Mountain Meadows Massacre

[ALarson]

Did the presidential pardon that Brigham Young received from Buchanan mention the Mountain Meadows Massacre at all or is that just supposition by some?  

 

Here's what is stated regarding the pardon (from the "7 Famous Presidential Pardons" webpage):

 

"Brigham Young founded Salt Lake City and served as an early leader of the Mormon Church, but he also ran afoul of federal law for his renegade behavior on the western frontier. Young led the Latter-day Saints to Utah in the 1840s, and later served as the territory’s first governor. But while he was an excellent organizer and administrator, he was also autocratic and resistant to federal intervention. Worried that Young and the Mormons would turn Utah into a theocracy, in 1857 President James Buchanan dispatched an army expedition to retake control of the territory.

In what became known as the Utah War, Young’s followers participated in a year-long standoff with the U.S. Army. The affair was largely bloodless, but it was blighted by a September 1857 incident in which a group of Mormons killed over 100 civilian members of a California-bound wagon train. Despite this massacre—which some claimed came on Young’s orders—Young and his followers later received a full pardon from President James Buchanan as part of a peace compromise with the federal government."

 

Edited September 6, 2014 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly. The question isn't "why did this happen?" The correct question is, "Why did this group of people choose to commit this act of mass murder?"

It isn't unreasonable to hold Brigham Young responsible for the coordinated actions of his subordinates.

 

After being driven from state to state, and finally out of the country at cannon point, stolen from. left to die in the snows of Winters Camp, and murdered, permitted when not outright encouraged by unresponsive governments. it would be quite natural to be more than a little ticked off. I'm NOT justifying MMM but trying to understand it in the context of a nonviolent religion.

 

Not really. Say one of your grown children did something you were deeply morally offended by. Would it be reasonable to hold you responsible for it? Also considered that other wagon trains had gone through Utah before, during, and after MMM unmolested.

[Analytics]

After being driven from state to state, and finally out of the country at cannon point, stolen from. left to die in the snows of Winters Camp, and murdered, permitted when not outright encouraged by unresponsive governments. it would be quite natural to be more than a little ticked off. I'm NOT justifying MMM but trying to understand it in the context of a nonviolent religion.

Not really. Say one of your grown children did something you were deeply morally offended by. Would it be reasonable to hold you responsible for it? Also considered that other wagon trains had gone through Utah before, during, and after MMM unmolested.

If this happened in the army, one would expect senior officers to take a lot of responsibility for the decisions of their subordinates. If the army did something like this in Afganastan, I'd expect generals and Secrararies of Defense to resign in disgrace.

The fact is, the Saints had a violent, vengeful mindset in those days. Without that mindset, would they have chosen to do what they did? If Brigham Young would have instructed the Saints to follow Jesus' example on the cross and pray that God would forgive their enemies, I seriously doubt they would have done what they chose to do.

[ERayR]

If this happened in the army, one would expect senior officers to take a lot of responsibility for the decisions of their subordinates. If the army did something like this in Afganastan, I'd expect generals and Secrararies of Defense to resign in disgrace.

.

 

How ridiculous and unrealistic.  If that happened we wouldn't have any generals or defense secretaries.  Something like this has happened more than once.  In the Viet Nam at a place called My lai.  The perpetrators were tried and punished not the generals.

Edited September 6, 2014 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

Doesn't the prophet have a direct line with God that other people do not?  Did God not consider the matter important enough to inspire Brigham Young with the truth of the situation?

No, God doesn't make his prophets omniscient, and we don't believe prophets are infallible.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is nothing in the footnote that specifically documents Turner's assertion that "southern Utah leaders had almost certainly received word of Young's decision to no longer discourage Indian attacks." However, it appears that Turner believes this policy was decided on (and conveyed to southern Utah leaders) before Brigham Young's meeting with native leaders on 1 September. He quotes a letter Daniel Wells wrote to William Dame on 13 August stating, "Instruct the Indians that our enemies are also their enemies . . . for it our enemies kill us off, they will surely be cut off by the same parties." Turner interprets the phrase "the Indians we expect will do as they please" in Brigham Young's 10 September response to Isaac Haight to mean that "while Young discouraged settler attacks on the emigrants, he did not wish the settlers to restrain Indian attacks" (Turner, 278; cf. 280: "It tacitly encouraged Indian attacks"). Haight's letter has not survived but he seems to have raised the possibility of an Indian attack on the emigrant train.

