Mountain Meadows Massacre

[stemelbow]

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.

Sure. Both. But it seems to me they had far less to fear and it seems they were full of hate. So I'm being parsimonious here. Of course each of the participants could have experienced different emotions and motivations.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

Neither is an unnuanced, black-and-white demonization of the perpetrators.

 

You seem to be conflating an effort to understand better what happened (and clearer understanding is always a good thing) to a "lessening of the tragedy." I reject that as a false dichotomy.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

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

Indeed, I keep it simple when it comes to unadulterated slaugher.

Edited September 4, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Neither is an unnuanced, black-and-white demonization of the murderers.

You seem to be conflating an effort to understand better what happened (and clearer understanding is always a good thing) to a "lessening of the tragedy." I reject that as a false dichotomy.

nah..i'm all for understanding what happened. In the sum, it was unadulterated disgusting, inexcusable murder. Why or how it came to that is a different question.

[ERayR]

Sure. Both. But it seems to me they had far less to fear and it seems they were full of hate. So I'm being parsimonious here. Of course each of the participants could have experienced different emotions and motivations.

 

Your assumptions can not be justified with the available evidence.  What evidence do you have that it was predominately hate?

[USU78]

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.

 

If I am facing the possibility of starvation because this year's harvest will have to do for 2 years (impending war does that to agriculture), I have nothing to trade with.

 

What a ridiculous argument.

[Scott Lloyd]

nah..i'm all for understanding what happened. In the sum, it was unadulterated disgusting, inexcusable murder. Why or how it came to that is a different question.

Then I don't understand why you seem resistant to information about provocation, war-time hysteria, panic, fear, reasons for trade policies in the face of an impending armed invasion, etc. dismissing them as "lessening the tragedy."

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Indeed, I keep it simple when it comes to unadulterated slaugher.

 

That is symptomatic of a panic mindset also.  Maybe even more so.  With hate there is usually some in a group who is not as affected but group panic is more invasive.

[ERayR]

If I am facing the possibility of starvation because this year's harvest will have to do for 2 years (impending war does that to agriculture), I have nothing to trade with.

 

What a ridiculous argument.

 

The problem seems to be in looking at it with a grocery store mentality instead of with frontier realities. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I recall from my reading of Massacre at Mountain Meadows that the authors made a point about the phenomenon that causes otherwise good people to commit horrendous acts.

 

One element of such groupthink is the tendency to demonize the objects of their violence as lacking any humanity or redeeming qualities.

 

It's what the perpetrators at Mountain Meadows did.

 

It's what critics do today when they demonize the settlers in Cedar City and dismiss out-of-hand any effort to explain why they acted as they did or come to an understanding what their motives might have been or what influences they might have been under.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Then I don't understand why you seem resistant to information about provocation, war-time hysteria, panic, fear, reasons for trade policies in the face of an impending armed invasion, etc. dismissing them as "lessening the tragedy."

eh...I chalk it up to misunderstanding. I've read Turley's book precisely because I am interested in the details. It seemed to me that trying to add context was in response to the descriptions of it being an awful massacre.

[Scott Lloyd]

eh...I chalk it up to misunderstanding. I've read Turley's book precisely because I am interested in the details. It seemed to me that trying to add context was in response to the descriptions of it being an awful massacre.

You can point out where if I'm wrong, but I don't see anybody here denying that it was an awful massacre.

 

And blithely chalking "it up to misunderstanding" I don't think does justice to the complexity of the conditions and circumstances.

[ERayR]

eh...I chalk it up to misunderstanding. I've read Turley's book precisely because I am interested in the details. It seemed to me that trying to add context was in response to the descriptions of it being an awful massacre.

 

It was a terrible, awful massacre but terrible awful things usually are multifaceted.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm surprised how much Brigham Young gets attacked. I thought he was a great man.

[ERayR]

I'm surprised how much Brigham Young gets attacked. I thought he was a great man.

 

Great men make large targets>  If you don't do much there isn't much to attack.

[Analytics]

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.

 

From my viewpoint, Isaac Haight was among the most guilty of the perpetrators.  He was the mayor of Cedar City and the Stake President.  He was deeply involved in the early plans to attack the wagon train, and used all of his influence to get the members of his community to participate.  Debating whether “the Church” is responsible is splitting hairs—the decisions to do what they did were made by and in consultation with the top leaders of the Church in that geographical area.  The people who followed them were following their priesthood leaders.

 

If we were in an alternate universe where Brigham Young did in fact order the massacre, the hypothetical apologists of that universe would say, “The Church has nothing to apologize for the MMM.  Brigham Young ordered the massacre in his role as Governor the Territory, not in his role as president of the Church.  Thus the Church didn't actually do anything and doesn't have anything to appologize for.”

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'll believe that Brigham Young had no part in the massacre. I mean, come on, he was a prophet of God.

[USU78]

I recall from my reading of Massacre at Mountain Meadows that the authors made a point about the phenomenon that causes otherwise good people to commit horrendous acts.

