To mysticmoroni re: Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Elgama]

i'm in inclined to believe BY was not involved because it was a BBC documentary I saw and downplaying is not the BBC's style - for a TV news department they do well with impartiality but they make up for it by always reporting the worst case scenario they can get away with (they start with highest possible number of deaths and then after that the news only gets better lol) - if they felt the evidence for Brigham Young sanctioning it was good they would have said so.

I don't know but I think MMM comes from the same human reaction that keeps a baseball bat by the door or bed for intruders or the women during WW2 that slept with a knife under their pillow (my Gran never did, but many women did) - and me there is a reason my Mum took the golf club home out of my shed lol I had the death of my nextdoor neighbour planned down to when I would do it. I won't do it but its a fight in myself not to - she has put in place actions that have could have killed or maimed my kids on at least 2 occasions and one little girl was treated for smoke inhalation would be very easy to justify it in my mind as keeping my children protected - or maybe my husband could shoot her with the same motivation attacking her men folk wouldn't work people have tried that she tells em what to do. I am reading more about MMM right now because my own situation is giving me a deeper understanding of the men that did it than I ever expected to have. And I know people watching my situation find it more shocking than I do living in it. My brother wants to kill the people involved because of us, and many other people have offered.

I think saving the children has a much simpler explanation they were children and men weren't evil just scared and justifying their actions as they were protecting their families - the children were no threat

[Blackmarch]

I have to agree, the Mormon War was hardly a war by most peoples' standards. From what little I have known it was more like an occupation, with few skirmishes. The Mormons knew they could not defeat the US Army, and really only wanted to be left alone as much as possible.

If I recall right one of the main principles behind the strategy used by the LDS forces when the army was being sent to Utah, was basically to give them hell, but not to kill or get in a direct confrontation. SO a lot of actions like spooking their horses or stealing their rations, making paths harder to travel, and making life in general for the Army miserable such manner.

[Blackmarch]

i'm in inclined to believe BY was not involved because it was a BBC documentary I saw and downplaying is not the BBC's style - for a TV news department they do well with impartiality but they make up for it by always reporting the worst case scenario they can get away with (they start with highest possible number of deaths and then after that the news only gets better lol) - if they felt the evidence for Brigham Young sanctioning it was good they would have said so.

I don't know but I think MMM comes from the same human reaction that keeps a baseball bat by the door or bed for intruders or the women during WW2 that slept with a knife under their pillow (my Gran never did, but many women did) - and me there is a reason my Mum took the golf club home out of my shed lol I had the death of my nextdoor neighbour planned down to when I would do it. I won't do it but its a fight in myself not to - she has put in place actions that have could have killed or maimed my kids on at least 2 occasions and one little girl was treated for smoke inhalation would be very easy to justify it in my mind as keeping my children protected - or maybe my husband could shoot her with the same motivation attacking her men folk wouldn't work people have tried that she tells em what to do. I am reading more about MMM right now because my own situation is giving me a deeper understanding of the men that did it than I ever expected to have. And I know people watching my situation find it more shocking than I do living in it. My brother wants to kill the people involved because of us, and many other people have offered.

I think saving the children has a much simpler explanation they were children and men weren't evil just scared and justifying their actions as they were protecting their families - the children were no threat

BY did not give any orders for or support to before or during the MMM, it occurred before his orders of not to do any such thing could reach the people.

What BY was involved in was hiding it from the U.S government after he found out about it, which is a move I agree with for the time.

[Elphaba]

I actually agree with you. I like directness (is this a surprise to any of you?) I think that is actually why this thread was sooooooo annoying to me, and a lot of threads on here are annoying.

Yet you keep coming back.

I don't agree with people that have apostacized from the church, but I don't understand how that is so offensive to say.

It's not. It's when you are snide to them to explain why you don't agree that is offensive.

If you think of homosexuality in a different way that the LDS church, that is actually completely fine by me. If you want to express why you disagree with the LDS church, that is fine too.

I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say thank you for your permission.

The non-LDS people, some of them on each side of this, were annoying me because they were using quotes from MY church to explain their religious beliefs, that are not in line with the church.