 

William MacKinnon notes that "the phrasing of [brigham Young's] discourses, letters, and military orders was at times . . . filled with code words as well as indirection. At times his utterances were deliberately phrased to avoid non-Mormon comprehension and perhaps even legal jeopardy if intercepted. . . . The phrase 'the Indians we expect will do as they please' in Young's letter to Haight is a strange, unclear one to be used by a wartime territorial superintendent of Indian Affairs. Yet these words were clearly important to Young, for he used them almost mantra-like during the Utah War's opening months: twice in his 16 August discourse; in his crucial September instructions to Haight; in several of his 12 September letters; and during his threat-filled 13 September conversation with Captain Van Vliet. What was Young's message with these important, deliberate, but enigmatic words?" (MacKinnon, At Sword's Point, 327). Turner apparently thinks that Isaac Haight "almost certainly" already understood the meaning of this coded phrase: if an Indian attack on the emigrants should happen, they should not restrain it.

 

Brigham Young's 16 August address sheds some light on his attitude at that time toward Indian attacks on emigrants: "I have preached to the Indians, sent them presents, visited them and prayed for them, that they might become peac[e]able, and let the traveler alone. . . . Now let me say if the United States send their army here and war commences, the travel must stop; your trains must not cross this continent. To accomplish this I need only say a word to the[m] for the Indians will use them up; unless I continually strive to restrain. I will say no more to the Indians, let them alone, but do as you please. And what is that? It is to use them up; and they will do it" (quoted in MacKinnon, At Sword's Point, 242).

I know Bill MacKinnon, and I have considerable respect for his scholarship, but "the Indians, we expect, will do as they please" does not strike me as all that enigmatic or cryptic.

And superintendent of Indian affairs or not, if a hostile invasionary force is bearing down on his people and there are rumors of intended hangings and other atrocities, you can hardly blame the man for refusing to maintain his restraining influence on the tribes.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[katherine the great]

Please explain how I can issue a valid apology for what you did.  An apology expresses regret for what the one apologizing did.  If you do not regret or are beyond (150 years) where you can apologize, how can it be an apology.  I am granting that I may be sorry for what you did and issue a statement of sorrow but not an apology.   By its nature as an implicit admission of guilt an apology must be issued by the perpetrator of the action in question.

In many cultures, there is group accountability.  Viewing ourselves as individuals-(completely distinct from the group) rather than a part of a greater whole is a very western idea.  Group accountability is a very common viewpoint in collectivist cultures--just not shared by a majority of western cultures.  So to say that it is "wrong" to apologize for another individual's bad behavior (within the group) is simply your cultural opinion and not a statement of fact.

[ERayR]

In many cultures, there is group accountability.  Viewing ourselves as individuals-(completely distinct from the group) rather than a part of a greater whole is a very western idea.  Group accountability is a very common viewpoint in collectivist cultures--just not shared by a majority of western cultures.  So to say that it is "wrong" to apologize for another individual's bad behavior (within the group) is simply your cultural opinion and not a statement of fact.

 

Then I can go back and find some of your posts, which offended someone, and apologize for your offenses?  This ought to get interesting.

[katherine the great]

Then I can go back and find some of your posts, which offended someone, and apologize for your offenses?  This ought to get interesting.

I'm not sure we are tied together very closely.  I can apologize that my ancestors were a part of such an atrocity.  Church leaders can apologize for this atrocity which was perpetrated by church members.  The state of Illinois can apologize for kicking our ancestors out and the state of Missouri can apologize for the extermination order.  I give you permission to apologize for any offensive remarks I have made (especially if they killed anyone.)  How's that?  

[ERayR]

I'm not sure we are tied together very closely.  I can apologize that my ancestors were a part of such an atrocity.  Church leaders can apologize for this atrocity which was perpetrated by church members.  The state of Illinois can apologize for kicking our ancestors out and the state of Missouri can apologize for the extermination order.  I give you permission to apologize for any offensive remarks I have made (especially if they killed anyone.)  How's that?  

 

Come now we are both participants of this discussion board.  That's close enough. Permission is another thing.  If you make me your agent by giving me permission then I have your authority to apologize.  Now you have gone and ruined it.

Edited September 6, 2014 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure we are tied together very closely.  I can apologize that my ancestors were a part of such an atrocity.  Church leaders can apologize for this atrocity which was perpetrated by church members.  The state of Illinois can apologize for kicking our ancestors out and the state of Missouri can apologize for the extermination order.  I give you permission to apologize for any offensive remarks I have made (especially if they killed anyone.)  How's that?  

A delegation from the state of Illinois did, in fact, express regret, but they did not apologize, for the very reasoning that ERay and I have articulated: No one yet alive bears any culpability.

As for your group accountability concept, it strikes me as bogus. It's too much like guilt by association.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[boblloyd91]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but just wanted to point out that many of our critics either ignore or downplay the horrible things that happened to the saints in Missouri and Illinois. Sometimes I wonder if people who hate the Church just need something to keep their hatred fueled.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but just wanted to point out that many of our critics either ignore or downplay the horrible things that happened to the saints in Missouri and Illinois. Sometimes I wonder if people who hate the Church just need something to keep their hatred fueled.

