Early Utah Pioneer and Church actions with Native Americans

[CA Steve]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

With a life expectancy of 35 years?

I inferred from the use of the word "patterned" Kim did not mean every aspect. 

BTW the life expectancy for American citizens in 1776 was also 35 years.

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, webbles said:

I think the standard is that the LDS settlers were better than anyone else.  They didn't treat the Native Americans as equals but they did treat them better than most other settlers.

I am not sure what the basis for comparison is here but if driving them off their lands, starving or killing them is better than most others, I still don't see that as some sort of moral claim we want to tout. In the end I think the larger issue is the conflict between our claims to having been persecuted for our religion as contrasted with our own persecution against the native Americans. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by CA Steve

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I inferred from the use of the word "patterned" Kim did not mean every aspect. 

BTW the life expectancy for American citizens in 1776 was also 35 years.

No doubt KP meant only some aspects, but the comment they were responding to seemed to be more all in.

The 35 years was preColumbian, same as Europeans at the time, but rather different than now.

[Danzo]

9 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would challenge your comment on most native Americans not wanting to go back and live the way their ancestors live.  Most native Americans I know and have met do want to go back to a life patterned on their ancestors lives. 

You and I hang out around different native Americans.

What part of the ancestral life appeals to your friends the most?

Defecation in the woods?

Slavery?

Bloodletting from the genitals ?

Raiding the neighboring settlement to kidnap a wife?

Living in a tent?

Near constant state of war with your neighbors?

Human Sacrifice?

Blood feuds?

 

 

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

My second question is why is everyone so intent on excusing early LDS pioneers?  As I said before, they weren't terrible people but their treatment of native Americans was terrible.  Why would you not want to accept that?  Why try so hard to say someone committing a sin wasn't committing a sin?  The LDS pioneer treatment of native American's was a sin and they will have to repent of it in order to gain salvation just like any of us will have to repent of the sins we commit.  We work to hard in this Church to treat our pioneers like pure, wonderful people when the reality is that in many respects they committed the same sins as everyone else.

Its not about excusing, or condemning it is about understanding.

We learn about the past to try and understand the past, not to Judge the past.   The point is that we should try to understand these people.  They are beyond our judgement, its not in our hands.  They did good things and bad things.  They will have to repent and rely on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, Just like me and Just like you.  I know with 100% certainty that their deeds and actions will not earn them a place in heaven, there was too much sin.  Neither will my deeds and actions because I sin too much.  We should look on our ancestors with mercy and not with judgment  just like I hope my decedents will look at me with mercy.   We made promises to our ancestors and they did the best they could to give us the opportunity to live here today.  

[webbles]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am not sure what the basis for comparison is here but if driving them off their lands, starving or killing them is better than most others, I still don't see that as some sort of moral claim we want to tout. In the end I think the larger issue is the conflict between our claims to having been persecuted for our religion as contrasted with our own persecution against the native Americans. 

It really depends on what the discussion is.  I understood the discussion to be whether the understanding of the interaction between the pioneers and natives was being portrayed correctly in the church.  And people have rightfully brought up atrocities caused by the pioneers.  But the portrayal wasn't that the pioneers treated the natives equally or never fought them.  The portrayal was that the pioneers treated them better than others of their time.  And that is what I'm arguing for.  Did the pioneers treat natives poorly?  Sure.  Did they kill, steal, etc?  Yes.  But was it better than others?  Yes.  So the portrayal is correct.

As for comparison between the early saints persecution by the US and their persecution of the natives, that's a different discussion.  I can see both sides being correct.  The early saints were in the US for only ~10 years and were severely persecuted for it.  The saints were in Utah for 50+ years and did persecute the natives.  What if the saints had moved to another place in the US instead of gone to the west?  Would they have continued being persecuted, could it have gotten worse?  Probably, so the timeline between the two situations will make the saints "harsher" to the natives but that's just because there was more time.

Another comparison are the extermination orders.

Mormon extermination:

• A blanket order: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace".  Affected all Mormons (men, women, and children) no matter what they were doing.
• Targeted ~15,000 people
• Forced them to leave their homes in the winter
• I don't believe Governor Boggs was against the idea
• Was rescinded 100+ years later
• Deaths: Highly debated.  General Clark (who led the extermination) wrote ~40 people.

