Mountain Meadows Massacre

[smac97]

I'll have to check it out. Hopefully Brigham Young had nothing to do with it.

In your research I believe you will find compelling evidence that not only was Brigham Young not complicit in the Massacre, he took active steps to prevent it, but due to the distances involved and delays in communication, his efforts were not successful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

The MMM is a good example of what religious fanaticism does to people.

No, it's not. It was and remains a horrible anomaly. We could just as easily attribute the atrocities of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and others to the atheistic aspects of these persons and their imposition of their views on others. But that wouldn't be quite fair, would it?

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.

Yes, and that is why we so often read horrible stories in the news about Mormons banding together to slaughter those not of their faith.

Oh, wait. That doesn't happen. The MMM was a horrific anomaly that took place in a perfect storm of bad events. It is noteworthy precisely because it is to out of character for Latter-day Saints. So it's not a good example of horrific anomalies, but that's about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

One out of one of is Neurotic, and two out of one of us is Schizophrenic.

[mbh26]

It was cold blooded murder...not a good chapter in Church history. Though the Church did not do it, but John D Lee and his followers.

 

If it were just John D. Lee, why did the Church reinstate his membership posthumously?  The way John D. Lee's descendants told me, John D. Lee was just following orders from higher up on the chain of command.  

Edited September 5, 2014 by mbh26

[thesometimesaint]

No, it's not. It was and remains a horrible anomaly. We could just as easily attribute the atrocities of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and others to the atheistic aspects of these persons and their imposition of their views on others. But that wouldn't be quite fair, would it?

Yes, and that is why we so often read horrible stories in the news about Mormons banding together to slaughter those not of their faith.

Oh, wait. That doesn't happen. The MMM was a horrific anomaly that took place in a perfect storm of bad events. It is noteworthy precisely because it is to out of character for Latter-day Saints. So it's not a good example of horrific anomalies, but that's about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

If it were just John D. Lee, why did the Church reinstate his membership posthumously?  The way John D. Lee's ancestors told me, John D. Lee was just following orders from higher up on the chain of command.  

 

After their safely dead. Let God be the judge. Just following orders has never been a very good excuse.

[EllenMaksoud]

One out of one of is Neurotic, and two out of one of us is Schizophrenic.

For lots of us, the meds just put us in a fog so we can tolerate stupid people. Frankly, no one taught me coping skills as a child and having to learn them as an adult is doubly traumatic. It is now clear that for some of us, the meds actually impede progress.

[USU78]

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.

 

You send an army a couple of thousand miles away with no explanation, you are responsible for the panic that ensues.

 

Or don't you think so?

[thesometimesaint]

For lots of us, the meds just put us in a fog so we can tolerate stupid people. Frankly, no one taught me coping skills as a child and having to learn them as an adult is doubly traumatic. It is now clear that for some of us, the meds actually impede progress.

 

 I am sorry that you weren't taught the necessary coping skills as a child. All you can do now is rejoice in fact that you have learned them now. I actually feel sorry for stupid people. It's the ones with IQ above par golf that frustrate me. Not every drug works the same in everyone. Most often it takes a trial of about 5 different ones to find which and which combination works best.

[Scott Lloyd]

If it were just John D. Lee, why did the Church reinstate his membership posthumously? 

 

This came up a few years ago at the Mormon History Association Conference. During a session, an attendee posed that question. The speaker, Richard Turley, responded to the question essentially saying the reinstatement was mainly to placate descendents in the interest of leaving ultimate judgment up to God.

 

I don't think we can place a lot of stock either way in the reinstatement of membership. God will ratify what He will.

 

The way John D. Lee's descendants told me, John D. Lee was just following orders from higher up on the chain of command.

 

I don't doubt this was the case. In my view, others most assuredly should have been called to account for it.

 

I place a lot of blame on the government prosecutors who botched the case with their misguided efforts to implicate Brigham Young and the Church and thereby curry public favor.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

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.

I stand by my prior post, for reasons I have already articulated.

 

I think it wisdom on the part of President Eyring, as heartfelt as his expression was, not to use the word apologize in his official and public statement, due to the implications of that term. As I and others have tried to help you understand, apology or apologize connotes complicity. Quite simply, I deny that there was any complicity on the part of the Church, not then, and certainly not today, when all of the parties involved are long dead.

 

If you want to read "the position of the Church" into an impromptu conversation with a newspaper reporter, that is up to you, but I won't be bound by your choice.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think you missed the point of my post.

 

By refusing to consider motives, conditions and circumstances that led up to the massacre, critics are engaging in the same sort (though arguably not the degree) of demonization and hatred that led up to the massacre.

 

As USU78 so aptly put it, "Ironic, isn't it?"

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum.

In the words of John D Lee,

I believed then as I do now, that it was the will of every true Mormon in Utah, at that time, that the enemies of the Church should be killed as fast as possible, and that as this lot of people had men amongst them that were supposed to have helped kill the Prophets in the Carthage jail, the killing of all of them would be keeping our oaths and avenging the blood of the Prophets.

[Scott Lloyd]

When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum.

In the words of John D Lee,

 

From time to time, there are criminals and wrongdoers who distort religious teachings to rationalize their nefarious acts. It does not make a faith group responsible for their actions.

 

Or are you one of those who holds Islam as a religious faith responsible for the acts of terrorists?

 

I, for one, reject such bigotry.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum.

In the words of John D Lee,

 

 

It has been pretty well established that those words were actually the words of Lee's defense counsel.  He was doing his job, deflecting blame away from his client in hopes of an acquittal.

