Mountain Meadows Massacre

[bdouglas]

The thing about the MMM that is interesting to me is how one decision begets another, and so on and so on until you find yourself in a place you never intended to be, i.e., thinking you must kill every man, woman, and child who is old enough to talk. A single decision may not in itself be disastrous, but it can lead inexorably to other decisions; and in the end you find yourself standing over more than a hundred corpses of men, women and children asking, “How did I get to this place?”

 

Isaac Haight, who ostensibly ordered the massacre, was so shaken by the sight of the dead, which had been gnawed by coyotes the night before, that he broke down.

 

It was truly a tragedy——in the classical sense of the term.

 

You could say it is a lesson in the dangers of excessive zeal.

 

Or you could say it was a freak occurrence, sort of like the slot machines in Las Vegas: when all of the pineapples line up, you’ve won the jackpot. But if one is missing, you get nothing. And so it is with MMM. If even only one of the key elements had been missing (say, for example, that the immigrant rider sent from Mountain Meadows to Cedar City for help had not been picked off and killed by one of the saints), the massacre would not have happened.

 

What would I have done had I been there? I hope I would have been one of the brave ones who'd said “No.” And there were a few such who did. But I don’t know. Maybe I would have taken part.

 

But one thing is certain, and that is that the participants who took part were haunted all of their lives by the killing. One such participant, Nephi Clark (not sure about last name), who was in his early twenties at the time and acted as an Indian “interpreter”, tried to tell his story to Juanita Brooks when he was an old man, but Brooks put him off, not really knowing anything at the time about the MMM. When Nephi Clark was an old man and on his death bed, Brooks came to see him. Nephi was delirious and couldn’t speak coherently, although before he died he managed to cry out, “Blood! Blood!” Other than this outburst, he died without getting out his story. (I read this anecdote in Levi Peterson’s bio of Juanita Brooks.)

 

Very sad. But lots of good lessons to be learned.

 

What are the best books on the subject? Juanita Brooks “Mounatin Meadows Massacre” and the church commisioned “Massacre At Mountain Meadows” by Turley are the most balanced and reliable accounts. The one to avoid is Will Bagley’s “Blood Of the Prophets”, which is so biased against Brigham Young as to make it not very reliable (in my view of course).

Edited September 5, 2014 by bdouglas

[Danzo]

For those of you who think that the Massacre was a normal part of LDS practice and theology at that time period.  I wonder how effective that policy was?

 

How many wagon trains were massacred?

 

How many wagon trains got through without a massacre?

 

If it is true that Mormonism makes us all violent sociopaths, there must be more than just one massacre.

[ERayR]

Brigham Young was a great man but he wasn't above condoning extralegal violence. Case in point, a few months before the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Brigham Young sent instructions to leaders in southern Utah to be on the lookout for two drifters recently released from prison (having completed a 30-day sentence for larceny):

 

"Be on the look out now, & have a few trusty men ready in case of need to pursue, retake & punish. We do not suppose there would be any prosecutions for false imprisonments, or tale bearers for witnesses. ... Make no noise of this matter, & keep this letter safe. We write for your eye alone, & to men that can be trusted."

 

The punishment Young had in mind was clear: death. William Dame, later one of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, wrote back: "I received your letter by mail, & have prepared a few[. A] word any time is comforting[. W]e try to live so when your finger crooks, we move" (see Ardis E. Parshall, “‘Pursue, Retake & Punish’: The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush,” Utah Historical Quarterly 73, no. 1 [Winter 2005]: 74).

 

Given this background of tracking the movements of suspicious outsiders, with local leaders standing ready with "a few trusty men" to ambush their targets as soon as they perceived Brigham Young's finger to have "crooked," it is not hard to see why some have wondered if Brigham Young gave the order to attack the Arkansas emigrants (under the guise of an Indian ambush). 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.