Like who? Since I've been on the thread, I haven't noticed that, though I may have missed it.

Rather, what I've noticed is that you pick and choose which quotes to acknowledge as valid, and then which quotes to dismiss because they don't support your beliefs, all from the very same interview of Elders Oaks and Wickman, located on the Church's official website, lds.org. Criticizing people for quoting the parts of the interview you dismiss is not warranted. You should look to the entire interview, not just the pieces you like.

I would have rather heard quotes from the Bible or from a psychologist or whatever without the LDS stuff attached for the non-LDS,

You get to have rather have heard them. But there's nothing wrong with anyone using LDS scripture to support their position, LDS or non.

and then from the LDS, a little more honesty and awesomeness like me, on how I don't really believe it but I still accept you as a human being and don't hate you.

Awesomeness, huh?

On this thread you have been antagonistic with people you disagree with, so it's easy to see why they don't believe you when you say you accept gay people as human beings and don't hate them. I do believe you, though.

That is all I have been trying to say this entire time. If you think SSA is all fine and dandy with the LDS church, it is not.

The LDS Church is fine with SSA.

Acting on it

The LDS Church is not fine with this, and it is considered a sin.

and entertaining the thoughts are viewed as a sin,

The LDS Church does not connsider entertaining homosexual thoughts to be a sin, though it certainly encourages people with SSA to avoid them.

It is only acting on their attractions with someone of the same gender, and outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is considered a sin.

I suspect you do hear, in your ward, that SSA is a sin. I suspect your hear that entertaining thoughts of SSA is a sin. I come from a completely LDS family, and some of them think the same. But it's not true.

What would be awesome is if you understood this, and then the next time one of your fellow members says SSA is a sin, you could eplainn to him/her that it's not. What would be awesome is if you explained to them that entertaining SSA thoughts is not a sin either. What would be awesome is if you explained to them that people with SSA can hold almost any position in the Church, including that of an Elder on a mission, as long as s/he does not break the law of chastity, or any other commandment.

Additionally, it would be nice if you explained to them that if someone with SSA did break the law of chastity, s/he is no more, and no less, deserving of the repentance process, and once that is completed, s/he once more will become a member in good standing.

I also suspect you don't like me being the one to say these things as I am no longer LDS. So be it. But, everything I've said is in the Oaks and Wickman interview on lds.org, the Church's official website.

Other churches and people within the LDS church may disagree for whatever reason, but just come clean and admit that you don't agree with the LDS church doctrine if you don't. Don't try to spin it to support your beliefs.

Explaining what they believe is not spin. It's explaining what they believe. I do agree that repeating the same thing over and over gets tiresome, and I'm often guilty of that myself. I've tried to work on that.

And no, I do not agree with the Church's position on people who are homosexual; however, I acknowledge, often, it has the right to define its doctrine however it wants, including about homosexuality. I also acknowledge its right to ask its members to engage in political activism that support its doctrines, such as Proposition 8, after which I spent some time explaining to people who were angry about the Church's involvement that it had not violated the separation between church and state, and that there was no reason its tax-exempt status should be revoked.

Not all of us fit into tidy little pigeonholes labeled ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon, non-Mormon, Jack-Mormon, etc. We can honestly support the Church in many things while not believing in it. I get the distinct impression you don't realize that.

This is why I said I don't quote scriptures or condemn my gay friends and family members. I let them live their lifestyle without a word from me unless they ask. Nuff said.

Now, that's being awesome.

Elphaba

Edited April 17, 2010 by Elphaba

[Pahoran99]

If I recall right one of the main principles behind the strategy used by the LDS forces when the army was being sent to Utah, was basically to give them hell, but not to kill or get in a direct confrontation. SO a lot of actions like spooking their horses or stealing their rations, making paths harder to travel, and making life in general for the Army miserable such manner.

All of which are legitimate military operations in time of war.

War doesn't require pitched battles.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Guest zesiranjha]

I doubt that just being from Missouri was the great rumour that added more fuel to the fire.