 

But even if that were not the case, why should we be persuaded by this bit of self-service?  Where is the corroboration?  And, in any case, isn't praying that G-d would avenge a humble divestment of the right of personal vengeance?  If I divest myself, I no longer have the right and must not myself act.

 

Or didn't you consider that?

[stemelbow]

You send an army a couple of thousand miles away with no explanation, you are responsible for the panic that ensues.

 

Or don't you think so?

I did what? I don't think I'm following you here.

Oh. I'm not saying the army sent threat wasn't real. Is that what you mean? I don't mean to say someone in the Fed govt didn't over-react or contribute to the Mormon's concerns.

Edited September 5, 2014 by stemelbow

[Analytics]

People are responsible for their own actions. If a faith influences people to behave a certain way, it is fair to recognize that. Mormons of that day did in fact enter into the Oath of Vengeance. If they would have instead been praying that God would forgive, things probably would have turned out differently that September 11.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

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...

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

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.

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

I didn't want to quote anything anti, just the information by Juanita Brooks basically. I should have left the last portion from UTLM off since I knew some would say something to the affect that you have above. But I didn't want to cut any portion off for fear I'd get a talkin' to for that also.

In LDS history the Journal of Discourses can be our own worst enemy, even though today many of our lessons still come from them, but usually only reference the "Discourses of Brigham Young" by John Widstoe who compiled so no one, IMO, would refer to the JoD. But at one time in history it was strongly urged for members to buy these JoD's to specifically learn our doctrine from. Why the big discrepancy from one dispensation to the next and does doctrine change so easily in this church? I think it does from one generation to the other, because men are doing the leading and not enough from the Lord. I think members today should be highly congratulated because they continually get more righteous, back then not so much, IMO. Maybe the lack of revelation is because mostly the church wants us to derive a lot on our own, through a relationship with Him, hey, you never know.

I think the massacre stemmed from the Blood Atonement doctrine, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html "According to historian Juanita Brooks, "Young advocated and preached it without compromise." Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: "Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?" Some sinners, Young preached, who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty."

When I made my post, which was #28 btw, you may have just skimmed, because I put at the end that even the Catholics had to apologize/say sorry for their members atrocities against people. And then our church doing the same thing and I think it's awesome for our churches to do this! If they didn't people wouldn't be aware so much, and maybe it would happen again. Our generation and the generations ahead need this information! So kudos for the church, we are much more civilized since the days of Adam!! And that is how it should be. Maybe even why we had scribes from the time of human existence. Whether it be on caves, rocks, scrolls, gold plates or boards like this and books by our leaders or historians. Our history whether good or bad should be exposed for the betterment of our people or people everywhere.

That was my main point in posting. Not because of my faith crisis which as you put it, is "a misunderstanding of many aspects of the gospel, and "facts" she gleans from anti-Mormon sources". But of which I think are usually true facts, that are mostly referenced. Truth is truth no matter how you want to get around it.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

People are responsible for their own actions. If a faith influences people to behave a certain way, it is fair to recognize that. Mormons of that day did in fact enter into the Oath of Vengeance. If they would have instead been praying that God would forgive, things probably would have turned out differently that September 11.

Do you have solid documentation (as distinguished from antagonistic opining) that any of the perpetrators at Mountain Meadows invoked the oath? Or is this merely your own post hoc linkage?

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I think you missed the point of my post.

 

By refusing to consider motives, conditions and circumstances that led up to the massacre, critics are engaging in the same sort (though arguably not the degree) of demonization and hatred that led up to the massacre.

 

As USU78 so aptly put it, "Ironic, isn't it?"

Who are the critics? Who is saying in any way that we ought to refuse to consider the motives, conditions and circumstances? I'm saying the motives, conditions and circumstances don't justify the action, nor make the perpetrators any less guilty then any bloodthirsty massacreing band. Afterall each bloodthirsty massacreing band also carries motives, conditions and circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who are the critics? Who is saying in any way that we ought to refuse to consider the motives, conditions and circumstances? I'm saying the motives, conditions and circumstances don't justify the action, nor make the perpetrators any less guilty then any bloodthirsty massacreing band.

Nobody here is denying that, that I can see.

 

But any mention of motive, provocation, groupthink psychology, seems to set you off on yet another sanctimonious rant.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

When looking at the relationship between the participants of the MMM and their religion, it's important to remember that they had entered into a sacred covenant to pray that God would avenge the blood of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum.

In the words of John D Lee,

 

 

So. It was neither the first nor the last time someone vowed to do an evil act. If he truly believed God would take vengeance there was no need for John D. Lee to take it.

[Calm]

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

Please explain where Nevo has gone wrong for the benefit of us less educated.... Edited September 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[USU78]

I did what? I don't think I'm following you here.

Oh. I'm not saying the army sent threat wasn't real. Is that what you mean? I don't mean to say someone in the Fed govt didn't over-react or contribute to the Mormon's concerns.

 

"contribute to the Mormons' concerns"

 

Nicely downplayed.

 

Look, if Buchanan doesn't order the expeditionary force dispatched, we're not having this conversation.

 

Let's get some scale here.

 

What is the greater threat to the peace and security of US citizens?  A smallish frontier community and tinyish neighboring Indian tribe . . . or the largest US army in the field since the Mexican War, on the march, with no explanation given?

[USU78]

So. It was neither the first nor the last time someone vowed to do an evil act. If he truly believed God would take vengeance there was no need for John D. Lee to take it.

 

Precisely!