The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[tapped]

ldshottie:

EXCELLENT POINT!!!!

[KevinG]

I think saying we need to close the book is a bit of a cop out.

That sentiment was first offered by the victims families, who requested the memorial service be observed. President Hinkley echoed that sentiment out of respect for the families, he did not offer it as a cop out. This is directly from the program last night.

[aznative]

The central tragedy is, just like the fated letter in Romeo and Juliet being waylayed by a plague quarantine, BY's letter came "Too late!  Too late!" to stop MMM.

The MMM makes me physically ill. It is like holocaust movies. They are disgusting, yet I can't stop looking at the screen. The MMM is one of those horrific events from the past that you wish you could go back in time to stop, but we can't. Was justice done? Probably not. What can we do about it now? Nothing really. It is so frustrating. The 1999 dedication was a nice gesture, but I think saying we need to close the book is a bit of a cop out. I hear too often members saying we need to forget about the MMM and move on. We study history to learn from it. What would be our reaction if muslims told us to forget about 9/11? It's in the past, and we need to move on. We have not closed the book on the extermination order that was issued by governor Boggs, yet the state of Missouri offically revoked the order and apologized to us back in the 70s. We study these things because it is part of the historical record, and we need to learn from it. New generations need to learn from it.

What happened at MMM? It is a mystery, an enigma. It makes no sense. Why did Brigham Young send a letter ordering the men NOT to murder the fancher party. Duh, wouldn't NOT murdering people be the default action, especially for Latter-Day Saints? It makes no sense. I don't invade my neighbor's house, prepare to kill her and her children, and then wait for the bishop to tell me NOT to do it. The actions at MMM are all backward. Why would Young find it necessary to send a letter telling them to let the wagons pass? Wouldn't he just assume that his men down there would let wagons pass by default? The whole ugly affair stinks. I don't believe Brigham Young had anything to do with it, but I just don't understand why the leaders in Southern Utah found it necessary to murder first, unless ordered not to by Young.

And this is all fine and dandy. We can examine the past and learn from it, but there is no sense in beating it like the dead horse it is and wearing ash over it.

[John Russell]

The central tragedy is, just like the fated letter in Romeo and Juliet being waylayed by a plague quarantine, BY's letter came "Too late!  Too late!" to stop MMM.

The MMM makes me physically ill. It is like holocaust movies. They are disgusting, yet I can't stop looking at the screen. The MMM is one of those horrific events from the past that you wish you could go back in time to stop, but we can't. Was justice done? Probably not. What can we do about it now? Nothing really. It is so frustrating. The 1999 dedication was a nice gesture, but I think saying we need to close the book is a bit of a cop out. I hear too often members saying we need to forget about the MMM and move on. We study history to learn from it. What would be our reaction if muslims told us to forget about 9/11? It's in the past, and we need to move on. We have not closed the book on the extermination order that was issued by governor Boggs, yet the state of Missouri offically revoked the order and apologized to us back in the 70s. We study these things because it is part of the historical record, and we need to learn from it. New generations need to learn from it.

What happened at MMM? It is a mystery, an enigma. It makes no sense. Why did Brigham Young send a letter ordering the men NOT to murder the fancher party. Duh, wouldn't NOT murdering people be the default action, especially for Latter-Day Saints? It makes no sense. I don't invade my neighbor's house, prepare to kill her and her children, and then wait for the bishop to tell me NOT to do it. The actions at MMM are all backward. Why would Young find it necessary to send a letter telling them to let the wagons pass? Wouldn't he just assume that his men down there would let wagons pass by default? The whole ugly affair stinks. I don't believe Brigham Young had anything to do with it, but I just don't understand why the leaders in Southern Utah found it necessary to murder first, unless ordered not to by Young.

Hottie, I don't think anyone is suggesting that MMM be forgotten. Rather, I think there should come a point where people stop placing blame and genuinely learn from it. It is very difficult for us to understand the frame of mind of the people in Utah in 1857. There was a US army moving toward Utah for reasons that were not well defined, but certainly backed by a hostile federal government. There were considerable difficulties with the Indians throughout the state (the so-called Black Hawk War was in full swing). Food and forage supplies had been reduced by bad weather for the preceding few years. Emigrants were moving through the area in good numbers, not all of whom were enamored with Mormonism, but fair numbers of whom were Saints in need of food, shelter, and employment. I suspect that there was a lot of tension due to all of these insecurities, and the additional stress of limited resources. Sitting in our comfortable 21st Century circumstances, it becomes a bit difficult to comprehend their circumstances then. There is no question that it was a terrible thing, and that we should learn from it. But does it serve a useful purpose to continue to beat the Church over the head with this? Does the international community continue to view all modern Germans as mass killers because of the Holocaust? I would suggest that one of the greatest lessons from all of this is forgiveness. Had the local Saints been able to forgive in 1857, perhaps none of this would have happened. Most of the families involved are prepared to forgive and move forward. We need to close the book on the bitterness, as that is likely what caused the problem in the first place.