Timpanogos extermination:

• A limited order:  "quelling and staying the operations of all hostile Indians and otherwise act as the circumstances may <> exterminating such as do not separate themselves from their hostile clans and sue for peace" and "In carrying out this order you will keep in exercise every principal of humanity compatible with the laws of war and see that no violence is permitted to women and children."  Only affects hostile Indians.  Does not affect women and children.
• Targeted ~100 people
• Brigham Young had to be convinced to order it.  He was very much against it.  He also blamed the saints for the need to issue the order.
• It was in effect for a month or so
• Deaths: ~40 people

 

[The Nehor]

If history has taught me anything it is that if you want to not be remembered as a jerk in following generations you must have no power or influence, do nothing important, and preferably die leaving no record you ever existed.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If history has taught me anything it is that if you want to not be remembered as a jerk in following generations you must have no power or influence, do nothing important, and preferably die leaving no record you ever existed.

Perfectly said.  

[kimpearson]

22 hours ago, webbles said:

It really depends on what the discussion is.  I understood the discussion to be whether the understanding of the interaction between the pioneers and natives was being portrayed correctly in the church.  And people have rightfully brought up atrocities caused by the pioneers.  But the portrayal wasn't that the pioneers treated the natives equally or never fought them.  The portrayal was that the pioneers treated them better than others of their time.  And that is what I'm arguing for.  Did the pioneers treat natives poorly?  Sure.  Did they kill, steal, etc?  Yes.  But was it better than others?  Yes.  So the portrayal is correct.

As for comparison between the early saints persecution by the US and their persecution of the natives, that's a different discussion.  I can see both sides being correct.  The early saints were in the US for only ~10 years and were severely persecuted for it.  The saints were in Utah for 50+ years and did persecute the natives.  What if the saints had moved to another place in the US instead of gone to the west?  Would they have continued being persecuted, could it have gotten worse?  Probably, so the timeline between the two situations will make the saints "harsher" to the natives but that's just because there was more time.

Another comparison are the extermination orders.

Mormon extermination:

• A blanket order: "The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace".  Affected all Mormons (men, women, and children) no matter what they were doing.
• Targeted ~15,000 people
• Forced them to leave their homes in the winter
• I don't believe Governor Boggs was against the idea
• Was rescinded 100+ years later
• Deaths: Highly debated.  General Clark (who led the extermination) wrote ~40 people.

Timpanogos extermination:

• A limited order:  "quelling and staying the operations of all hostile Indians and otherwise act as the circumstances may <> exterminating such as do not separate themselves from their hostile clans and sue for peace" and "In carrying out this order you will keep in exercise every principal of humanity compatible with the laws of war and see that no violence is permitted to women and children."  Only affects hostile Indians.  Does not affect women and children.
• Targeted ~100 people
• Brigham Young had to be convinced to order it.  He was very much against it.  He also blamed the saints for the need to issue the order.
• It was in effect for a month or so
• Deaths: ~40 people

 

The Church mostly defiantly does not portray the pioneer's treatment of native Americans as just better than everyone else but still terrible.  Go read Elder Cook's talk.  He clearly gives the impression that most pioneers were loving and thoughtful towards native Americans although to cover himself he does admit some mistakes and bad actions.  Go back and read any talk given by a general authority on the early pioneers and find me one that clearly states what actually happened to the native Americans.  Every talk I can find clearly indicates that for the most part, church members treated the native Americans with love, kindness and respect.  Just as an example of the mindset of Church leaders on the proper treatment of native Americans I give one my family lived.  President Kimball taught that to love and help the native Americans progress, members should take native American children into their homes during the school year away from their own families.  What a fiasco.  My family had one native American child in our home through the placement program.  When my parents realized the damage taking someone away from their home did, they never participated again.  We saw the same pattern in most families around us who took in native American children.  The family connections of the child we took in were so damaged that they never had stability again in their lives.  My mom and dad felt responsible but nothing they tried helped.

On 12/2/2021 at 9:13 AM, Danzo said:

You and I hang out around different native Americans.

What part of the ancestral life appeals to your friends the most?

Defecation in the woods?

Slavery?

Bloodletting from the genitals ?

Raiding the neighboring settlement to kidnap a wife?

Living in a tent?

Near constant state of war with your neighbors?

Human Sacrifice?

Blood feuds?

