Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Tacenda]

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.

I apologize for not remembering the significant difference between the two.  And I'm sorry you had to point it out to me.   

 

This is my last post for the day, but need to express for the good of the board that I'm...

 

1. Not the brightest light in the harbor.

2. The light's on but no one's home.

3. Not the brightest bulb in the box.

4. A few screws short of a hardware store.

5. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

6. A few cards short of a deck.

7. A few fries short of a Happy Meal.

8. About as sharp as a marble.

9. Only has one oar in the water.

10. Smart as a bag of rocks.

11. A burger short of a combo meal.

12. The elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

13. A few peas short of a casserole.

14. A few keys short of a keyboard.

15. Not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

16. The gates are down and the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming.

17. As smart as a stick.

18. Fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

19. An intellect rivaled only by garden tools.

20. Has an IQ of room temperature.

21. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

22. Not the brightest crayon in the box.

23. One twist short of a slinky.

24. Sharp as a sack of wet mice.

25. More numb than a frozen mukluk.

26. I ain't sharpest crayon in the box - Markie Sparkie Lover.

27. I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed - Markie Sparkie Lover.

28. They are depriving some village of its idiot.

29. A few threads short of a sweater.

30. A few sandwiches short of a picnic.

31. Driveway doesn't quite reach the road.

32. The battery is not fully charged.

33. About as sharp as a bowling ball.

34. Dumber than a bag of hammers.

35. A few bricks short of a full load.

36. A few clowns short of a circus.

37. A few beers short of a six-pack.

38. Dumber than a box of hair.

39. A few tacos short of a fiesta platter.

40. All foam no beer.

41. As smart as bait.

42. Chimney's clogged.

43. Doesn't have all his dogs on one leash.

44. Forgot to pay his brain bill.

45. The antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.

46. His belt doesn't go through all the loops.

47. Another brain would be lonely.

48. Missing a few buttons on his remote control.

49. No grain in the silo.

50. Proof that evolution CAN go in reverse.

51. Receiver is off the hook.

52. Has a leak in the skylight.

53. Too much yardage between the goal posts.

54. Dumb as a donkey.

55. Not all the soldiers are marching in line.

56. Dumber than paint.

57. Half a bubble off plumb.

58. A few fruit loops shy of a full bowl.

59. Donated his brain to science before he was done with it.

60. A few shades beyond blonde.

61. Has to take turns for the family brain-cell.

62. A few watts short of a light bulb.

63. Dump as a stump.

64. Running on 3 cylinders.

65. A few Bradys short of a bunch.

66. Has the parachute but is missing the ripcord.

67. Would lose a debate with a doorknob.

68. Has an IQ lower than plant life.

69. All telephone, no receiver.

70. One ski short of a snowmobile.

71. Wouldn't know if they were on foot or horseback.

72. The logs are ablaze but the chimney is clogged.

73. Eats soup with a fork.

74. The wheel is spinning but the hamster fell off (or is dead).

75. The cheese slid off the cracker.

76. The engine is running but nobody is behind the wheel.

77. A few fuses short of a full circuit.

78. A tire short of an eighteen wheeler.

79. Doesn't have all the chairs at the table.

80. Dumber than a bag of rocks.

81. A shining example of why you should avoid inbreeding.

82. A few pecans short of a fruitcake.

83. As fruity as a bag of Skittles™

84. Would argue with a signpost.

85. If you gave them a penny for thoughts, you'd get change.

86. Dumb as a salt shaker.

87. Has a mind like a steel trap: rusty and illegal in 37 states.

88. Knitting with only one needle.

89. The result of too much chlorine in the gene pool.

90. Not the brightest bulb in the Chandalier.

91. Not the quickest bunny in the forest.

92. The hard drive is spinning but the OS hasn't been installed.

93. Not exactly running on all thrusters.

94. A few toppings short of a Deluxe Pizza.

95. A few burgers short of a barbecue.

96. A few roos loose in the top paddock.

97. The wind is blowing but nothing is moving.

98. The umbrella is up but there's no rain.

99. A few colors short of a rainbow.

100. As bright as a lamp in Aladdin's cave.

101. The boat doesn't have all the oars in the water.

102. A few boats short of a fleet.

103. A monosynaptic cretin (Don't understand it? 'nuff said)

104. A few noodles short of a chow mein.

105. A few bristles short of a broom.

106. A few snags short of a barbie.

107. Doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his butt.

108. Hasn't seen the ball since kickoff.

109. The relative IQ of a deck chair.

110. A poster child for birth

 

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090220114138AAt5lRM

[ERayR]

I apologize for not remembering the significant difference between the two.  And I'm sorry you had to point it out to me.   