[Outshined]

Why did Brigham Young send a letter ordering the men NOT to murder the fancher party. Duh, wouldn't NOT murdering people be the default action, especially for Latter-Day Saints? It makes no sense. I don't invade my neighbor's house, prepare to kill her and her children, and then wait for the bishop to tell me NOT to do it. The actions at MMM are all backward. Why would Young find it necessary to send a letter telling them to let the wagons pass? Wouldn't he just assume that his men down there would let wagons pass by default?

Because a messenger was sent to him asking what action to take.

[Tetraforce]

The central tragedy is, just like the fated letter in Romeo and Juliet being waylayed by a plague quarantine, BY's letter came "Too late!  Too late!" to stop MMM.

Why would Young find it necessary to send a letter telling them to let the wagons pass? Wouldn't he just assume that his men down there would let wagons pass by default?

Because the people at Cedar City sent a letter to Brigham first thats why he sent a letter in responce.

Cedar City people were holding the train, because they were under martial law, and anti-mormons from Missouri insult the people, in turn they refused to sell to supplies to them, in turn they begin threatening that once they get to California they'll raise an army to wipe them out just as they claimed they did in Missouri, in turn they stopped them from leaving.

The Indians attack the train's herds, three people of the train attept to escape, in turn they get killed by Indians and the people of Cedar City out of fear of being blamed for the attack and be the cause of an army coming against them when the word spread that Mormons were attacking the trains. So Lee puts up a white flag, asks the train to disarm, then shots the men, the Indians ride in and kill the women and older children, sparing the smaller children.

[tapped]

JB says that the Fancher train started in ...Arkansas. There are monuments there to their ancestors....

(I think) the stories of wrongdoing were all 'enhanced' / added as justification/rationalization for the wrong(s) that the LDS did. Other contemporary writers say those in the Fancher train comported themselves without problems (sorry, Ive lost that reference)

[aznative]

(sorry, Ive lost that reference)

Boy, you seem to lose alot of references, or just don't have them.

[vistamod]

There is no question that it was a terrible thing, and that we should learn from it. But does it serve a useful purpose to continue to beat the Church over the head with this? Does the international community continue to view all modern Germans as mass killers because of the Holocaust?

Not that I can tell...Why is it you assume that when people talk about the MMM and the churchs involvement, you assume to think that they are attacking you(present day church)? Are you so emotionally tied to the church that anything negative, even if it occured over 100 hundred years ago, feels like an attack on you and the present day church? I'm not intending this an an insult, but I am also not expressing my idea very well, so that it doesn't come across like an insult. For all we know, many present day Germans might feel attacked when we run holocaust documentaries and speak about it to this day, even though we are not condemning modern day Germany. Many people have a hard time hearing anything that casts the church in a negative light.

[tapped]

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2002Outwest/Natu...rsE/default.htm

The train seemed to consist of respectable people by most accounts. They were well dressed, were quiet, orderly, and genteel; had fine stock; had three carriages, and other evidences to show that this was one of the finest trains to cross the plains.

One word led to another and ugly stories about the behavior of the wagon train spread through the territory. They had poisoned a beef of which some Indians ate and died. They poisoned springs as they passed was also a story spread about the wagon train (short explanation on continued page).

(From crimelibrary.xxx):

Many of the train's leaders were experienced trailhands, having made the trip to California and back to Arkansas before. The party was a solemn and taciturn lot, filled with Mexican-American war veterans and their wives and children, a Methodist minister, and other similarly sober travelers. They were not a joyless group, but most historians report that they were not boisterous, obnoxious or prone to troublemaking. In keeping with the practice of the time, the party was exceedingly close-knit and very familiar with each other.