 

 

Your response show an incredible bias against native Americans and an understanding of their current desires.  The native Americans I know have a desire to return to a culture that values nature and works to preserve it.  A culture that fully embraces traditions that build positive self identity by focusing on those that truly were good and built individuals up.  A restoration in pride by recognizing the good in their forefathers beliefs and practices not a return to the things you mentioned above.  Why would you respond in the way you did except to demean and belittle native Americans?

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Your response show an incredible bias against native Americans and an understanding of their current desires.  The native Americans I know have a desire to return to a culture that values nature and works to preserve it.  A culture that fully embraces traditions that build positive self identity by focusing on those that truly were good and built individuals up.  A restoration in pride by recognizing the good in their forefathers beliefs and practices not a return to the things you mentioned above.  Why would you respond in the way you did except to demean and belittle native Americans?

How many native Americans do you actually  know? 

I probably hang around more native Americans every week than you have in your entire life.  I have been married to a native American for twenty years. All of my in laws are Native American.  My mother and father in law both speak their native language at home.  These are people that I call family and friends,  I love them.  Me and my family have received priesthood blessings from them, they have helped me in times of need.  These people are human beings.  Their are good and noble people among them , Their are petty people, their are murderers and Child abusers among them. Some of them are poor and some of them are well off.   You need to start treating them as human beings and not some sort of nature guardians out of a Disney Movie.

I was just visiting a Native American family a couple of days ago and they were talking about growing up with a lack of medical care and relying on the village "Witches"(their words) to help them when they were sick.  Turns out they like the doctors we have here a little better.  My Wife was born at home without a doctor.  She had no desire to have our children born that way.  My wife's village was in an area that is completely deforested by the Native Americans who needed fuel to cook with.  Native Americans of the past didn't work to preserve nature, they survived, even if it meant driving a herd of Bison off of a cliff.  They weren't forest rangers. They set forest fires.  They don't want to return to their past way of life anymore than you are I would want to return to the past way of life of our ancestors.  It wasn't some sort of nature paradise.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Duplicate

Edited December 3, 2021 by Danzo

[webbles]

4 hours ago, kimpearson said:

The Church mostly defiantly does not portray the pioneer's treatment of native Americans as just better than everyone else but still terrible.  Go read Elder Cook's talk.  He clearly gives the impression that most pioneers were loving and thoughtful towards native Americans although to cover himself he does admit some mistakes and bad actions.  Go back and read any talk given by a general authority on the early pioneers and find me one that clearly states what actually happened to the native Americans.  Every talk I can find clearly indicates that for the most part, church members treated the native Americans with love, kindness and respect.  Just as an example of the mindset of Church leaders on the proper treatment of native Americans I give one my family lived.  President Kimball taught that to love and help the native Americans progress, members should take native American children into their homes during the school year away from their own families.  What a fiasco.  My family had one native American child in our home through the placement program.  When my parents realized the damage taking someone away from their home did, they never participated again.  We saw the same pattern in most families around us who took in native American children.  The family connections of the child we took in were so damaged that they never had stability again in their lives.  My mom and dad felt responsible but nothing they tried helped.

But the bolded is actually what happened.  The church members, for the most part, treated the Native Americans with love, kindness and respect.  The atrocities and other horrible things that happened were rarities.  The church leaders of that time did not encourage those and actually taught against them.  There's lots of stories where members and Native Americans created strong friendly relationships.  The entire reason Manti was settled was because a Ute chief asked Brigham Young to send settlers there.  That same tribe and the settlers of Manti worked together and had a pretty strong relationship.  Yes, there were problems (including skirmishes), but in general, it was a good relationship.

[kimpearson]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

How many native Americans do you actually  know? 

I probably hang around more native Americans every week than you have in your entire life.  I have been married to a native American for twenty years. All of my in laws are Native American.  My mother and father in law both speak their native language at home.  These are people that I call family and friends,  I love them.  Me and my family have received priesthood blessings from them, they have helped me in times of need.  These people are human beings.  Their are good and noble people among them , Their are petty people, their are murderers and Child abusers among them. Some of them are poor and some of them are well off.   You need to start treating them as human beings and not some sort of nature guardians out of a Disney Movie.

