians whose policies and acts abetted them. Not so with critics of the Church. They spread the blame all the way up the line even though documentation exhonorates Brigham Young, and outwardly to the Church and its members, including those living today. Which group is the more vindictive?

 

Some people were taught from the Gospels of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

[KevinG]

I don't mean to suggest we are better than they are. We are holders of more information that allows for us to understand context better. It reminds me of CS Lewis' commentary on burning witches. If you really believed there were individuals roaming the earth casting spells on innocent individuals you'd probably think to burn them also. The fact that we don't, however, is no commentary on our being "better" but rather a commentary on our knowledge base about the reality of witches who are able to cast spells in this way.

Regards to Abraham, I do believe we have a better idea about what the finest of Christ-like principles would look like - not that we actually do these things but rather we understand what they should be. We should not be surprised, for example, to find out that women were treated during OT times in a way that would make our blood boil now. This is no commentary on Abraham's faithfulness but rather an appreciation for how far we have come in understanding how all God's children should be treated. I do recognize, however, that too often our actions would speak otherwise...

 

Just yesterday I read an article about a Yazidi woman, in a smuggled message, begging her compatriots to bomb the ISIS facility where they were being held as sex slaves.  The women wanted to die because they felt living normal lives after being serial raped by up to 60 terrorists on a daily basis.  I also read where instant celebrity, Honey Boo Boos mother is now dating a convicted child molester who victimized one of her cousins.  My daughter, while working on a service project for college, has recently learned that Atlanta, Georgia is a leading world hub for child slavery thanks to our international airport and people who hate to get involved in other's private affairs.  The headlines are chock a block full of the enlightened way modern enlightened society treats women.  Many of which I wont share here because they are too brutal to contemplate.

 

I doubt the 21st Century has anything on Abraham for cruelty and oppression of women.

[Vanguard]

Just yesterday I read an article about a Yazidi woman, in a smuggled message, begging her compatriots to bomb the ISIS facility where they were being held as sex slaves.  The women wanted to die because they felt living normal lives after being serial raped by up to 60 terrorists on a daily basis.  I also read where instant celebrity, Honey Boo Boos mother is now dating a convicted child molester who victimized one of her cousins.  My daughter, while working on a service project for college, has recently learned that Atlanta, Georgia is a leading world hub for child slavery thanks to our international airport and people who hate to get involved in other's private affairs.  The headlines are chock a block full of the enlightened way modern enlightened society treats women.  Many of which I wont share here because they are too brutal to contemplate.

 

I doubt the 21st Century has anything on Abraham for cruelty and oppression of women.

Well said. Notice that I on more than one occasion suggested how we should know better though we still behave otherwise. You're absolutely right. We don't have anything on Abraham though it isn't because we aren't aware of the progress mankind has made regards to how we should behave.  And therein lies much of the difference...

[Pahoran]

it pronoun \ˈit, ət\ : that one just mentioned

—used as the subject of a verb that describes a condition or occurrence

—used in the place of a noun, phrase, or clause that usually comes later

If you thought that response was witty, you were half right.

 

More information about it can be read here.

A mere deflection; and one that does not support your argument. I'll take this new argument as the closest we'll ever get to an admission from you that Brigham didn't order the Iron County militia to massacre the Baker-Fancher party.

But what do you imagine his "command responsibility" entailed? Could any reasonable person (i.e. not an anti-Mormon) reasonably expect him to keep close tabs on the doings of subordinates several layers down the chain of command 300 miles to the south, when he was rather heavily preoccupied with the approach of a rather large army from the north-east?

Regards,

Pahoran