Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Scott Lloyd]

The most accurate and even-handed treatment of this event is Massacre at Mountain Meadows, published a few years ago by Oxford University Press and co-written by Richard E. Turley Jr., who is now Assistant Church Historian and Recorder. His co-authors are Glen M. Leonard and Ronald Walker.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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.

I would agree, but the way you stated it "created the fear" sounded as if there was nothing realistic to base their fear on...unfortunately there was plenty of that so that when Haight and Lee added their inflammatory pushing to fight there were many that gave into that fear of extermination and saw history repeating itself unless they did something first to stop it.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Cal, in the 1970 Friend it said Juanita's book was the best so far but that's back then.  But missed reading the Friend apparently and was only 8 or 9 at the time.  I guess I'd just not been much of a reader through my life particularly of church history.  Or the dinner conversation or other conversations didn't bring it up in my family, unlike yours I'm thinking.    In fact I'd heard of the MMM but thought it had something to do with a battle of some kind with Indians and the Mormon Battalion, not women and children.  So I'm to blame for lack of knowledge but ERayR, it's a shock to think leaders at the Stake level and below did that, just as it might be for VGJ.  But in the past, just as horrible are the atrocities the Catholic church waged on some people and they apologized just as the LDS leaders have, so it's good to air out the closet and move on, so things like this never happen again.       

 

I c/p the below post from this site, http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=882344 since I'm so good at Google.   And it's been so long since I've read Juanita Brooks but thought it pertinent to paste. 

 

 

May 13, '14, 6:56 pm

Lax 16 Regular Member

 

Whether or not Brigham Young directly ordered the massacre may never be known. However, he seemed to have no problem with the bloody deed after the fact. When Young visited the site in 1861 Apostle Wilford Woodruff wrote in his diary:

May 25 [1861] A very cold morning much ice on the creek. I wore my great coat & mittens. We visited the Mt. Meadows Monument not up at the burial place of 120 persons killed by Indians in 1857. The pile of stone was about twelve feet high but beginning to tumble down. A wooden cross is placed on top with the following words, Vengeance is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. Pres. Young said it should be Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little. (The Mountain Meadows Massacre, by Juanita Brooks, University of Oklahoma, p. 182).

David Bigler adds:

One of Young's escort lassoed the cross [on the burial site] with a rope, turned his horse, and pulled it down. Brigham Young "didn't say another word," recalled Dudley Leavitt. "He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square [a temple gesture], and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." (Forgotten Kingdom, p.178)

Juanita Brooks observed:

While Brigham Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible.... Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what had happened, and how and why it happened. Evidence of this is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources.

Knowing then, why did not President Young take action against these men?... He did have the men chiefly responsible released from their offices in the church following a private church investigation, but since he understood well that their acts had grown out of loyalty to him and his cause, he would not betray them into the hands of their common "enemy."...Someone assuredly warned all the participants, so that for many years they were all able to evade arrest.

The church leaders decided to sacrifice Lee only when they could see that it would be impossible to acquit him without assuming a part of the responsibility themselves.... this token sacrifice had to be made. Hence the farce which was the second trial of [John D.] Lee. The leaders evidently felt that by placing all the responsibility squarely upon him, already doomed, they could lift the stigma from the church as a whole. (The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 219-220)

(from Utah Lighthouse Ministries)

[stemelbow]

I would agree, but the way you stated it "created the fear" sounded as if there was nothing realistic to base their fear on...unfortunately there was plenty of that so that when Haight and Lee added their inflammatory pushing to fight there were many that gave into that fear of extermination and saw history repeating itself unless they did something first to stop it.

But what was to fear about a group who gave up their weapons at that point? It doesn't seem reasonable at all to think they feared extermination or anything like it.

The book Scott mentions is worth reading on this topic. That's where most of my knowledge has come from on this topic.

[ERayR]

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.

 

You miss an awful lot when you only see things in black and white.  Also something comes to mind about being judged by the same measure you judge others.