 

Just can not resist trying to villainize Brigham Young can you?  No matter what you have to tie him to it some way.  Why don't you blame Buchanan for sending Federal troops, under the command of a known Mormon hater, to "pacify" the Mormons?

[katherine the great]

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

I imagine that's probably happened before too.

[ERayR]

I imagine that's probably happened before too.

 

True in my case and maybe yours but they had no right or authority to speak for you or me.

[VideoGameJunkie]

My actions definitely do not represent any blame on my parents, but they can take credit for the good things I've done.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[bdouglas]

deleted

Edited September 5, 2014 by bdouglas

[tonie]

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

Yes, I know you are expressing your opinion. It just so happens that your opinion is not inline with the position of the Church as expressed by Turley. There is nothing wrong with your opinion not being the same as the position of the Church. I would say almost all LDS have an opinion or two that is not the same as the position of the Church.

Why does that anger you so?

Your disagreement with the position of the Church does not anger me. (But since you are serving herring, might as well make it red) Your opinion not being in line with the position of the Church is very likely comforting to those think they must agree with ever statement from a Church Official. Edited September 5, 2014 by tonie

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wish Mormons weren't so hated in the 1800s. I can understand being paranoid during those times.

[thesometimesaint]

I wish Mormons weren't so hated in the 1800s. I can understand being paranoid during those times.

 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Oh believe me, I know paranoid. The voices in my head tell me so.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh believe me, I know paranoid. The voices in my head tell me so.

 

I know of some drugs that will help control those voices.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I already take 4 medications. Clonidine for Tourettes Syndrome and ADHD, Escitilopram for Depression, Lorazepam for Anxiety, and Ziprasidone to get me to sleep. I'm a mess. haha

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

Oh, don't worry about the past. Look at what the Church is today. I don't know of anyone who can mount a credible assault on that.

 

As to ignorant people willing to tell lies about the church, they are plentiful.

[thesometimesaint]

I already take 4 medications. Clonidine for Tourettes Syndrome and ADHD, Escitilopram for Depression, Lorazepam for Anxiety, and Ziprasidone to get me to sleep. I'm a mess. haha

 

You should see my pharmacopia.   For better or worse none is for psychological problems.

[why me]

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.

I think that quite often it doesn't matter. Once someone gets into the negative mindset, no book or acts of persuasion will change the mind of that person. I have seen it over and over again among those who have left the church or from those who may be wavering at times. Also, it is difficult for people to get out of the negative mindset because being in such a mindset can feel rather comfortable. Why experience discomfort in believing that the church is true again since it would mean a totally different mindset?

 

We see people on this forum who may be wavering etc who never seem to get out of the negative mindset regardless of the number of posters who have attemped to explain to them a different point of view or a different interpretation. How to explain it?

[EllenMaksoud]

You should see my pharmacopia.   For better or worse none is for psychological problems.

I'm just nuts and refuse to take my meds.

[why me]

 

In other words, nothing in my post should strike anyone who is familiar with the historical evidence as either novel or malicious. For what it's worth, I revere Brigham Young as a prophet of God and feel genuine admiration and appreciation for the man.

You are also very intelligent and have good critical thinking and analytical skills. Unfortunately, many do not and because of this they experience a faith crisis. Many people cannot put such facts into an historical context and use their imagination as to why brigham wrote such a letter or behaved in such a way. Thus, the problem.

[Calm]

I already take 4 medications. Clonidine for Tourettes Syndrome and ADHD, Escitilopram for Depression, Lorazepam for Anxiety, and Ziprasidone to get me to sleep. I'm a mess. haha

I took a relative of the ziprasidone to help with my sleep, the idea was to help train my brain to shut off. It worked beautifully if I took it about 6-8 hrs before sleeping...knock me out in a beautiful sleep of only 48 hrs or so minus bathroom breaks and food fill ups and the one hour of hell it would cause with RLS right before clonking me out. I wouldn't even had minded all that save for being comatoast (spelling intentional) for another couple of days. Strong stuff, I would break off a teeny bit of the pill, can't imagine what it would do with more. I keep it around only for emergencies now that might happen once or twice a year where I go for three days with no sleep for some reason...