I was just visiting a Native American family a couple of days ago and they were talking about growing up with a lack of medical care and relying on the village "Witches"(their words) to help them when they were sick.  Turns out they like the doctors we have here a little better.  My Wife was born at home without a doctor.  She had no desire to have our children born that way.  My wife's village was in an area that is completely deforested by the Native Americans who needed fuel to cook with.  Native Americans of the past didn't work to preserve nature, they survived, even if it meant driving a herd of Bison off of a cliff.  They weren't forest rangers. They set forest fires.  They don't want to return to their past way of life anymore than you are I would want to return to the past way of life of our ancestors.  It wasn't some sort of nature paradise.

Who said anything about returning to living like primitives with none of the modern conveniences?  You sound like you have a lot of experience with native Americans so share with us how they feel about how their ancestors were treated.  It just seems like you went for every negative you could think of in responding.  May I ask why?  My experience with native Americans is just talking with probably a hundred or so over the last 10 years.  Not every one of them but a large portion stated a desire to return to beliefs and practices of their forefathers that I often equated with religion but was always corrected that it was much more than religion.  Has that been your experience or have those native American's you know expressed a desire to leave all those practices?

 

5 hours ago, webbles said:

But the bolded is actually what happened.  The church members, for the most part, treated the Native Americans with love, kindness and respect.  The atrocities and other horrible things that happened were rarities.  The church leaders of that time did not encourage those and actually taught against them.  There's lots of stories where members and Native Americans created strong friendly relationships.  The entire reason Manti was settled was because a Ute chief asked Brigham Young to send settlers there.  That same tribe and the settlers of Manti worked together and had a pretty strong relationship.  Yes, there were problems (including skirmishes), but in general, it was a good relationship.

My comments above were to indicate that the talks given tell one story but the actual stories I know of are very different.  So you call taking over their land, water and hunting opportunities treating them with love, kindness and respect?  Are you saying church members gave the native Americans the right to participate in community decisions that would affect them?  Are you saying the majority of church members saw native Americans as their equals and treated them so.  Giving someone food and blankets when you have taken the very things that fed them in the first place is not love or kindness.  It was just an attempt to pacify and avoid actual fighting.  I have read my ancestors journals.  They, in every single case I have read, looked down on native Americans as ignorant savages that needed to just leave and go somewhere else.  I always knew about that treatment.  My grandparents on both sides were born in the late 1800's.  They were all children of the early pioneers.  I listened to their stories for the first 10 to 15 years of my life.  This is what the stories universally included.  Native Americans were lazy drunks who just caused problems for the pioneers.  Brigham Young and other church leaders including my forefathers made the determination early that feeding and providing some livestock, blankets and basic necessities to native Americans would allow the colonization of the intermountain west much quicker and with less loss of life than driving them out with guns.  What I didn't know was that when that policy didn't work in certain occasions that those same leaders sanctioned the massacre of native Americans.  I really doubt that there were many early pioneers who loved the native Americans and treated them as equals.  I know that offends many current members because they want to hold the early pioneers up as glorious examples of faithful pure saints.  They were faithful.  They weren't pure and very few of them were full saints.  In fact a lot of them had some very mistaken beliefs.  If you can find evidence of more than just a few token stories where true love, kindness and respect was given please make me aware of them.  I would like your sources on the comments about Manti.

I just did some further research on Manti.  It doesn't sound nearly as peaceful as you imply per the following:

Relations with the local Native Americans deteriorated rapidly and the Walker War soon ensued. The war consisted primarily of various raids conducted by the Native Americans against Mormon outposts in Central and Southern Utah. The Walker War ended in the mid-1850s in an understanding negotiated between Brigham Young and Wakara. Shortly thereafter, Welcome Chapman and Wakara oversaw the baptism of scores of Wakara's tribe members. Although immediate hostilities ended, none of the underlying conflicts were resolved.[5]

In 1865 Utah's Black Hawk War erupted when an incident between a Manti resident and a young chieftain exploded into open warfare between the Mormon settlers and the local Native Americans. Forts were built in Manti and other nearby communities. Smaller settlements in the area were temporarily abandoned for the duration of the war. In the fall of 1867, Chief Black Hawk made peace with the settlers, but sporadic violence occurred until 1872 when federal troops intervened. Many Mormon settlers who fought and died in the wars are buried in the Manti Cemetery. Most of the Utes were eventually relocated to the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Eastern Utah.

