Brigham Young..a Murderer? Huh?

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm sorry, but when it comes to the allegations made by John Lee (an admitted participant in the massacre) and the Prophet Brigham Young, I'm going to trust Brigham's word over Lee's allegations and supposed "recollections" of what Pres. Young said in private.

This whole thread illustrates a universal truth:

SOME PEOPLE'S MINDS ARE LIKE CONCRETE: MIXED UP AND PERMANENTLY SET. B)

[Jason]

Jason,

What do you think happens to you after you die?

I don't care.

Remember line upon line precept upon precept.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...&2.0#LPTOC2

Read the second one.

The discourses were not completely accurate. The first presidency endorsed the publishing of it but not the accuracy because of numerous reasons.

Just read lol.

Frankly Vinny, Bruce Olsen's a poor historian. Lucky for you, I'm not. The Journal of Discourses were "printed in England" but they were simulatiously published by the Deseret News in UTAH!

Seems few LDS apologists actually know that.

[a-train]

First we are to invision that Mountain Meadows scared Church Leadership into a cessation of a certain doctrine.

How else do you explain the sudden silence on the topic? Another coincidence?

Rather convenient for you, huh?

Even the 'sudden silence' claimed here is yet another baseless assertion. It is clear that even after the death of Brigham Young, the doctrine was still taught.

Furthermore, in an 1877 interview, conversing about Mountain Meadows, President Young was asked: 'Do you believe in blood atonement?' President Young replied: 'I do, I believe that Lee has not half atoned for his great crime. The Saviour died for all the sins of the world by shedding his blood, and then I believe that he who sheds the blood of man wilfully, by man shall his blood be shed. In other words capital punishment for offenses deserving death, according to the laws of the land. And we believe the execution should be done by the shedding of blood instead of by hanging. If the murderers of Joseph Smith were to come to me now, giving themselves up, I would not feel justified in taking their lives, but I would feel justified in having them taken to Illinois and there tried for murder.' (Deseret News April 30, 1877)

Joseph Fielding Smith, decades after President Young's passing, said: 'Man may commit certain grievous sins—according to his light and knowledge—that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his Own life to atone—so far as in his power lies—for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.... Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.' (Doctrines of Salvation)

Bruce R. McConkie explained also: 'In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person. These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice. However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.'

Further, he said: 'Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses.' October 18, 1978 Letter

So now we are to imagine Brigham's involvement as an accomplice by pretending that the brethren were scared into a 'sudden silence' on the topic, which I guess wasn't silent enough because it was taught well into the 20th Century.

-a-train

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

First we are to invision that Mountain Meadows scared Church Leadership into a cessation of a certain doctrine.

How else do you explain the sudden silence on the topic? Another coincidence?

Rather convenient for you, huh?

Even the 'sudden silence' claimed here is yet another baseless assertion. It is clear that even after the death of Brigham Young, the doctrine was still taught.

So now we are to imagine Brigham's involvement as an accomplice by pretending that the brethren were scared into a 'sudden silence' on the topic, which I guess wasn't silent enough because it was taught well into the 20th Century.

-a-train

So what about between 1857 and 1877?

None of these quotes were presented in General Conference. Young's was part of a newspaper interview. JFS's original texts were in a Church magazine, later published in a book, and BRM's was in a book which nobody ever claimed was official doctrine.

Next?

[CrimsonKairos]

No one ever claimed the JoD was official doctrine either.

[Guest Yediyd]

You know...I've been reading this thread all along and the same question keeps nagging me... How can you guys say that blood attonement was a motive in the MMM? It's clear that the reason for blood attonement was for REALLY BAD SINS...like murder or rape or something of a terrible nature. These settlers who were murdered were just passing through, what justification would the murderers have for blood attonement? Even if they believed that the settlers were there to harm the Mormons in some way...they had not committed anything worthy of blood attonement....and again, wasn't blood attonement for enlightened members of the church who sinned?