 

 

You sell yourself much too short.  You do, however, have this persistent penchant for looking for the worst as far as the Church is concerned.

[VideoGameJunkie]

ERay, lots of people sell themselves short. I know I'm guilty of that all the time. Tacenda, you are a better person than you even realize.

[katherine the great]

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.

I dunno ERay.  I have apologized plenty of times for stupid things my children did and people have done the same in return.  It mended some fences and was always well received.  

[USU78]

 

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)

 

 

So . . . from the ambiguous, 2nd-hand statement "Vengeance is Mine, and I have taken a little," you buy into the Tanners' narrative of Machiavellan BY arranging things ~300 miles away so that the wagon train was massacred?  Mighty scant evidence to base such a thing on and, frankly, unworthy of a thinking person.

 

Now, if you're already convinced of BY's perfidy and bloodyhandedness, it makes perfect sense and very little evidence is needed to convince one of BY's involvement.

 

But consider BY's actions in Nauvoo, when the Legion had a Missourian army surrounded and in the middle of crossfire that would have wiped them out, even though that army was bent on throatcutting and rapine and worse once they got to Nauvoo.  What was BY's decision when the commander in the field informed him of the situation?

 

He called them off and let the Missourian army go.

 

If you're going to judge a man, at least be fair.

 

Be not as the Tanners are.

[USU78]

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.

 

I am, frankly, shocked that you would embrace the simple-minded narrative of the Tanners in such a fashion.

 

Tell me what you think of your and my ancestors' shouting "Remember St Bartholomew's!" when fighting the Frogs in countless wars?  Was that religious fanaticism?

[Guest]

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

Were these "Church Leaders" or did it go beyond John D Lee, was this Brigham's doing as well...if so he would be no better than King David.

[Scott Lloyd]

I dunno ERay.  I have apologized plenty of times for stupid things my children did and people have done the same in return.  It mended some fences and was always well received.  

You may have had standing to apologize for something for which you personally bore accountability: perhaps not keeping your children in check, for example; or not teaching them better behavior (hypothetically speaking, of course). And you could express regret for what they did.

 

But I agree with ERay: You can't apologize specifically for your kids' wrongdoing, because you didn't do the thing that was wrong, they did.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

So did Brigham Young then put his kids in timeout for doing this?

[ERayR]

I dunno ERay.  I have apologized plenty of times for stupid things my children did and people have done the same in return.  It mended some fences and was always well received.  

 

Not the same thing.  You are supposed to have some control over your children. A better scenario is your children apologizing for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

So did Brigham Young then put his kids in timeout for doing this?

Brigham Young cooperated with authorities in the trial and eventual conviction of John D. Lee, who was executed for his part in the massacre.

[Calm]

He would have cooperated more if the authorities had let him, but the ones at the time of the first attempt didn't trust Mormons, especially BY and were in fact more set on getting him accused of the crime than those who actually did it.

[ERayR]

He would have cooperated more if the authorities had let him, but the ones at the time of the first attempt didn't trust Mormons, especially BY and were in fact more set on getting him accused of the crime than those who actually did it.

 

In light of what he and the Church went through I am awed that he held it together.  Undoubtedly he must surely have had divine help.

[stemelbow]

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.

Did I just get accused of massacreing unarmed innocent people? are we going to be judged harshly for thinking people who kill innocent unarmed people in the name of religion have hate sitting inside them and should not be justified in their actions?

I'm as in the gray as I've seen, to be honest, but when murdering unarmed innocent people comes into play all the obfuscation and justification in the name of trying to understand the minds of the killers get's a little absurd.

[Calm]

Who here is claiming they did anything but tragically murder unarmed men, women and children? Who is making excuses for that in the name of understanding?

[stemelbow]

"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.

Sure. Perhaps the biggest sin made was treating the passers-by as someone to fear, not trading with them or treating them in a welcoming way.