Edited December 4, 2021 by kimpearson

[Calm]

KP, The original comment*** you responded to was not about taking what was good of the past and combining it with what is good in the now, but actually turning back the clock and living the identical way with the same quality of life in all of its details their ancestors lived (thus the reference to the life expectancy at the time as well as Danzo saying Europeans don’t want to live the way they did hundreds of years ago…meaning without modern medicine, knowledge of sanitation and nutrition, education, etc).  You are arguing against a point that no one is making.

***

Quote

Most people who are native Americans really don't want to go back and live the way their ancestors lived, and most european people would not want to live like their ancestors. 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Calm

[webbles]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

My comments above were to indicate that the talks given tell one story but the actual stories I know of are very different.  So you call taking over their land, water and hunting opportunities treating them with love, kindness and respect?  Are you saying church members gave the native Americans the right to participate in community decisions that would affect them?  Are you saying the majority of church members saw native Americans as their equals and treated them so.  Giving someone food and blankets when you have taken the very things that fed them in the first place is not love or kindness.  It was just an attempt to pacify and avoid actual fighting.  I have read my ancestors journals.  They, in every single case I have read, looked down on native Americans as ignorant savages that needed to just leave and go somewhere else.  I always knew about that treatment.  My grandparents on both sides were born in the late 1800's.  They were all children of the early pioneers.  I listened to their stories for the first 10 to 15 years of my life.  This is what the stories universally included.  Native Americans were lazy drunks who just caused problems for the pioneers.  Brigham Young and other church leaders including my forefathers made the determination early that feeding and providing some livestock, blankets and basic necessities to native Americans would allow the colonization of the intermountain west much quicker and with less loss of life than driving them out with guns.  What I didn't know was that when that policy didn't work in certain occasions that those same leaders sanctioned the massacre of native Americans.  I really doubt that there were many early pioneers who loved the native Americans and treated them as equals.  I know that offends many current members because they want to hold the early pioneers up as glorious examples of faithful pure saints.  They were faithful.  They weren't pure and very few of them were full saints.  In fact a lot of them had some very mistaken beliefs.  If you can find evidence of more than just a few token stories where true love, kindness and respect was given please make me aware of them.

I'm not denying that atrocities happen.  That talk from Elder Cook doesn't deny that bad things happen.  But what I'm trying to say is that "for the most part, church members treated the native Americans with love, kindness and respect" is true.  You will absolutely find atrocities.  You will absolutely find horrible things.  You will find saints that were not saints.  But, for the most part, the saints did treat them with "love, kindness, and respect".  You say they are "few token stories", but there are a lot of stories.  We are dealing with a history of 1846 to the late 1860s and early 1870s.

Quote

What I didn't know was that when that policy didn't work in certain occasions that those same leaders sanctioned the massacre of native Americans

As I've pointed out, if you look into when the leaders (and I'm assuming we are talking about general authorities, not local authorities) sanctioned the massacre, it was extremely limited and the leaders also blamed the saints for the need to sanction these "massacres".

Quote

I really doubt that there were many early pioneers who loved the native Americans and treated them as equals.

I also highly doubt that there were many early pioneers that treated them as equals.  But that's not what I'm arguing about, nor is how I read the stories that the church puts out.  Treating someone with "love, kindness, and respect" doesn't require them to treat them as equals.  The story from Elder Cook references one (real) story about a woman who treated the Native Americans equally at her kitchen, but then he says "Unity is enhanced when people are treated with dignity and respect, even though they are different in outward characteristics.".  The saints, in general, treated the Native Americans with "dignity and respect".

 

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would like your sources on the comments about Manti.

I just did some further research on Manti.  It doesn't sound nearly as peaceful as you imply per the following:

Relations with the local Native Americans deteriorated rapidly and the Walker War soon ensued. The war consisted primarily of various raids conducted by the Native Americans against Mormon outposts in Central and Southern Utah. The Walker War ended in the mid-1850s in an understanding negotiated between Brigham Young and Wakara. Shortly thereafter, Welcome Chapman and Wakara oversaw the baptism of scores of Wakara's tribe members. Although immediate hostilities ended, none of the underlying conflicts were resolved.[5]

None of that denies what I said.  I said "The entire reason Manti was settled was because a Ute chief asked Brigham Young to send settlers there.  That same tribe and the settlers of Manti worked together and had a pretty strong relationship.  Yes, there were problems (including skirmishes), but in general, it was a good relationship."