I have no doubt that's the case in a great many cases. Mountain Meadows is a cherished weapon in the anti-Mormon arsenal, and some people are not about to leave it in the past, despite the number and quality of attempts at reconciliation.

As for the oppressors of the saints in Illinois and Missouri, there is no organization today that holds a legacy bequeathed by them; hence, there is no group to demand apologies or reparations from.

[Tiki]

I have no doubt that's the case in a great many cases. Mountain Meadows is a cherished weapon in the anti-Mormon arsenal, and some people are not about to leave it in the past, despite the number and quality of attempts at reconciliation.As for the oppressors of the saints in Illinois and Missouri, there is no organization today that holds a legacy bequeathed by them; hence, there is no group to demand apologies or reparations from.

That's because Mormons preach forgiveness.

[strappinglad]

A few points:

I was taught about MMM in the early 1960's, from the Church History manual at the time. So much for hiding it.

People apologize for other group member's behavior all the time. The apology usually includes the phrase " He didn't mean it, he had too much to drink." The apology is meant to placate the victim of the behavior but it is basically worthless. Same goes for apologies issued by the government over some action taken decades before by a different government. Why people ask for an apology is unclear , oh yah, the request is usually followed by a demand for compensation.

As a security guard at a beer garden many years ago , I found that civilization fades not far below the rim of a shot glass. Has any scholar investigated if alcohol was imbibed by the perpetrators of the massacre? As for myself, the other day I was stuck in a traffic mess for an hour. Mentally I was screaming for a howitzer or a tank. It doesn't take much to bring out the violent side.

[3DOP]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but just wanted to point out that many of our critics either ignore or downplay the horrible things that happened to the saints in Missouri and Illinois. Sometimes I wonder if people who hate the Church just need something to keep their hatred fueled.

 

Its a real big advantage to be a brand stinking new church without any history of the sinners in it. Even though every church says it is composed of sinners, it is always effective apologetically to point out what is admitted to be the case. Fortunately for "Harvest Community Church", it didn't have any members in the 14th Century. It can take afford to take potshots at Spanish Catholics with political motivations for making baptism inviting for reasons that had very little to do with faith. So...there was some sin involved in how the Spanish treated the Jews in those years. It will be answered for at the Judgment Day, according to the Catholic faith. Some Catholics will probably be in Hell for their part in it. I don't know how that speaks against the truth claims of the Catholic Church. If Harvest Community lasts for more than a generation and grows into a billion members, they will make a few mistakes too before the Lord comes back.

 

As a Catholic, I have reasons for remaining so. But the Mountain Meadows Massacre is nothing. It deserves not the slightest recognition when used as a tool to show that the Restoration under Joseph Smith was false. Mormons don't defend it any differently than I defend the Spanish of the 14th Century. Mormons explain the circumstances, and rightly so. There were indeed complications. But in the end the chief perpetrator was executed! In the end, the perpetrators get a ticket to Hell! What can our detractors want? All they care about is winning an argument and having short term influence. I can't believe this is at 11 pages already. So now you see how it is for churches that are more than here today and gone tomorrow, eh? Yeah, your history gets hyper-examined by people who don't have any history. Welcome to the club.  

Edited September 7, 2014 by 3DOP

[boblloyd91]

Good point 3dop! I have noticed that about fundamentalist protestant groups.

[boblloyd91]

I have no doubt that's the case in a great many cases. Mountain Meadows is a cherished weapon in the anti-Mormon arsenal, and some people are not about to leave it in the past, despite the number and quality of attempts at reconciliation.As for the oppressors of the saints in Illinois and Missouri, there is no organization today that holds a legacy bequeathed by them; hence, there is no group to demand apologies or reparations from.

I know Missouri issued a formal apology several years back. I am curious though what religious motivation our persecutors had. I seem to recall several stories where protestant ministers were involved in some of the attacks. Richard Mouw at his speech in the Tabernacle back in 2004 alluded to regrets over how Evangelicals treated LDS back in the day. Interesting fact.....I served in the Iowa Des Moines mission, and in the city of Ottumwa, (which bordered Missouri) we would occasionally run into descendants of the mobs. Some actually joined the Church while others were proud of kicking the Mormons out.

[why me]

If this happened in the army, one would expect senior officers to take a lot of responsibility for the decisions of their subordinates. If the army did something like this in Afganastan, I'd expect generals and Secrararies of Defense to resign in disgrace.

The fact is, the Saints had a violent, vengeful mindset in those days. Without that mindset, would they have chosen to do what they did? If Brigham Young would have instructed the Saints to follow Jesus' example on the cross and pray that God would forgive their enemies, I seriously doubt they would have done what they chose to do.