[Jason]

You know...I've been reading this thread all along and the same question keeps nagging me... How can you guys say that blood attonement was a motive in the MMM? It's clear that the reason for blood attonement was for REALLY BAD SINS...like murder or rape or something of a terrible nature. These settlers who were murdered were just passing through, what justification would the murderers have for blood attonement? Even if they believed that the settlers were there to harm the Mormons in some way...they had not committed anything worthy of blood attonement....and again, wasn't blood attonement for enlightened members of the church who sinned?

Some of the settlers bragged about being involved in the murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas. Likely none of them were actually involved, but that was the wrong thing to be saying at that time.

So is the cold blooded murder of an Apostle just cause for blood atonement?

[CrimsonKairos]

Actually, the settlers were supposedly claiming to have raped and murdered members in Missouri, and helped kill Joseph Smith, etc... and threatening to do the same in Utah. If that were true, then there could have been some rationalization in the minds of those who committed the MMM.

I still think it was more simplistic than anyone thinking about blood atonement.

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

You know...I've been reading this thread all along and the same question keeps nagging me... How can you guys say that blood attonement was a motive in the MMM? It's clear that the reason for blood attonement was for REALLY BAD SINS...like murder or rape or something of a terrible nature. These settlers who were murdered were just passing through, what justification would the murderers have for blood attonement? Even if they believed that the settlers were there to harm the Mormons in some way...they had not committed anything worthy of blood attonement....and again, wasn't blood attonement for enlightened members of the church who sinned?

Some of the settlers bragged about being involved in the murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas. Likely none of them were actually involved, but that was the wrong thing to be saying at that time.

So is the cold blooded murder of an Apostle just cause for blood atonement?

Oh, I guess I missed that point.

No, nothing justified what those murderers did. I can understand the mentality, and why it happened...but I am confident that the giulty parties will not escape the judgement of God.

[vinny15]

yep nothing justifies it.

<div class='quotemain'>

Jason,

What do you think happens to you after you die?

I don't care.

Remember line upon line precept upon precept.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Mag...&2.0#LPTOC2

Read the second one.

The discourses were not completely accurate. The first presidency endorsed the publishing of it but not the accuracy because of numerous reasons.

Just read lol.

Frankly Vinny, Bruce Olsen's a poor historian. Lucky for you, I'm not. The Journal of Discourses were "printed in England" but they were simulatiously published by the Deseret News in UTAH!

Seems few LDS apologists actually know that.

Your not! argh well I need sources to prove that.

Well the fact that you dont care about what happens to you makes you twice less honorable in your answers in my eyes and second please show me sources. Ive seen two sources from you.

Remember line upon line precept upon precept. :)

[Jason]

Your not! argh well I need sources to prove that.

Prove what? Prove that I don't care about the afterlife, or prove that the Deseret News published the Conference sermons?

If it's the latter, there is no way to prove it online. All I can tell you is that I matched up sermons from the JoD in the Deseret News by accident while looking something else up. I got that information from Stewart Library at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. http://library.weber.edu/

I imagine that most major Universities in Utah will have the papers in their microfilm collection.

Well the fact that you dont care about what happens to you makes you twice less honorable in your answers in my eyes ...

Well you're a bright little fellow now aren't you?

...and second please show me sources. Ive seen two sources from you.

Directing you to the source is kinda hard. I've been out of college for years now, and I moved out of state.

[Guest Yediyd]

Well you're a bright little fellow now aren't you?

Yes, he IS quite intelligent for such a young man...I've been very impressed with some of his post up here.

YOU GO Vinny!!!

[Jason]

Something else I've forgotten about that should be discussed.

Can anyone say: "The Oath of Vengance"?

No?

Well, let's recap then.

From Nauvoo until 1927, the temple ceremony included the following oath:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation." (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)

Hmm...not very nice. Could it be possible that the MM murderers thought they were just fulfilling their Temple obligations?

The US Senate committee didn't think it was very nice either:

"The obligation herein before set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at least encourage, every member of that organization to take....the fact that the first presidency and twelve apostles retain an obligation of that nature in the ceremonies of the church shows that at heart they are hostile to this nation and disloyal to its Government" (The Reed Smoot Case, vol 4, pp. 496,497)

How do we know that Joseph Smith authorized this bloody oath?