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not trying to vilify Brigham Young, but I don't think there's much question that Brigham Young's words and actions contributed to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Church officially acknowledges that "defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, combined with the impending arrival of an army, helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah" and that "ambiguous instructions from Church leaders [including Brigham Young] . . . may have contributed to some episodes of violence." The same source records Walker, Turley, and Leonard's conclusion that "intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility." This isn't much different from Juanita Brooks's finding that, "while Brigham Young and George A. Smith . . . did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible" (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962], 219).

Commenting on the Ambrose-Betts affair (which I briefly discussed in my previous post), Utah War historian William McKinnon writes that "Young's intent was to alert the bishops to the southbound presence of convicts John Ambrose and Thomas Betts and to authorize, if not order, their summary execution. What followed from this case of gubernatorial leadership gone awry was an example of homicidal vigilantes at work coupled with the law of unintended consequences. Instead of striking Ambrose and Betts, the assassins mistakenly attacked [John] Tobin's party, from whom the ex-convicts had fortuitously separated themselves shortly before their fatal 17 February bivouac on the Santa Clara. . . . A few weeks later, either unaware of Brigham Young's real targets or inclined to interpret the letter as an unrestricted license to kill any California-bound apostates of his choice, Springville bishop Aaron Johnson, a Legion brigadier, unleashed plans that resulted in the Parrish-Potter murders. . . . [H]ere was advice from the top—couched in language ranging from guardedly cryptic to unmistakably raw—that set a violent tone for the territory. It was a tone that soon resonated with the fate of such early Utah War victims as the Fancher party, Richard E. Yates, Pvt. George W. Clark, Henry Forbes, and the Aiken party" (MacKinnon, At Sword's Point, Part One: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858 [Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark, 2008], 78-79).

Brigham Young's most recent scholarly biographer, John G. Turner, has written: "There is no satisfactory evidence that Young ordered the massacre; the most straightforward reading of Young's letter to Haight is exculpatory. . . . At the same time, Young bears significant responsibility for what took place at Mountain Meadows. Southern Utah leaders had almost certainly received word of Young's decision to no longer discourage Indian attacks on emigrant wagon trains. The new policy may have led local leaders like Haight and Lee to presume that their ecclesiastical superiors would condone the initiation of an ambush. Given the Saints' palpable animosity toward non-Mormons and apostates in Utah, a more prudent and responsible leader would have calmed rather than inflamed anti-Gentile sentiment and restrained rather than encouraged Indian attacks on American civilians. The several acts of violence the previous winter—the Thomas Lewis castration, the shootings at the Santa Clara River, and the Parrish-Potter murders—all suggested how easily violent rhetoric and incautious decisions could have unexpected and deadly consequences. Despite those lessons, during the early stages of the Utah War Young fomented the hatred and anxiety that made it conceivable for Mormons in southern Utah to slaughter men, women, and children" (Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet [Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2012], 280).

In other words, nothing in my post should strike anyone who is familiar with the historical evidence as either novel or malicious. For what it's worth, I revere Brigham Young as a prophet of God and feel genuine admiration and appreciation for the man.

So much wrong with this post. The Parrish Potter murders had nothing to do with south bound trains.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not trying to vilify Brigham Young, but I don't think there's much question that Brigham Young's words and actions contributed to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Church officially acknowledges that "defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, combined with the impending arrival of an army, helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah" and that "ambiguous instructions from Church leaders [including Brigham Young] . . . may have contributed to some episodes of violence." The same source records Walker, Turley, and Leonard's conclusion that "intemperate preaching about outsiders by Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and other leaders contributed to a climate of hostility." This isn't much different from Juanita Brooks's finding that, "while Brigham Young and George A. Smith . . . did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible" (Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre [Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962], 219).