The Ute chief was Wakara.  He invited the saints to settle Manti.  We aren't exactly sure why he invited them, but most likely it was so he had white people close by to be able to trade with them so that his tribe would be elevated compared to the other Ute tribes.  This was in 1849.

In July of 1853, a trade went bad in Springville and a relative of Wakara was killed.  The cause of the death doesn't appear to be malicious, but more in self-defense.  But Wakara was understandably upset.  He demanded a death of a white settler as payment which the settlers didn't agree to and the Utes wouldn't accept any other compromise.

A few weeks latter, Wells wrote a letter to Conover (who was in charge of the militia in the area) to not attack but instead try to capture Wakara so a peace settlement could occur.  Conover either didn't receive it or ignored it and instead attacked.  This resulted in Wakara and his tribe beginning to skirmish with the settlers (mainly cattle raiding).

Brigham Young sent a letter of apology and tried to sue for peace but Wakara didn't accept it.  So Brigham Young told the saints to not attack but to enact a defensive and conciliatory position.  Some saints did ignore it, though.

In May 1854, peace was worked out between Wakara and Brigham Young.  Wakara died in 1855 and at his death, he asked Isaac Morley to speak.

So the time line is:

• 1849, Wakara invites the saints to Manti
• 1853, Wakara's war starts
• 1854, Wakara's war ends
• 1855, Wakara dies and is on good terms with the saints

Out of 6 years of relationship, 1 year had a "war".  The other 5 was relatively peaceful.  I think that fits the definition of "for the most part, church members treated the native Americans with love, kindness and respect".

 

[The Nehor]

There were going to be conflicts when the Saints went west. Just like there were conflicts in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. And the conflicts continued in Utah. You can’t move a large group of people into an area without having an impact. There are going to be conflicts. There will be sweet stories of cooperation and angry stories of hurt. It is inevitable. It is the human condition.

[kimpearson]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There were going to be conflicts when the Saints went west. Just like there were conflicts in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. And the conflicts continued in Utah. You can’t move a large group of people into an area without having an impact. There are going to be conflicts. There will be sweet stories of cooperation and angry stories of hurt. It is inevitable. It is the human condition.

Does that mean we call conflicts good and the individuals guilty of such conflicts innocent of any wrong doings?  Are you excusing conflicts as being wrong because they are part of the human condition?  Does that mean every other action that is part of the human condition is fine because it is just how it is?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Does that mean we call conflicts good and the individuals guilty of such conflicts innocent of any wrong doings?  Are you excusing conflicts as being wrong because they are part of the human condition?  Does that mean every other action that is part of the human condition is fine because it is just how it is?

It does not mean they are good. It means they are inevitable. The one sinless man that walked the Earth was a disruption to people everywhere He went.

We should obviously do all we can to avoid or mitigate the impacts these events have, show compassion, do the right thing, etc. All that would not make the history of the exodus into a story of sunshine and roses.

I am saying that even if the saints were sinless (and they were emphatically not according to both history and the revelations of the Lord) there would still have been conflicts when they went west.

[kimpearson]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It does not mean they are good. It means they are inevitable. The one sinless man that walked the Earth was a disruption to people everywhere He went.

We should obviously do all we can to avoid or mitigate the impacts these events have, show compassion, do the right thing, etc. All that would not make the history of the exodus into a story of sunshine and roses.

I am saying that even if the saints were sinless (and they were emphatically not according to both history and the revelations of the Lord) there would still have been conflicts when they went west.

I agree.  Do you think that Church history as presented by leaders, teachers and general church membership teaches the reality of the damage caused by those conflicts or do they complete ignore it and use the pioneer story to only demonstrate faith, hard work and God's blessings on the saints of His Church?

[rodheadlee]

On 11/30/2021 at 8:27 PM, kimpearson said:

I will be honest.  I am beginning to doubt the narrative that early LDS settlers mostly treated the native Americans kindly.  The more I read it looks like those early settlers smiled and played nice as they knowingly took over land and drove the native Americans out of any area the settlers wanted.  I can find no evidence that any church leaders or members ever said the native Americans should be treated equally as human beings and land should be purchased only if offered for sale.  It appears native Americans were almost universally viewed by leaders and members as something less than the good civilized white folk.  I think the Church and its members are telling a very slanted story of how they treated native Americans.