"Most of the party were members of large families, the Bakers and Fanchers, heading to join relatives who had migrated the previous year to California's Central Valley, where the range was free and land grants were available for men with prior military service," wrote Sally Denton in American Heritage magazine. "Most were newly married young couples; several had newborn infants and toddlers, and some wives were pregnant and destined to give birth on the trail. There were also many unmarried young men and women in their twenties, mostly cousins and childhood friends, and adults in their thirties with older children along with a handful of aunts and uncles in their late forties. Accompanying them for security were at least 20 hired riflemen. Most of those not related by blood were old friends and longtime neighbors."

there are others....

[USU78]

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2002Outwest/Natu...rsE/default.htm

The train seemed to consist of respectable people by most accounts. They were well dressed, were quiet, orderly, and genteel; had fine stock; had three carriages, and other evidences to show that this was one of the finest trains to cross the plains.

One word led to another and ugly stories about the behavior of the wagon train spread through the territory.  They had poisoned a beef of which some Indians ate and died.  They poisoned springs as they passed was also a story spread about the wagon train (short explanation on continued page).

there are others....

And the guys who joined up with them into the Valley, but who later left the Fancher party? What of them?

A further quote from your piece, which inexplicably leaves out the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force then en route to the Valley:

The people from Missouri seemed to be somewhat troublesome. A certain Mrs. Sally Cecil, the widow of Riley Cecil and her nine children left the party because the "Missouri Wildcats" were making so much trouble and she foresaw disaster. Just were she joined or left the train is not clear. This was an unfortunate combination of persons to be arriving in Utah at this time, for word had reached the territory that a Mormon Missionary, Parley Parker Pratt had been murdered near Van Buren, Arkansas by one Hector MacLean. It seems that MacLean's wife had fallen under the spell of the Mormon Missionary and left her husband and was enroute to join the Mormons. MacLean had Pratt brought to trail in Fort Smith but he was acquitted. After the trail, bystanders egged MacLean into following Pratt and having it out with him. In the ensuing fight, Pratt was killed. This incident happened in May, 1857, just as the party was leaving Arkansas for California. News of the Pratt-MacLean affair did nothing to endear the Arkansas party to the hearts of the Mormons, and the site of Missouri people fanned old hatreds and resentments.

Ah, yes, those hypnotic-eyed Mormons, leading women astray. Yesirreeebob we are a lusty and overbearing lot, wot? Why the gratuitous slam in this piece? And why make the point of empending disaster because of the Wildcats without going into the threats made by said Wildcats of rapine and slaughter when they returned with the CA militia? What a disappointing piece of one-sided rubbish.

[tapped]

regardless of Parley Pratt / Mrs. McLean, & Mr. McLean....

my point here would be...that NO MATTER what anyone in the wagon train did...It/that did NOT justify taking their lives (men,women, children) Get It?

[John Russell]

There is no question that it was a terrible thing, and that we should learn from it. But does it serve a useful purpose to continue to beat the Church over the head with this? Does the international community continue to view all modern Germans as mass killers because of the Holocaust?

Not that I can tell...Why is it you assume that when people talk about the MMM and the churchs involvement, you assume to think that they are attacking you(present day church)? Are you so emotionally tied to the church that anything negative, even if it occured over 100 hundred years ago, feels like an attack on you and the present day church? I'm not intending this an an insult, but I am also not expressing my idea very well, so that it doesn't come across like an insult. For all we know, many present day Germans might feel attacked when we run holocaust documentaries and speak about it to this day, even though we are not condemning modern day Germany. Many people have a hard time hearing anything that casts the church in a negative light.

I personally have no problem with negative elements of the Church's history. Like all human history, it is full of people, and people do weird things. However, the context of the average MMM discussion is this:

1. The Massacre violated God's commandments, but was approved by the Church; the Church claims to be led by God; therefore, the Church cannot be led by God; and

2. The Massacre was wholly unchristian; the Massacre was carried out by Mormons; therefore, Mormons are not Christian.

The extrapolation of the specific to the general of this context is specifically intended as an indictment of the individuals today, as well as those who participated in it then. It is perfectly possible to carry on a very productive non-antagonistic conversation with people about MMM, but it is usually brought up in the context of criticizing the Church, and not in an effort to understand what happened. Context is meaningful. If I bring up the Holocaust in the context of how world events shaped the 20th Century, I may make a German feel uncomfortable, but would probably not antagonize. If I am speaking disapprovingly of Germany's lack of participation in Iraq and bring the Holocaust into the conversation, would the German feel antagonized?