The problem of course with this theory though is the group gave up their weapons with the assumption that the Mormons were leading them safely away from the Indians. I'm not all the convinced that they felt the need to massacre the people because they feared these people would come back to massacre the Mormons.

[ERayR]

Did I just get accused of massacreing unarmed innocent people? are we going to be judged harshly for thinking people who kill innocent unarmed people in the name of religion have hate sitting inside them and should not be justified in their actions?

I'm as in the gray as I've seen, to be honest, but when murdering unarmed innocent people comes into play all the obfuscation and justification in the name of trying to understand the minds of the killers get's a little absurd.

 

I just looked back at my post and still do not see where I tried to justify anything that happened nor advocated any leniency for such.  I simply pointed out that there is more than you seem to want to admit. 

[ERayR]

Sure. Perhaps the biggest sin made was treating the passers-by as someone to fear, not trading with them or treating them in a welcoming way.

The problem of course with this theory though is the group gave up their weapons with the assumption that the Mormons were leading them safely away from the Indians. I'm not all the convinced that they felt the need to massacre the people because they feared these people would come back to massacre the Mormons.

 

It is what the evidence suggests.

[Calm]

I don't see not trading with them as a problem given the Saints themselves needed the food more than money, especially with an army coming towards them who intended to do who knows what. My memory says they had limited resources due to harsh weather conditions and very little to spare.

If you can show a habit of violence in those involved, I think your case for something besides fear driving them would be stronger.

Giving into fear was wrong then as it is now, fear is one of the strongest motivators there is and often drives much of other emotions such as greed and anger.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

Who here is claiming they did anything but tragically murder unarmed men, women and children?

It seemed like a number of people suggested they murdered because they were in some sense provoked or feared for their lives. Not sure that's a helpful view of this.

Who is making excuses for that in the name of understanding?

I've seen a few posts in which people have said the murderers felt like the party was going to go on to CA and bring back others to kill or give the Mormons trouble. Others have said an army from the US government was coming so passers-by appeared as a threat to them.

I don't know if that qualifies as making excuses. I didn't say that it did, but the explanations don't seem to fit the crime. As I said, the threat of a govt sanctioned army doesn't explain why people would massacre unarmed innocent people, nor does a supposed fear that they might be attacked or harassed by unnamed others because of the events leading up the massacre explain why people would massacre innocent people. The only real explanation is some people let themselves be full of hate so much so they feel it ok to murder and maim.

[stemelbow]

I just looked back at my post and still do not see where I tried to justify anything that happened nor advocated any leniency for such.  I simply pointed out that there is more than you seem to want to admit.

I didn't say you tried to justify or advocated for leniency per se.

I don't know there is more to it. People will massacre if given the chance if they let themselves get so full of hate as what seemed to have happened in this case. I simply don't buy all the other explanations of putting it into context. That just seems to lessen the tragedy of it to me.

[stemelbow]

I don't see not trading with them as a problem given the Saints themselves needed the food more than money, especially with an army coming towards them who intended to do who knows what. My memory says they had limited resources due to harsh weather conditions and very little to spare.

If you can show a habit of violence in those involved, I think your case for something besides fear driving them would be stronger.

Giving into fear was wrong then as it is now, fear is one of the strongest motivators there is and often drives much of other emotions such as greed and anger.

you attribute fear to the motives, I attribute hate. I think that's the difference. And I'm willing to go with the notion of agree to disagree principle, at this point.

[stemelbow]

Now as I think on it, as I recall, the brutality as described in the scenes documented in Turley's book, brings to mind some far more than fear. There was grotesque delight, it seems, played upon the victims.

But I could be wrong.

[ERayR]

I didn't say you tried to justify or advocated for leniency per se.

I don't know there is more to it. People will massacre if given the chance if they let themselves get so full of hate as what seemed to have happened in this case. I simply don't buy all the other explanations of putting it into context. That just seems to lessen the tragedy of it to me.

 

You don not seem to realize that panic is sometimes a more potent motivator than hate.  Both can and do, if let go, cause the suspension of reason,  The evedence, in my opinion, suggests maybe some of both. 

[ERayR]

Now as I think on it, as I recall, the brutality as described in the scenes documented in Turley's book, brings to mind some far more than fear. There was grotesque delight, it seems, played upon the victims.

But I could be wrong.

 

I think you are.  I think you have let your thinking become polarized toward hate when it is far more complex than that.