"I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God. I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me." (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 546)

Again, that sounds rather hostile, no?

What did LDS Apostle Abraham Cannon say?:

"...Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in the massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs." (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Dec. 6, 1889, page 205)

So wouldn't that apply to the wagon train who also (they falsely claimed) killed an apostle a mere 13 years later?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

This oath was removed, according to a document signed by George F. Richards, no later than 15 February 1927.

[Guest Yediyd]

Something else I've forgotten about that should be discussed.

Can anyone say: "The Oath of Vengance"?

No?

Well, let's recap then.

From Nauvoo until 1927, the temple ceremony included the following oath:

"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation." (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)

Hmm...not very nice. Could it be possible that the MM murderers thought they were just fulfilling their Temple obligations?

The US Senate committee didn't think it was very nice either:

"The obligation herein before set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at least encourage, every member of that organization to take....the fact that the first presidency and twelve apostles retain an obligation of that nature in the ceremonies of the church shows that at heart they are hostile to this nation and disloyal to its Government" (The Reed Smoot Case, vol 4, pp. 496,497)

How do we know that Joseph Smith authorized this bloody oath?

"I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God. I want Hyrum to live to avenge my blood, but he is determined not to leave me." (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 546)

Again, that sounds rather hostile, no?

What did LDS Apostle Abraham Cannon say?:

"...Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in the massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs." (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Dec. 6, 1889, page 205)

So wouldn't that apply to the wagon train who also (they falsely claimed) killed an apostle a mere 13 years later?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

This oath was removed, according to a document signed by George F. Richards, no later than 15 February 1927.

Jason, what is your point? Does it really matter what motivated these men? We AGREE that it was a hanous crime. Does that shake my faith in LDS? ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!! This church is a church full of fallible POEPLE. I worship God, not the people.

[Jason]

We all agree that it was bad. No question.

The question is whether the Church was in any way, directly or indirectly, to blame. Even though I believe it was indirectly to blame, that still doesn't mean it's a "false" Church.

I don't think that proving an indirect blame on the Church should destroy or damage anyone's testimony of the Church.

I just want to show that it wasn't just Bishop Lee acting alone, or at the least that the foundation for his actions were part and parcel of Church teachings at the time.

It's time the Church took responsibility. Even Pope John Paul II apologized for the atrocities of the Inquisition!

[Guest Yediyd]

We all agree that it was bad. No question.

The question is whether the Church was in any way, directly or indirectly, to blame. Even though I believe it was indirectly to blame, that still doesn't mean it's a "false" Church.

I don't think that proving an indirect blame on the Church should destroy or damage anyone's testimony of the Church.

I just want to show that it wasn't just Bishop Lee acting alone, or at the least that the foundation for his actions were part and parcel of Church teachings at the time.

It's time the Church took responsibility. Even Pope John Paul II apologized for the atrocities of the Inquisition!

You know what...I agree with you, there.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

The final statement is that the mormons that killed the settlers were not commanded by God and not commanded by Brigham Young. They were crazy freaks that got to hyped up. Mormons are not perfect nor are they always sane.

No. No. No. They were not.

<div class='quotemain'>

The final statement is that the mormons that killed the settlers were not commanded by God and not commanded by Brigham Young. They were crazy freaks that got to hyped up. Mormons are not perfect nor are they always sane.

No, the final statement is that the leaders are indirectly responsible because they were hyping up the membership with the bizarre idea that shedding a man's blood will save him because the Atonement can't.

Blood atonement was a significant factor, but it was only one part of a much bigger whole. You keep focusing only on blood atonement, (and more recently on temple oaths). There's much, much more to the picture.

Emma

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...leeaccount.html

Hi Pushka,

I thought that was a pretty good account. The only disagreement I have is that I believe the Paiutes were much more involved, especially in the first days and the last days.

Emma

Even the 'sudden silence' claimed here is yet another baseless assertion. It is clear that even after the death of Brigham Young, the doctrine was still taught.