That is a totally unreasonable expectation. It's presentism. Hunter gatherers require much more land than farmers, they roamed the land with the seasons and availability of game, as well as fighting other tribes for territory. 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:27 AM, kimpearson said:

I will be honest.  I am beginning to doubt the narrative that early LDS settlers mostly treated the native Americans kindly.  The more I read it looks like those early settlers smiled and played nice as they knowingly took over land and drove the native Americans out of any area the settlers wanted.  I can find no evidence that any church leaders or members ever said the native Americans should be treated equally as human beings and land should be purchased only if offered for sale.  It appears native Americans were almost universally viewed by leaders and members as something less than the good civilized white folk.  I think the Church and its members are telling a very slanted story of how they treated native Americans.

I don't know which side of the debate this falls on, but I think its an interesting peek at how some members felt about Native Americans in the 1850s. Joseph Ellis Johnson organized a wild west show featuring 17 Omaha "ingines" as a way to get them all the way to Washington DC to make an appeal directly to the President of the United States for their native lands.

I think it shows that some early members were both truly concerned about the indigenous Americans, but they were also stuck in a culture that didn't know how to give indigenous people the full respect they deserved.

Johnson’s tour originated from his desire to bring the harsh condition of local Omaha Indians to the attention of the public and provoke federal government action to help the Omaha people. See Jack A. Nelson, “The Pioneer Press of the Great Basin,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Missouri, 1971), 186.

It is at least one example of early members of the church going out of their way (from Nebraska to Washington DC by stage coach with 17 Omaha Indians) to help native Americans retain their lands. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I agree.  Do you think that Church history as presented by leaders, teachers and general church membership teaches the reality of the damage caused by those conflicts or do they complete ignore it and use the pioneer story to only demonstrate faith, hard work and God's blessings on the saints of His Church?

They largely ignore the Native American interaction with the Mormon settlers and focus on the stories that promote faith. They do this because that is their job. Most Gospel Doctrine teachers are not equipped with the knowledge, depth of understanding, or the time to time to acquire either in order to do a nuanced presentation on Mormon interactions with the Native Americans. If the leadership had instructed them to try we would have a whole genre of horror stories about how teachers in the church botched this or that discussion. It would be a disservice to the settlers or the natives or both for most to try.

When we discuss the exodus from Missouri we don’t spend a ton of time looking at the reasons the Missouri mobs hated Mormons or that friction was inevitable. It is not why it is being taught. Those with an interest in history dig into this. When we talk about Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt do we dig deep into the cultural conflict that created their present state or their interactions with the various people they almost certainly would have encountered while wandering in the wilderness? No.

[Danzo]

On 12/3/2021 at 9:48 PM, kimpearson said:

Who said anything about returning to living like primitives with none of the modern conveniences?  You sound like you have a lot of experience with native Americans so share with us how they feel about how their ancestors were treated.  It just seems like you went for every negative you could think of in responding.  May I ask why?  My experience with native Americans is just talking with probably a hundred or so over the last 10 years.  Not every one of them but a large portion stated a desire to return to beliefs and practices of their forefathers that I often equated with religion but was always corrected that it was much more than religion.  Has that been your experience or have those native American's you know expressed a desire to leave all those practices?

Most of the Native Americans are more upset about how are treated now than how they were treated in the past.  When you say the ones you know want to return to beliefs and practices of their forefathers, what practices and beliefs do they mean? I suspect they want to combine the good traditions of the past with technologies and insights of the present.  They are looking forward, not backwards. The Native Americans are and were quite practical about adopting new technologies.  When the Spanish brought them horses, they changed the way they hunted and fought.  At the battle of the Little Big Horn, the Natives were using better weapons than the Americans they defeated.  

The Native Americans I associate with are far more concerned with the present than the past.  The past is a foreign country that no one can return to.  Usually those that want to return to it don't understand it very well. 

[poptart]

You'll never hear me complain about that part of the church nor much else, I have that high an opinion of them.  You guys showed the natives and Polynesians the kindness most others here never did.  If it wasn't for the church mom would have never had a chance at an education, BYUH is such a beautiful place.

 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, poptart said:

You'll never hear me complain about that part of the church nor much else, I have that high an opinion of them.  You guys showed the natives and Polynesians the kindness most others here never did.  If it wasn't for the church mom would have never had a chance at an education, BYUH is such a beautiful place.

 

Beautiful! My favorite song:)