[Calm]

"But what was to fear about a group who gave up their weapons at that point"

I would say by then it was too late for many in the LDS group. The fear of the wagon train wasn't created in the moment that they turned over their guns, but long before.

And the fear from the beginning was not centered on stopping the train members themselves from attacking them, but imagining what would happen when the train members reached California and reported on their encounters with the Mormons...would they lie to inflame the population, would they try to bring back the army/militia to attack the Mormons as the army was thought going to attack the Saints in the north, etc. etc.

If they had been fearful of the group itself in that moment it might have turned out better as it might have given them pause and enough time for more rational thought or the message from BY to let them through peacefully get there. With no immediate fear to hold them back though, they were more inclined to act on the terror of future fears.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Tacenda, have you read completely the Turley, Walker, Leonard book on the matter?

[rpn]

You will find accusations against BY about MMM.   They will say that even if he didn't order the slaughter, he created the temperament by his harsh rhetoric of outsiders and blood atonement.   Some critics will tell you that he gave the order, though his letter was too late in arriving. 

 

It should be a lesson to all of us not to blindly follow our priesthood leaders (who in this instance was serving in the secular role of decision maker in the community).    It was just a few months later that BY is quoted as saying that he was no so much worried about members being obedient, as he was about them doing their own due diligence in following leaders --- namely their duty to get independent personal spiritual confirmation of whatever their leader commands.

[ERayR]

 

So I'm to blame for lack of knowledge but ERayR, it's a shock to think leaders at the Stake level and below did that, just as it might be for VGJ.  But in the past, just as horrible are the atrocities the Catholic church waged on some people and they apologized just as the LDS leaders have, so it's good to air out the closet and move on, so things like this never happen again.       

 

 

It is just that I am perplexed that something that happened generations ago and which you had no control over would precipitate such a reaction.  I am bemused by this wherever it occurs.  With the Catholic Church, slavery or family feuds.  It is in the past and is unchangeable so why all the angst.  Why should the present generation apologize for something perpetrated by previous generations over which the present generation had no control?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

This was an expression of regret, but I disagree that it amounts to an apology. I think it was mischaracterized as such in media reports.

 

Some may regard it as a distinction without a difference, but I have always regarded the word apology as implying personal or institutional acceptance of accountability. I don't think the Church has done that in this instance. The perpetrators of the killings acted on their own part without authorization from the Church. In fact Brigham Young explicitly directed them otherwise, though the communication arrived too late.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, have you read completely the Turley, Walker, Leonard book on the matter?

Well at first I was hesitant to read it early on, as I am with reading some LDS apologists in general, not you though, and thought there might be a slant.  Just as there is in RSR by Richard Bushman according to some fellow disillusioned LDS members.  But I should go pick it up since Leonard, or President Leonard, as he was formally known, was my Stake President that I had the pleasure of having a temple interview with.   

[Scott Lloyd]

Well at first I was hesitant to read it early on, as I am with reading some LDS apologists in general, not you though, and thought there might be a slant.  Just as there is in RSR by Richard Bushman according to some fellow disillusioned LDS members.  But I should go pick it up since Leonard, or President Leonard, as he was formally known, was my Stake President that I had the pleasure of having a temple interview with. 

If you regard the book as the work of "apologists," -- with the negative connotation you seem to attach to that word -- I think you have a mistaken pre-judgment of the nature of the book.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Tacenda,

So you have no problem with reading stuff that slants against the Church such as that copy paste whose ultimate source was UTLM, but you won't even try to read something that might slant towards the Church just in case? Sheesh.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[tonie]

This was an expression of regret, but I disagree that it amounts to an apology. I think it was mischaracterized as such in media reports.

Some may regard it as a distinction without a difference, but I have always regarded the word apology as implying personal or institutional acceptance of accountability. I don't think the Church has done that in this instance. The perpetrators of the killings acted on their own part without authorization from the Church. In fact Brigham Young explicitly directed them otherwise, though the communication arrived too late.

"The words, "we're sorry," were not part of the statement, but Richard Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology.