Commenting on the Ambrose-Betts affair (which I briefly discussed in my previous post), Utah War historian William McKinnon writes that "Young's intent was to alert the bishops to the southbound presence of convicts John Ambrose and Thomas Betts and to authorize, if not order, their summary execution. What followed from this case of gubernatorial leadership gone awry was an example of homicidal vigilantes at work coupled with the law of unintended consequences. Instead of striking Ambrose and Betts, the assassins mistakenly attacked [John] Tobin's party, from whom the ex-convicts had fortuitously separated themselves shortly before their fatal 17 February bivouac on the Santa Clara. . . . A few weeks later, either unaware of Brigham Young's real targets or inclined to interpret the letter as an unrestricted license to kill any California-bound apostates of his choice, Springville bishop Aaron Johnson, a Legion brigadier, unleashed plans that resulted in the Parrish-Potter murders. . . . [H]ere was advice from the top—couched in language ranging from guardedly cryptic to unmistakably raw—that set a violent tone for the territory. It was a tone that soon resonated with the fate of such early Utah War victims as the Fancher party, Richard E. Yates, Pvt. George W. Clark, Henry Forbes, and the Aiken party" (MacKinnon, At Sword's Point, Part One: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858 [Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark, 2008], 78-79).

Brigham Young's most recent scholarly biographer, John G. Turner, has written: "There is no satisfactory evidence that Young ordered the massacre; the most straightforward reading of Young's letter to Haight is exculpatory. . . . At the same time, Young bears significant responsibility for what took place at Mountain Meadows. Southern Utah leaders had almost certainly received word of Young's decision to no longer discourage Indian attacks on emigrant wagon trains. The new policy may have led local leaders like Haight and Lee to presume that their ecclesiastical superiors would condone the initiation of an ambush. Given the Saints' palpable animosity toward non-Mormons and apostates in Utah, a more prudent and responsible leader would have calmed rather than inflamed anti-Gentile sentiment and restrained rather than encouraged Indian attacks on American civilians. The several acts of violence the previous winter—the Thomas Lewis castration, the shootings at the Santa Clara River, and the Parrish-Potter murders—all suggested how easily violent rhetoric and incautious decisions could have unexpected and deadly consequences. Despite those lessons, during the early stages of the Utah War Young fomented the hatred and anxiety that made it conceivable for Mormons in southern Utah to slaughter men, women, and children" (Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet [Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2012], 280).

In other words, nothing in my post should strike anyone who is familiar with the historical evidence as either novel or malicious. For what it's worth, I revere Brigham Young as a prophet of God and feel genuine admiration and appreciation for the man.

So much wrong with this post. The Parrish Potter murders had nothing to do with south bound trains.

[stemelbow]

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.

I was chalking the disagreement, if there be any, to misunderstanding. Sometimes tying in every explanation as to why something happened overlooks the obvious. I don't think there's a great deal of complexity of the conditions and circumstances. It seems pretty simple. A group of Mormons felt it necessary to murder innocent unarmed men, women and children. If they feared these people or hated them or a combination of the two, doesn't matter. If they were mad about being mistreated or having family and friends mistreated in previous years, doesn't matter. I think it reasonable to say anywhere along the line as the events transpired a different decision could have been made and the massacre could have been stopped. But it happened, and if there was no hate in their hearts it would not have happened, as I see it.

[stemelbow]

So much wrong with this post. The Parrish Potter murders had nothing to do with south bound trains.

I don't see that he said that they did. But at least he gave us references to consider.

[stemelbow]

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.

I'm reminded of stories of war generally. it seems like its been common in nearly every war for participants to demonize the others so bad so that murder/rape/torture is likely and common. Sad what outside influences can do to us.

Sad that the frenzy of the atmosphere got the point of such demonization and hate.

Edited September 5, 2014 by stemelbow