Thus, historians argue that southern Utah Mormons would have been particularly affected by an unsubstantiated[62] rumor that the Fancher wagon train had been joined by a group of eleven miners and plainsmen who called themselves "Missouri Wildcats," some of whom reportedly taunted, vandalized and "caused trouble" for Mormons and Native Americans along the route (by some accounts claiming that they had the gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith"[63]) They were also affected by the report to Brigham Young that the Fancher party was from Arkansas,[64] and the rumor that Eleanor McLean Pratt, the apostle Pratt's plural wife, recognized one of the party as being present at her husband's murder.[65]

62. ^ It is uncertain whether the Missouri Wildcat group stayed with the slow-moving Fancher party after leaving Salt Lake City. See Brooks 1991, page xxi; Bagley (2002), p. 280 (referring to the "Missouri Wildcats" story as "Utah mythology".

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

wikipedia information is not %100 right. We should have to get information from old people and senior people.

[Guest mormonmusic]

The Church, as an organization, likely had nothing to do with the attack.

You see, statements like this do not help our cause one bit. You mentioned that members of the Church, under the direction of a Bishop....participated in the attack. Therefore, the Church and its formal leadership, which is its members and its leaders -- WERE responsible.

That should be the starting point for any discussion. To turn what happened there into an apologists argument to me besirmches our commitment to truth, taking responsiblity for our actions etcetera. It is sympomatic of the sometimes myopic, egocentric view some people hold of our organization as one that can do no wrong. While a good organization and worthy of respect, it DOES make mistakes.

I personally wonder how that quantity of men would, in lock step, unanimously agree to commit MURDER unless some kind of appeal was made to obedience to formal authority -- a key value in our religion.

Yes, this is a stain on our history. We need to own it, apologize, make amends, and then do our best to ensure the kind of blind, unthinking obedience that led to this mass action doesn't happen again. And the attempted cover-ups need to be owned, acknowledged, and publicly repented of. That is how a person and organization of character acts when it makes mistakes. This is how a person or organization of character comes out of these situations with the greatest amount of respect and integrity possible.

[Guest zesiranjha]

"mormonmusic's"

Yes!!I am agree with you,

[john doe]

You see, statements like this do not help our cause one bit. You mentioned that members of the Church, under the direction of a Bishop....participated in the attack. Therefore, the Church and its formal leadership, which is its members and its leaders -- WERE responsible.

That should be the starting point for any discussion. To turn what happened there into an apologists argument to me besirmches our commitment to truth, taking responsiblity for our actions etcetera. It is sympomatic of the sometimes myopic, egocentric view some people hold of our organization as one that can do no wrong. While a good organization and worthy of respect, it DOES make mistakes.

I personally wonder how that quantity of men would, in lock step, unanimously agree to commit MURDER unless some kind of appeal was made to obedience to formal authority -- a key value in our religion.

Yes, this is a stain on our history. We need to own it, apologize, make amends, and then do our best to ensure the kind of blind, unthinking obedience that led to this mass action doesn't happen again. And the attempted cover-ups need to be owned, acknowledged, and publicly repented of. That is how a person and organization of character acts when it makes mistakes. This is how a person or organization of character comes out of these situations with the greatest amount of respect and integrity possible.

Hmmmm, I had to go back and read what I wrote over a year and a half ago to figure out what we were talking about. I like how you conveniently cut out the rest of my statement and chose to isolate this one sentence to whine about. Nitpick much? I stand by my original statement.

[MaMeeshkaMow]

So a bishop and some members responsible for the attack represent the whole church? Now, if it was the prophet Brigham Young who did it, that would represent the whole church. I think the Prophet represents the whole, and a bishop represents a tiny part of the church.

Remember that missionary in the Book of Mormon who was messing with a prostitute? His actions were horrible but it did not represent the whole church.

[MaMeeshkaMow]

So a bishop and some members responsible for the attack represent the whole church? Now, if it was the prophet Brigham Young who did it, that would represent the whole church. I think the Prophet represents the whole, and a bishop represents a tiny part of the church.

Remember that missionary in the Book of Mormon who was messing with a prostitute? His actions were horrible but it did not represent the whole church.

[applepansy]

I have to agree, the Mormon War was hardly a war by most peoples' standards. From what little I have known it was more like an occupation, with few skirmishes. The Mormons knew they could not defeat the US Army, and really only wanted to be left alone as much as possible.