[John Russell]

regardless of Parley Pratt / Mrs. McLean, & Mr. McLean....

my point here would be...that NO MATTER what anyone in the wagon train did...It/that did NOT justify taking their lives (men,women, children) Get It?

No one here disagrees with you on that point. The point you don't seem to be getting is the fundamental one that Juanita Brooks was attempting to understand: Why did it happen? None of the circumstances prevalent at the time can justify the behavior of the killers to us where we are now. So, what caused it? What causes similar events to continue in the world, on personal and international scales? You seem to shrug off as mere excuses the numerous stressful circumstances that may have been major contributors. But could they have contributed? Of course. We are often pawns of our circumstances, although we would rather not be. What can we learn about this for ourselves today? Maybe the power of rumor? The horrors that result from festering hatred? The need to forgive? The challenge of discipleship under persecution? To begin to understand the event, we have to try to understand the people and their circumstances. Barring this understanding, we learn nothing, and stand only as arrogant accusers.

[USU78]

regardless of Parley Pratt / Mrs. McLean, & Mr. McLean.... my point here would be...that NO MATTER what anyone in the wagon train did...It/that did NOT justify taking their lives (men,women, children) Get It?

Oh, I "get it" just fine.

Fear, rage and war fever have motivated untold mischief through the years. This is as tragic an event as there is, given its avoidability.

But for the Missouri atrocities . . .

But for the betrayal by Illinois' governor . . .

But for a federal judge's consorting with prostitutes whilst on the bench in Utah . . .

But for "elements" in the Buchanan administration . . .

But for the expeditionary forces then en route to Utah . . .

But for the Missouri Wildcats . . .

But for the Pratt incident . . .

But for the failure to account for passage of time in Cedar City . . .

But for the too-late letter from BY . . .

This doesn't happen. Any one of those things change and probably we aren't having this conversation and the focus is on the savagery of US policy vis-a-vis Amerinds and Mormons in the 1850s. You as spokesman for the antiMormon crowd should be doing the Balki dance for joy that Lee lost his nerve and acted precipitously, unwilling to wait the required time for BY's answer.

[tapped]

Even IF there was lead pipe certain PROOF that BY 'ordered' the MMM...what would that change? He's dead, (or so I heard!)we can't arrest, charge, try or punish him...

Finally, most are at or approaching the 'bottom line' what should we do TODAY?

I agree with LDS HOTTIE, we should treat this like the Holocaust. Learn what the lessons for US, TODAY are:

a) When someone suggests to you that you should harm others for some 'Greater' good...STOP! REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE!! (is that so difficult?)

see a) above.

[USU78]

Even IF there was lead pipe certain PROOF that BY 'ordered' the MMM...what would that change? He's dead, (or so I heard!)we can't arrest, charge, try or punish him...

Finally, most are at or approaching the 'bottom line' what should we do TODAY?

I agree with LDS HOTTIE, we should treat this like the Holocaust. Learn what the lessons for US, TODAY are:

a) When someone suggests to you that you should harm others for some 'Greater' good...STOP! REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE!! (is that so difficult?)

see a) above.

You evermore learn but never acquire a clue if all you take from this is "don't follow orders." That is an insult to the good folks who found themselves doing awful things.

More humility in the face of difficulties faced by those long dead is indicated, methinks. How can I claim to be more righteous than they? What qualities of philanthropy, intelligence, spiritual enlightenment, and foregiveness do I possess that make me more capable then they? What would I have done if faced with the same set of problems? Would I do better than Lee did?

At the end of the day, I thank G-d I'm not faced with Lee's choices under Lee's circumstances. G-d forfend any of us should face them!

[tapped]

usu:

that's (one of) the beautys of Life...

we each 'get to' take and leave what we choose!

the 'lesson(s)' of the MMM are probably more intrepretive, more individual, more ambiguous than I first thought (perhaps!)

Hopefully, someday, we can learn first-hand all the answers to all the questions!

[TrespassersW]

tapped:

the 'lesson(s)' of the MMM are probably more intrepretive, more individual, more ambiguous than I first thought (perhaps!)

You seem to be a bit obsessed about learning lessons from the past. Nothing wrong with that. How about we take a look at the history of your posts on this board and see what lessons we can learn?

You posted:

What are our leaders thinking when they refuse to admit/confess that they're Human and make mistakes

(see http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...=0entry166125)

This statement is false. It has been demonstrated to be false. The opposite has been shown to be true. Could you please identify for me where you acknowledged that you made a FALSE ACCUSATION against the LDS leadership?

