Mountain Meadows, and Las Vegas. It is a fair comparison?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, and reporters calling what transpired, as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The owner and author of the largest anti-Mormon website (well anti-anything not Evangelical Calvinism) took to the airwaves to point out and further the self promotion of his website and that the Mountain Meadows murders,  was the worst mass-shooting (killing) in U.S. History. He gave a lot of airtime, to this tragic chapter in Church history. It was indeed (Mountian Meadows), fair game. But he was claiming that it was ordered by BY, a fact never proved. My first comments was pointing out that it was inexcusable act that took place. But as he continued to decry the act of killing these people and the number, I informed him that it was not the worst in U.S. History. I pointed out that "wounded knee" and many other Indian murders by the U.S., in far greater numbers. I also pointed out that pointing to this as a reason not to listen to anything Latter-day Saints say. I noted that dismissing everything the U.S. has to say, or denouncing one's citizenship based upon n the past is equally foolish. 

Pointing out such truth was unanswered and caused me to be banned for a time. It is not unusual on this website to be banned for telling the truth. Having said this, I have no problem bringing up the MMM, as it was cold blooded murder. However this was the act if truly evil men, but it is not Church doctrine to murder, and what the Native Americans endured pales in comparison to MMM, and the Las Vegas murders. Evil is evil, and should be condemned, including the many murders done by the Church if those in Middle Ages. Not to mention the murders if Jews, and forced conversions during the inquestion. (Hope I spelled this correctly).  

Thoughts?  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, and reporters calling what transpired, as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The owner and author of the largest anti-Mormon website (well anti-anything not Evangelical Calvinism) took to the airwaves to point out and further the self promotion of his website and that the Mountain Meadows murders,  was the worst mass-shooting (killing) in U.S. History. He gave a lot of airtime, to this tragic chapter in Church history. It was indeed (Mountian Meadows), fair game. But he was claiming that it was ordered by BY, a fact never proved. My first comments was pointing out that it was inexcusable act that took place. But as he continued to decry the act of killing these people and the number, I informed him that it was not the worst in U.S. History. I pointed out that "wounded knee" and many other Indian murders by the U.S., in far greater numbers. I also pointed out that pointing to this as a reason not to listen to anything Latter-day Saints say. I noted that dismissing everything the U.S. has to say, or denouncing one's citizenship based upon n the past is equally foolish. 

Pointing out such truth was unanswered and caused me to be banned for a time. It is not unusual on this website to be banned for telling the truth. Having said this, I have no problem bringing up the MMM, as it was cold blooded murder. However this was the act if truly evil men, but it is not Church doctrine to murder, and what the Native Americans endured pales in comparison to MMM, and the Las Vegas murders. Evil is evil, and should be condemned, including the many murders done by the Church if those in Middle Ages. Not to mention the murders if Jews, and forced conversions during the inquestion. (Hope I spelled this correctly).  

Thoughts?  

I disagree, the men weren't all evil that commited murder on those in the Baker/Francher party. They were just being obedient, something strongly taught in our church. It was a covenant made in the temple called the oath of vengence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance And blood atonement was taught also. We have quite the violent history in the church, but thankfully a very different church today.

poster removed for irresponsible and undocumented claims

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I disagree, the men weren't all evil that commited murder on those in the Baker/Francher party. They were just being obedient, something strongly taught in our church. It was a covenant made in the temple called the oath of vengence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance And blood atonement was taught also. We have quite the violent history in the church, but thankfully a very different church today.

This oath to which you refer was about the wrongs allowed and committed by the United States on multiple occasions. It had nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows event. Shooting women and children to cover a crime, requires men who have allowed their souls to be stolen by the "Price of darkness", and taking every doctrine to an extreme, beyond any reason. The point was this was not the worst mass murder in U.S. History. It is to point out that when it comes to anti-Mormons, any lie, or any port in a storm will do. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 It was a covenant made in the temple called the oath of vengence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance And blood atonement was taught also.