My great great grandfather is Lot Smith. He was sent out to stop Johnson's army. He and the men with him stopped the army by burning their wagons and supplies. No shots fired but not a "leave us alone" attitude either.

[Blackmarch]

All of which are legitimate military operations in time of war.

War doesn't require pitched battles.

Regards,

Pahoran

Absolutely. What sets it apart from other ways is that there werent any direct battles. I can't recall if there was any direct loss of life (IE from being shot), if there was, it was rare.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I like how you conveniently cut out the rest of my statement and chose to isolate this one sentence to whine about. Nitpick much? I stand by my original statement.

Comments like this obviously put a web blanket on any meaningful subsequent intellectual conversation. So, for that reason, I won't be participating in any further dialogue with you on that topic John Doe. And like you, I stand by my earlier comment.

[Guest mormonmusic]

So a bishop and some members responsible for the attack represent the whole church?

No. Not to most Church members. To the outside non-members, yes.

Now, if it was the prophet Brigham Young who did it, that would represent the whole church.

Perhaps to some members, and probably to many non-members.

I think the Prophet represents the whole, and a bishop represents a tiny part of the church.

Yes, to many in the internal group. The world doesn't care if it was the Prophet or a Bishop, to them, it's "The Church".

But ultimately that Bishop was the representative of the Church in that area, and even now, to the anyone who reads about it. And as someone called and installed by inspiration by the Church (perhaps even approved by the First Presidency), and a symbol of its values in that area, the Church can't disown that man. The people at the top have to come up with a way of managing what happened in a way that is consistent with our professed values.

Remember that missionary in the Book of Mormon who was messing with a prostitute? His actions were horrible but it did not represent the whole church.

And then later, we hear the father describe the impact of the son's behavior among onlookers, He said something like: "When they saw your behavior, they wouldn't believe my words". Whether it was the Church as a whole, or a sub-group, the fact is, it puts the whole Church on trial to the public when things like this happen. The public doesn't care if it's a subgroup or not.

I'm thankful for the way Oakes handled it. As an official representative of the Church I was moved that he at least acknowledged members of the Church were involved, and not just those lawless Indians. And he appeared genuinely sorry for the Church members' part in it. Well handled Dallin H. Oakes!!!

Edited October 10, 2011 by mormonmusic

[pam]

Well handled Dallin H. Oakes!!!

If you are going to give someone credit at least spell his name right. :)

[Guest mormonmusic]

Life is short -- and you knew what I meant :)

[Mamas_Girl]

Yes, this is a stain on our history. We need to own it, apologize, make amends, and then do our best to ensure the kind of blind, unthinking obedience that led to this mass action doesn't happen again. And the attempted cover-ups need to be owned, acknowledged, and publicly repented of. That is how a person and organization of character acts when it makes mistakes. This is how a person or organization of character comes out of these situations with the greatest amount of respect and integrity possible.

Actually... LDS Church issues apology over Mountain Meadows | Deseret News we already have, on the 150th anniversary of the incident.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Better late, than never....I see this as a healthy step which is far better late than never. I also wonder, if you were one of the rank and file Mormons who were told by local leaders to put a bullet in the head of the people on the wagon train -- would you have done it given our commitment to obedience? How might you have arrived at what the right thing is to do in this situation?

[Blackmarch]

Better late, than never....I see this as a healthy step which is far better late than never. I also wonder, if you were one of the rank and file Mormons who were told by local leaders to put a bullet in the head of the people on the wagon train -- would you have done it given our commitment to obedience? How might you have arrived at what the right thing is to do in this situation?

this was a complex situation I doubt it only just amounted to that... however i'd do as my ancestor did- go to SLC and ask BY what to do.

[Mamas_Girl]

I also wonder, if you were one of the rank and file Mormons who were told by local leaders to put a bullet in the head of the people on the wagon train -- would you have done it given our commitment to obedience? How might you have arrived at what the right thing is to do in this situation?