However, we are not dealing with an army. Rather we are dealing with men who were not organized into any army. One can say that they reacted irrationally. I see no reason to believe that the saints had a vengeful mindset back then. Nor do I see many saints with a violent mindset at that time. Of course, if people do experience violence over a number of years, it may damage their psyche and minds and this may be the case for some of the saints then. I guess we can all look back in time and say 'if' this would have happened or if that would have happened, all would have been well. But hindset is only good as a learning tool so we can learn from other people's mistakes or from other people's experiences and not as a tool to just condemn. Fortunately, we are people learning through the good and the bad and learning through our imperfections.

Edited September 7, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I know Missouri issued a formal apology several years back. I am curious though what religious motivation our persecutors had. I seem to recall several stories where protestant ministers were involved in some of the attacks. Richard Mouw at his speech in the Tabernacle back in 2004 alluded to regrets over how Evangelicals treated LDS back in the day. Interesting fact.....I served in the Iowa Des Moines mission, and in the city of Ottumwa, (which bordered Missouri) we would occasionally run into descendants of the mobs. Some actually joined the Church while others were proud of kicking the Mormons out.

I don't recall Missouri issuing an apology. I think maybe you are confusing an apology with Gov. Kit Bond formally rescinding Boggs's Extermination Order back in 1976. Though Bond strongly

denounced Boggs's action, that's not the same thing as an apology.

But I've been wrong before. Can you document that Missouri issued an apology?

[boblloyd91]

I don't recall Missouri issuing an apology. I think maybe you are confusing an apology with Gov. Kit Bond formally rescinding Boggs's Extermination Order back in 1976. Though Bond stronglydenounced Boggs's action, that's not the same thing as an apology.But I've been wrong before. Can you document that Missouri issued an apology?

No you're right, that's what I was thinking of.

[omni]

I don't recall Missouri issuing an apology. I think maybe you are confusing an apology with Gov. Kit Bond formally rescinding Boggs's Extermination Order back in 1976. Though Bond strongly

denounced Boggs's action, that's not the same thing as an apology.

But I've been wrong before. Can you document that Missouri issued an apology?

 

The New York Times considered it an apology, but it was actually from the state of Illinois.

 

Illinois officials came to this predominantly Mormon city Wednesday to apologize for the expulsion of the faith's earliest members and the killing of its founder.

 

[thesometimesaint]

If this happened in the army, one would expect senior officers to take a lot of responsibility for the decisions of their subordinates. If the army did something like this in Afganastan, I'd expect generals and Secrararies of Defense to resign in disgrace.

The fact is, the Saints had a violent, vengeful mindset in those days. Without that mindset, would they have chosen to do what they did? If Brigham Young would have instructed the Saints to follow Jesus' example on the cross and pray that God would forgive their enemies, I seriously doubt they would have done what they chose to do.

 

Deseret wasn't an army, and no generals and Secretaries of Defense do not "take responsibility" for the illegal, immoral, acts of subordinates whom they had no control over, and resign.

 

No they did not, as witnessed by the fact that wagon trains before, during, and after MMM DID NOT happen. BY ordered that wagon train to be left alone. Deseret was, and continued to be a main resupply station for settlers going onto Oregon and California.

 

The Romans still crucified Jesus and about 40 years later destroyed Jerusalem. God may forgive whom he chooses but here on this planet we are subject to the laws of the state.

 

Again I have no sympathy for John D. Lee and his fellow murderers. They deserved what ever punishment they got, and may God have mercy on their souls. To smear a religion for the actions of a small group acting against the dictates of that religion, and against legal authorization is simple bigotry. 

[katherine the great]

A delegation from the state of Illinois did, in fact, express regret, but they did not apologize, for the very reasoning that ERay and I have articulated: No one yet alive bears any culpability.

As for your group accountability concept, it strikes me as bogus. It's too much like guilt by association.

Scott, I am an anthropologist and have studied many cultures that have this particular way of thinking.  If you think that is bogus, then that is going to have to be your problem.  I am not making a judgement on that type of thinking, I am saying that it exists and is not even uncommon.  From the official Illinois General Assembly: "RESOLVED, That we ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, Chief Executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of Nauvoo and the State of Illinois."  I don't know exactly the wording of the entire document that they sent to church headquarters but it is officially recorded in their state records that they issued an apology.

[Guest]

It isn't wrong.  It is your individualist cultural viewpoint that its wrong.  More group oriented cultures do it all the time.

Not to mention any President or Apostle has every right to apologize for an institutional mistake. Even more it is their role to apologize on behalf of the Church and it's members for any public mistake or error. So, good for them for doing so.