No, it wasn't, that oath was about God taking vengeance, not the Saints themselves.   Wikipedia makes that clear.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Oath_of_vengeance

Blood Atonement only applies to willing participants (one could chose to die by firing squad, for example, if sentenced to death), murder victims don't have such a choice and likely don't have a belief in blood atonement even if asked how they want to die.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, and reporters calling what transpired, as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The owner and author of the largest anti-Mormon website (well anti-anything not Evangelical Calvinism) took to the airwaves to point out and further the self promotion of his website and that the Mountain Meadows murders,  was the worst mass-shooting (killing) in U.S. History. He gave a lot of airtime, to this tragic chapter in Church history. It was indeed (Mountian Meadows), fair game. But he was claiming that it was ordered by BY, a fact never proved. ..................................................

Actually we know for certain that Brigham did not order the massacre, first because a messenger sent by horse from Cedar City to SLC could not return in time to give permission, and second the actual message Brigham sent was not to do it -- which arrived too late.  Moreover, there have been much worse mass shootings in the USA during the Civil War and also (as you point out) during massacres of whole tribes of Indians by the U.S. Cavalry, and also massacre of the Cavalry by Indians -- at Little Bighorn, for example, 268 U.S. Cavalry died and 55 were severely wounded (six died later from their injuries), including four Crow Indian scouts and two Pawnee Indian scouts.

Major John D. Lee was Brigham's emissary in Cedar City (like a papal nuncio), though outranked by a couple of local people.  Everyone was then on a military footing due to the Utah War (1857-58) -- in which Johnston's Army was on the way to Utah to put down the Mormon Rebellion.  That Army was the largest such U. S. Army to be assembled before the Civil War, and Brigham counseled not to confront them at all, but instead to burn the fields in front of them so that they would have nothing for the Army or animals to eat.  He also had guerrillas harrassing their supply wagon train.  It was a completely bloodless war in which Johnston's Army agreed finally to peacefully enter the Salt Lake Valley and not to cause any trouble.

The Fancher Train from Arkansas fanned the flames of ill-feeling by openly declaring that they were going to California and would return to kill Mormons.  John D. Lee deliberately lied to the members of that Train, telling them that, if they gave up, they would be accompanied back to safety in Cedar City.  Then the Mormons (and maybe some Paiutes) turned on the Fancher people and killed them all, and most of the children.  Lee was, of course, tried and executed several years later, other of the murderers never being punished.

The upshot is that each of the primary actors in this MMM scenario had been involved in the much earlier 1832 Black Hawk War in Illinois, where they had actively participated in large massacres of peaceful American Indians (whole villages, including women and children).  Not only did that include Major Lee, but also Capt Alexander Fancher himself (and even General Albert Johnston of Johnston's Army).  How ironic that the murderers of innocent Indians should be directly involved in the massacre of innocents at Mountain Meadows.  How ironic that, even though united during the Black Hawk War (in which even Capt Abraham Lincoln was involved), they were on opposite sides in MMM -- both losing their lives as a result.  Poetic justice??  You be the judge.

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, what the Native Americans endured pales in comparison to MMM, and the Las Vegas murders. Evil is evil, and should be condemned, including the many murders done by the Church if those in Middle Ages. Not to mention the murders if Jews, and forced conversions during the inquestion. ....................................

You mean the "Inquisition."  What is worth noting is that, not only did the Roman Catholic Church burn thousands at the stake, but Protestant John Calvin did the same in Switzerland.

The definitive works on MMM are the following:

Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Oxford Univ Press, 2011).

Juanita Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, 3rd ed. (Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1991).  120 people of Fancher Train killed, 18 very young children spared.

[bluebell]

No, i don't think it's the same thing and it annoys me when I hear people trying to argue that anyone more than four people were killed using guns that it's considered a mass shooting regardless of the situation or context.  Using that definition, all of those who died on the beaches of Normandy died in a mass shooting.  Everyone who died in Vietnam by gun fire died from a mass shooting.  The gunfight at the O.K. corral was a mass shooting.  Some of the people who died at Jones Town died in a mass shooting.  It just sounds dumb to define that term that way.     

When I hear the term "mass shooting" i think of a very specific act of gun violence.  I see it as a shooting perpetrated by one shooter, or a handful of shooters at most, perpetrated with no other goals than to send a message or cause destruction and pain.  