"[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific.""

Appears the Church meant it as an apology.

[Tacenda]

It is just that I am perplexed that something that happened generations ago and which you had no control over would precipitate such a reaction.  I am bemused by this wherever it occurs.  With the Catholic Church, slavery or family feuds.  It is in the past and is unchangeable so why all the angst.  Why should the present generation apologize for something perpetrated by previous generations over which the present generation had no control?

 

(bold mine)

 

Are you kidding me??  If no one apologized for it even if they weren't to blame but someone in their family or church did it, people might think we might agree with whatever happened, ever think of that maybe?  I know I apologize a lot for far dumber things than that all the time...and most people say they're sorry to someone that loses a loved one all the time and they aren't at fault!!

[Scott Lloyd]

"The words, "we're sorry," were not part of the statement, but Richard Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology.

"[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific.""

Appears the Church meant it as an apology.

Rick Turley is a friend of mine for whom I have a great deal of respect, but for reasons I've already given, I still disagree that the statement amounts to an apology.

[tonie]

Rick Turley is a friend of mine for whom I have a great deal of respect, but for reasons I've already given, I still disagree that the statement amounts to an apology.

Fine, disagree with a Church Representative speaking for the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine, disagree with a Church Representative speaking for the Church.

I'm expressing a personal opinion. I've given my reasoning.

 

Why does that anger you so?

 

Edited to add:

 

The formal statement as given by President Uchtdorf is what it is. It is written down and can be evaluated.

 

I was not there to hear the exchange between the reporter and Turley. I don't know the context of the conversation, I don't know how the questions were phrased. Given the choice, I'll put more stock in a statement written and formally delivered by a Church leader than I will in an informal conversation reported by a newspaper writer.

 

I do know that reporters get things wrong sometimes. I know that because I'm one myself.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

(bold mine)

 

Are you kidding me??  If no one apologized for it even if they weren't to blame but someone in their family or church did it, people might think we might agree with whatever happened, ever think of that maybe?  I know I apologize a lot for far dumber things than that all the time...and most people say they're sorry to someone that loses a loved one all the time and they aren't at fault!!

 

An apology is for something you had/have control over.  One can not apologize for something they had no control over.  It is just meaningless.   If you fear that someone might think you approve you can always issue a disclaimer.  Being sorry is not an apology.  It is an expression of condolence not an assumption of fault.  You really ought to get a better dictionary.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Cal, I didn't know about the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until last night when someone on a video game message board that I frequent called Mormons mass murderers and linked the story. So it's all new information to me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Cal, I didn't know about the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until last night when someone on a video game message board that I frequent called Mormons mass murderers and linked the story. So it's all new information to me.

Well that guy is not being honest.  And he is trying to shock and awe everyone. It apparently worked on you. Lol. To some extent anyway.

 

BTW, I would never dialogue with people on a video game message board about religion. It is highly unlikely that you would have any sort of real understanding, most the comments are from the peanut gallery and most don't even take it seriously. You really think the guy that made those comments really cares to hear what really happened?

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

VGJ, As long as you dont claim the Church is hiding the information, i have no problem with you not knowing it. The older I get, theless i expect people to pick up knowledge unless they make some effort to do so, especially history.

I began that realisation back in high school when I saw students getting the same credit from two diiferent teachers where one class was required to study and memorise parts of the Constitution and the other had to memorise the names of gangsters from the Prohibition.

Out of curiosity, did you ever take any Insitute classes during your college years?

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[VideoGameJunkie]

Cal, I took one class for half a semester. But we only studied the Book of Mormon when I did it. I was never the scholarly type. I only did seminary for 2 years of high school as well.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Mola, very good points.

[ERayR]

Cal, I didn't know about the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until last night when someone on a video game message board that I frequent called Mormons mass murderers and linked the story. So it's all new information to me.

 

Understandable.  Just remember it is much more complex an issue than has been portrayed.  Cal has given an excellent(but brief)summary.