Good question. To be honest, I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but we don't know what the truth is about the situation. We don't know what *they* believed (or were told) either. Today we're looking back with a mixture of truths and untruths, which I'm sure is what caused the situation to begin with. I can somewhat imagine what it was like for the early Saints living in a time where they were chased from place to place and finally came to have a home. To be such an industrious, hard working people who made the desert blossom like a rose. I can imagine the fear as the army comes to the territory... will we be forced from our homes once again? How much further west can we go? Are we going to be annihilated? Missouri already had an extermination order passed against us...

I'd like to think that I would have the courage to question, and to pray and ponder on it, but how much time did I believe I had? I don't know, I don't live in the 19th century, I haven't experienced everything they've been through only for them to be put into this position. I do have the right to defend myself, but not to take offensive action, but what if I honestly believed that my family was in jeopardy? There are far too many variables here to determine what I would have done had I been in their shoes, suffered what they suffered, etc. MMM was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that doesn't excuse what happened.

I find it interesting to note that people who bring up MMM seldom bring up Haun's Mill and other autrocities, including Gov Lilburn Bogg's "extermination order" that were brought upon the LDS by people who were *also* paranoid. Would you have killed the LDS at Haun's Mill? I'm not saying that the LDS members were entirely blameless in the "Mormon Wars," but the wars were started by people who were afraid of who and what the LDS were. Ignorance and intolerance are the breeding grounds of hatred and war, and there's always far too much of that in the world.

What I can tell you is if MMM were happening today and I was ordered by my church leaders I would rather die myself than kill another person.

[Vort]

Good question. To be honest, I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but we don't know what the truth is about the situation. We don't know what *they* believed (or were told) either. [...] What I can tell you is if MMM were happening today and I was ordered by my church leaders I would rather die myself than kill another person.

I appreciate your introspective views and tend to agree more with the initial part of your post. I hope that I would not have participated in the murder of a wagon train, but how can you ever know such a thing? It's not like there was a vocal minority who stood firm and said, "No, this cannot happen! It's murder! We must not do this thing!"

Well, why not? Are we to believe that in a community of dozens of faithful Latter-day Saints, NOT A ONE felt that the murders were wrong? Or is it more likely that they may have felt it, but they decided that everyone else probably wasn't wrong, so they should just go along?

It isn't like they didn't have reason for suspicion and (what we might consider) paranoia: Haun's Mill was a not-very-distant memory, and Johnston's Army and the so-called "Utah War" was an immediate, present concern. These are people who had seen family and friends murdered, had suffered rape and pillage, had been literally driven out across a continent and lost people along the way.

Now they hear that another wagon train is coming from Missouri, and that they've been breathing out threats against the "Mormons". How sure are you, really, that you would not have been involved? Not necessarily you specifically, Mamas_Girl, but everyone reading this? How confident are you that, under such circumstances, with the leading men of your group preparing for invasion and hostilities, you would have been the clarion call of reason amid the fog of confusion?

Seriously, don't flatter yourselves. Hindsight may always be 20/20, but foresight is not. It would behoove us to keep our judgments lenient, or at least reasonable, toward those who faced a situation few or none of us have ever suffered. I am content to let God judge those who participated in the atrocity at Mountain Meadows and, for my part, simply thank him that I have never faced such a situation and pray that I and my descendants never will.

[RMGuy]

It would behoove us to keep our judgments lenient, or at least reasonable, toward those who faced a situation few or none of us have ever suffered. I am content to let God judge those who participated in the atrocity at Mountain Meadows and, for my part, simply thank him that I have never faced such a situation and pray that I and my descendants never will.

There is a LOT of wisdom in that statement right there!

-RM

[Mamas_Girl]

I appreciate your introspective views and tend to agree more with the initial part of your post.

Hi Vort, I believe I mustn't have made my point clear since we seem to be saying exactly the same thing. So either we can leave it as we're saying the same, or if you can explain what you don't understand in my post so I can make it more understandable. But... yeah I'm not denying that I might have taken part in 1857, I'd like to *think* that I wouldn't, but the pain, anguish, paranoia, religious fervor of the last 27 years (1830-1857) might push me into things that today (2011) I would deem myself incapable of doing without having experienced the horrors of what they did.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Mamas_Girl

[Suzie]

Better late, than never....

Is an expression of regret the same as an apology?