You posted:

is there REALLY a statue of a shaven BY on the BYU campus (or some other church property)? That is revisionism, folks.

(see http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...=0entry166223)

This statement is false. Numerous photos have been posted demonstrating it to be false. Could you please identify where you acknowledged falsely accusing Latter-day Saints of "revisionism"?

You also posted an interesting little story about one of your class instructors making an innocent (and very very minor) erroneous statement that you then researched and confronted him with documentation that he was wrong and insisted on him making a retraction. You then elevated the issue to the bishop and stake president, demanding a retraction. All over an issue that you yourself referred to as a "small" matter. You posted:

My FEAR: that

[tapped]

Can a question be "False"?

your second quote was a question (started with What)..If I forgot the Q mark, my fault.

i do look at things differently.

BY sometimes did have a beard, sometimes not.

I have not kept track of how many days he did/didn't. i honestly thought that was 'always'. Without the dates of the pics and more documentation, we don't know. (Ive seen more photos of him With (including Priesthood manuals?) than Without...What/anything does That prove?)

the church is rather infamous for slanting things for the PR appeal (deny That?)

"I don't know that we teach that"

i did not "demand' a retraction (or, Were YOU There?) of my leaders, I humbly asked for one, thinking that since the subject was brought up, The Truth of the matter was important enough to bring to the class members. (I guess) I was wrong about that. With me, telling the TRUTH will NEVER be a minor matter.

[USU78]

your second quote was a question (started with What)..If I forgot the Q mark, my fault.

i do look at things differently.

BY sometimes did have a beard, sometimes not.

I have not kept track of how many days he did/didn't. i honestly thought that was 'always'. Without the dates of the pics and more documentation, we don't know. (Ive seen more photos of him With than Without...What/anything does That prove?)

the church is rather infamous for slanting things for the PR appeal (deny That?)

"I don't know that we teach that"

Humility in the face of our own errors, methinks, is more important than pointing out others' errors. Don't you find?

[tapped]

for me...this goes to my latest new topic...

What should our expectations of leaders behavior/conduct be?

[TrespassersW]

tapped:

your second quote was a question (started with What)..If I forgot the Q mark, my fault.

Your quote (emphasis added):

is there REALLY a statue of a shaven BY on the BYU campus (or some other church property)? That is revisionism, folks.

The last part was absolutely not a question. There was no forgotten question mark. It was an accusation. And a rather heavy-handed and naive one at that. Your claim that it was a question with a forgotten question mark? That's revisionism.

I understand that you were under some strange notion that Brigham Young was apparently born with a beard down to his knees. The fact that you thought you were right isn't really all that relevant. The fact is you made an accusation. You were proven wrong beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. We STILL have yet to see the words "I made a false accusation" come from your keyboard. That's the problem with making spurious accusations, tapped. When they're proven wrong you have to either stand up and take ownership of it, or lose all credibility. With the number of accusations you've made on this board, you've got some catching up to do if you want any credibility back.

the church is rather infamous for slanting things for the PR appeal (deny That?)

And anti-mormons are infamous for sensationalizing and slanting things for shock value. (deny That?)

[tapped]

(For the record!) I sincerely doubt that BY was born with any beard.

any revisionism on this re a statue at YBU would be attributable to the people who designed the statue, don't you think?

at the 'Great' institution of instruction, I'm afraid it's held out more as a showcase of PR 'Look at OUR University, see how clean cut the students are!' than freedom of choice (I teach them correct principles and let them govern THEMSELVES"???)

I was referring to your second posted quote , which began "what are our leaders thinking...."

(or something like that)

What point are you proving repeatedly pointing out MY faults? (as you perceive them, anyway)

I once turned someone in for tax fraud. The matter (without identification of the party involved) was a widespread problem in our state. Because of a high tax rate on cars, many people were licensing out-of-state to avoid our taxes.....this was widely known. Some people criticized me for doing that. I said to them... "and so, you're criticizing me?(pot calling kettle Black)"

[KevinG]

When someone reacts to evidence by jumping from topic to topic, leveling accusations that were already addressed quite completely on other threads (i.e. Brigham and beards at BYU) they are just trolling for a response.

Some people get off on the attention they get by being a rhetorical pain in the donkey. Don't encourage them.

Don't feed the troll.

Note: In fairness to tresspassersw, this was posted after his/her response.