MMM was heinous, but I don't consider it a mass shooting.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It was a covenant made in the temple called the oath of vengence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance 

Which specifically referred to.the events of Carthage and had nothing to do with MMM.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 And blood atonement was taught also.

Yes it was.  And it was directly related to certain crimes usually committed only by current and former members for violation of covenant.  Again, not MMM.

MMM was a dark and horrific tragedy, but it was not directed by Church law, rather by local leaders and those foolish enough to follow them.

[stemelbow]

There have been a number other mass shootings in our history but the resulted in many black people dying, or native Americans, more than at mmm or Las Vegas, so they don’t get mentioned much.  

But mmm was every bit as heinous,  if not more so than the Vegas tragedy.  We should never easily forget and accept that Mormons massacred well over hundred unarmed people.  It seems only fair to bring it up.  We never, im guessing really know why people cause destruction and pain.  We tie in some motivation and leave it at that but Id suggest we shouldn’t leave it simple as that

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

MMM was heinous, but I don't consider it a mass shooting.

It was very definitely a mass shooting, so I disagree.  

There were just many doing the shooting instead of just one.

Definition of mass shooting:

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. ... Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period."

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, and reporters calling what transpired, as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The owner and author of the largest anti-Mormon website (well anti-anything not Evangelical Calvinism) took to the airwaves to point out and further the self promotion of his website and that the Mountain Meadows murders,  was the worst mass-shooting (killing) in U.S. History.

As you point out, if we expand the definition of "mass shooting" and the scope of "US History", there were many (far too many) incidents where >58 people were killed by "shooting" in the U.S since the founding of the country.  There are at least 25 on this list alone that would be worse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres#1830.E2.80.931911

I think when people refer to the Vegas attack as the "worst", they're referring to recent history and not counting military, quasi-military, or frontier events.

[strappinglad]

Meanwhile, the beat goes on with hardly a mention in the media. 30,000 + die in auto accidents, 80,000 + die in medical oppsies . And this link.

Weekend gun violence across Chicago pushed the city to 500 homicides since the start of the year, as 11 people were killed, four of them in a single shooting, and 29 others wounded in attacks across Chicago between Friday evening and Monday morning.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It was very definitely a mass shooting, so I disagree.  

There were just many doing the shooting instead of just one.

Definition of mass shooting:

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. ... Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period."

I realized that’s the unofficial definition, I just think it’s vague enough to be completely worthless.  

In my opinion, conext matters. Both the Sand Creek massacre and the Vegas shooting can be defined as a ‘mass shooting’ but they are events that differ so widely in context and outcome that using the lowest common denominator to define them just seems dumb to me.

I don’t understand why people are so invested in applying the term as widely as possible. Do they think that “mass shooting” is somehow the worst label you can give a violent event?  Like, if you don’t call MMM a mass shooting then somehow it is being devalued?  

What’s the point of calling it a mass shooting?  From my perspective, generalizing gun violence so that all such events (where at least 4 people are injured) bear the same label, while ignoring the context of the event, dumbs down history without any upside. 

In your opinion, what is gained by giving MMM that label?   

[The Nehor]

The Battle of Midway was a really extreme mass shooting.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. ... Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period."

4 people being shot hardly constitutes a mass shooting.   Whomever decided that the number should be 4 if I was to guess was a gun control person in order to inflate the numbers.   We should not compare the shooting of 4 people with the shooting of 20 or 50 people.  But that definition just lumps them all as the same.  

If we are going to consider 4 people to be a "mass" of something, then I guess if 4 people walk into a deserted beach, we should say the people came on the beach in mass or better yet if 4 WW2 soldiers walked on a Pacific Island, we should say the military stormed the beach in mass.

Edited October 9, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[katherine the great]

MMM and Las Vegas is a fair comparison in the sense that they were both slaughters of innocent people and guns were involved (as was the Wounded knee massacre). Why people want to quantify and say, "this was worse than that" just seems like people with too much time on their hands. They were all atrocities, all unjustified and all horrific.