 

One element of such groupthink is the tendency to demonize the objects of their violence as lacking any humanity or redeeming qualities.

 

It's what the perpetrators at Mountain Meadows did.

 

It's what critics do today when they demonize the settlers in Cedar City and dismiss out-of-hand any effort to explain why they acted as they did or come to an understanding what their motives might have been or what influences they might have been under.

 

Ironic, ain't it?

[ERayR]

 

From my viewpoint, Isaac Haight was among the most guilty of the perpetrators.  He was the mayor of Cedar City and the Stake President.  He was deeply involved in the early plans to attack the wagon train, and used all of his influence to get the members of his community to participate.  Debating whether “the Church” is responsible is splitting hairs—the decisions to do what they did were made by and in consultation with the top leaders of the Church in that geographical area.  The people who followed them were following their priesthood leaders.

 

If we were in an alternate universe where Brigham Young did in fact order the massacre, the hypothetical apologists of that universe would say, “The Church has nothing to apologize for the MMM.  Brigham Young ordered the massacre in his role as Governor the Territory, not in his role as president of the Church.  Thus the Church didn't actually do anything and doesn't have anything to appologize for.”

 

Please reread what I said.  This time think about it.  Neither you nor I or anybody else can apologize for something we did not do.  We can feel sorrw for what happened but it is not in our purview to apologize for their actions if we had no control over them.

[ERayR]

I'll believe that Brigham Young had no part in the massacre. I mean, come on, he was a prophet of God.

 

Believe it because the evidence does not point that way.

[Calm]

I am satisfied that he didn't, but it's also clear to me that local leaders believed that option was on the table. Brigham Young's threats of unleashing the Indians on emigrant parties as well as his previous written instructions authorizing deadly violence "on the down low" might well have played a role in the Cedar City leaders taking the decision they did.

Interesting….of course there is a difference in authorizing violence on someone who has been judged as criminal, people were hanged for stealing horses etc. back then, and authorizing violence on those who had not been violent or criminal themselves.

 

I'd like to say "life was certainly different back then" but thinking of somethings happening worldwide, violence seems to be part and parcel of human life.

Edited September 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

 Brigham Young's threats of unleashing the Indians on emigrant parties ....

Your phrase "threats of unleashing the Indians on emigrant parties" apparently refers to a wartime policy of refusing to apply the influence he had up to then exerted to restrain the local tribes from committing depredations and attacks on passing emigrant trains.

 

It was common for whites in that period in history to regard the Indians as hardly better than animals. Some of the westering travelers would use them for target practice when they encountered them along the trail. This understandably caused the Indians to be hostile toward the passing emigrants, and it took some doing for Brigham Young to hold them in check.

 

With this wartime strategy, he was in effect telling Buchanan that if he was sending a hostile invasionary force to do who-knows-what to the Mormons (and the Church members strongly believed that was the case), that he would refuse to do Buchanan's bidding in restraining the Indians. That would mean passage through the territory could no longer be viewed as safe and the route to California would be lengthened by many hundreds of miles, a condition that might cause Buchanan to think twice about his action.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

From my viewpoint, Isaac Haight was among the most guilty of the perpetrators.  He was the mayor of Cedar City and the Stake President.  He was deeply involved in the early plans to attack the wagon train, and used all of his influence to get the members of his community to participate.  Debating whether “the Church” is responsible is splitting hairs—the decisions to do what they did were made by and in consultation with the top leaders of the Church in that geographical area.  The people who followed them were following their priesthood leaders.

 

 

I agree with you about Isaac Haight's guilt.

 

That said, if people act in clear contravention of the laws of God and the teachings of the Church, the Church is not accountable for their behavior, in my view. And local "priesthood leaders" or not, people are not obliged to follow them in unrighteous behavior.

 

But even setting all that aside, your reasoning does not justify holding people today responsible for what occurred in 1857.

[Garden Girl]

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

 

I have found that a lot of Tacenda's faith crisis, as real as it has been, was/is based on a misunderstanding of many aspects of the gospel, and "facts" she gleans from anti-Mormon sources... 

 

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.

 

This seems to be Tacenda's approach... she is quick to regularly jump on whatever criticism of the Church is presented... 

 

 

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.

 

And whose fault is that?  You admit yourself that you make very little effort to read or study... even on this board this topic has been discussed ad nauseam...   You ask questions on this board that you clearly should know...  in fact, you do admit that sometimes you ask a question that you know just to see if you can get a reaction or discussion going... and so here we are, yet again discussing MMM... again and again and again. 

 

 

I'm surprised how much Brigham Young gets attacked. I thought he was a great man.

 

Brigham Young was a great man... but not without flaw, as are we all...  I believe he was the best man to have kept the Saints together as he led the Saints west... and to colonize numerous areas throughout Utah... and the best during the early years in the Valley.  I'm sorry MMM happened, but I'm not going to go around hanging my head or continually apologizing when the Church has acknowledged that it was terribly wrong and participated with descendants of both factions (perpretrators and survivors) in honoring those that were killed, and in acknowledging and bringing this chapter to a close...

 

GG