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

4 people being shot hardly constitutes a mass shooting.   Whomever decided that the number should be 4 if I was to guess was a gun control person in order to inflate the numbers.   We should not compare the shooting of 4 people with the shooting of 20 or 50 people.  But that definition just lumps them all as the same. 

Hey, I don't really agree with comparing what took place in Vegas with the MMM (or complaining about it, etc.).  My point was that the MMM was definitely a "mass shooting", IMO.  I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't when over 100 men, women and children were killed.  I know some were killed by other means, but enough were murdered by being shot to rightly call it a mass shooting.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

 

Weekend gun violence across Chicago pushed the city to 500 homicides since the start of the year, as 11 people were killed, four of them in a single shooting, and 29 others wounded in attacks across Chicago between Friday evening and Monday morning.

Honestly, a big part of it is the fear that such attacks (at random malls, concerts, streets etc.) could get any one of us.  No one is safe.

Murders in Chicago are tragic, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be killed in Chicago gang violence in the wrong part of town.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

......................................................

I don’t understand why people are so invested in applying the term as widely as possible. Do they think that “mass shooting” is somehow the worst label you can give a violent event?  Like, if you don’t call MMM a mass shooting then somehow it is being devalued?  

What’s the point of calling it a mass shooting? .................. 

In your opinion, what is gained by giving MMM that label?   

Yes, and how many of the MMM victims were shot?  How many stabbed to death?

[The Nehor]

Unfortunately the Bowling Green Massacre is not accepted as a mass shooting for some reason.

There is a worry that this attack could be copied by terrorist organizations. I asked a friend who works in that field why more organizations do not try attacks like this. He gave his unofficial opinion that it takes a psychopathic person to do this. Most Islamic terrorists and other extremist groups are filled with fanatics but psychopaths are rarer. Detonating a bomb or even blowing yourself up is psychologically easier then a sustained firearm attack lasting minutes. Many attackers would have emotional and psychological problems carrying out such an attack.

Unofficial, but I thought it was an interesting take.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, a big part of it is the fear that such attacks (at random malls, concerts, streets etc.) could get any one of us.  No one is safe.

Murders in Chicago are tragic, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be killed in Chicago gang violence in the wrong part of town.  

Most likely not and neither will I but one time I git lost driving to downtown Chicago and ended up on the southside. I pulled into a convenient store and asked for diections back to I-94. The lady at the counter took one look at my white suburban self and said, “listen carefully. You do NOT want ot get lost in this neighborhood”. She was legitimately concerned for me and I appreciated that. She gave me the directions I aksed for and I got back on track to my destination. I had a date with me that day and we never went out again after that.

[Darren10]

My favorite line from True Lies:

 

[Button Gwinnett]

Deleted

Edited October 9, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Hey, I don't really agree with comparing what took place in Vegas with the MMM (or complaining about it, etc.).  My point was that the MMM was definitely a "mass shooting", IMO.  I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't when over 100 men, women and children were killed.  I know some were killed by other means, but enough were murdered by being shot to rightly call it a mass shooting.

I agree that MMM would constitute a mass shooting.  I guess so would the events at Waco in 1993.  My complaint is people defining a mass shooting when 4 people are shot.  4 people does not constitute a mass of anything in my book.

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I agree that MMM would constitute a mass shooting.  I guess so would the events at Waco in 1993.  My complaint is people defining a mass shooting when 4 people are shot.  4 people does not constitute a mass of anything in my book.

I lean to agreeing with you but at the same time it's a sad commentary that 4 people getting blasted isn't registering much outrage and plans in place to do anything about it. People are gobsmacked that this continues to happen which is what happens if you do nothing to fix a problem, like meh. In our city if there is a whiff of someone seen carrying a gun or unsheathed knife or weapon of some sort police are on the scene if you know what I mean

Edited October 9, 2017 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

I’m surprised to see people hung up on the term mass shooting.  The comparison is an obvious one to me.  A bunch of innocent unarmed people were shot.  More injured in Las Vegas, more killed at mmm.  Both unbelievably disgusting both inbelievably vile.  

Getting worked up because someone critical points out the obvious, getting hung up on the term mass shooting, seems unreasonable to me.  

But whatever... I guess I’ll temain confused by the objections.