Mark Hofmann's father begged Mark to let himself be executed by firing squad as he believed it was the only way God would forgive Mark for the murders he had committed.

Additionally, on another board I frequent an elderly member believed a murderer had to shed his/her blood for God's forgiveness. She also believed this applied to rape She was very surprised when members of the board told her that was blood atonement and that it was not doctrine.

It was still taught, but it was to be used as in the examples above. What stopped was the fiery, fanatical rhetoric about slitting other people's throats for breaking covenants, etc..

Emma

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

<div class='quotemain'>

You know...I've been reading this thread all along and the same question keeps nagging me... How can you guys say that blood attonement was a motive in the MMM? It's clear that the reason for blood attonement was for REALLY BAD SINS...like murder or rape or something of a terrible nature. These settlers who were murdered were just passing through, what justification would the murderers have for blood attonement? Even if they believed that the settlers were there to harm the Mormons in some way...they had not committed anything worthy of blood attonement....and again, wasn't blood attonement for enlightened members of the church who sinned?

Some of the settlers bragged about being involved in the murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas. Likely none of them were actually involved, but that was the wrong thing to be saying at that time.

So is the cold blooded murder of an Apostle just cause for blood atonement?

Auuuggghhh

There is no evidence the settlers bragged about any such thing. They did not even know who Pratt was, much less that he been murdered.

This is one example of many that the Mormons came up with after the fact to excuse what they had done. It doesn't show up in any of the journals, and the story changes with each telling.

It is true, however, that the Mormons connected the wagon train's being from Arkansas with Pratt's being murdered in Arkansas. It incensed them. They were already highly emotional, on edge, had been advised by George A. Smith to have the militia on high alert, seen their beloved prophet murdered, as well as Haun's Mill, exterminations orders, etc. Even this only touches the surface.

There are reasons the Mormons did what they did, but it drives me nuts when people perpetuate the myths that blame it on the victims.

Emma

[vinny15]

Your not! argh well I need sources to prove that.

Prove what? Prove that I don't care about the afterlife, or prove that the Deseret News published the Conference sermons?

If it's the latter, there is no way to prove it online. All I can tell you is that I matched up sermons from the JoD in the Deseret News by accident while looking something else up. I got that information from Stewart Library at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. http://library.weber.edu/

I imagine that most major Universities in Utah will have the papers in their microfilm collection.

Well the fact that you dont care about what happens to you makes you twice less honorable in your answers in my eyes ...

Well you're a bright little fellow now aren't you?

...and second please show me sources. Ive seen two sources from you.

Directing you to the source is kinda hard. I've been out of college for years now, and I moved out of state.

I know you can match them up for me and Im sure there are things published online. I ofcoarse know about the MMM and that there is no excuse for it, but what about the "blood filled" sermons. There are a few, but not enough to get someone to go kill 150 or so persons.

It was a doctrinal reason for the death penalty. It wasnt blood filled either.

Naw Im not to bright, but I have my beliefs and I know that you have some hate residing in you because of whatever reason.

I have an atheist aunt(I know your not athiest) and believe it or not she is quite happy in public. The rest of the time shes calling people telling them that she regrets her divorce, her life in general.

So if you dont care than why do you try to convince us. We are happy so why mess with that. We love our religion and our founders. You dont care. So why not just leave and stop with telling us the same thing over and over again in every post.

P.S.

This is a question not a jab in the face.

[pushka]

Hi Emma, I'm glad you liked the link I provided, I'm always unsure which sites are acceptable to link to, and which aren't.

That site, when I explored it further, sounded pretty interesting, I noted it was a LAW site, from one of the universities in the States, so I hoped that it would be pretty unbiased in it's recording of the trials it mentioned.

[vinny15]

We all agree that it was bad. No question.

The question is whether the Church was in any way, directly or indirectly, to blame. Even though I believe it was indirectly to blame, that still doesn't mean it's a "false" Church.

I don't think that proving an indirect blame on the Church should destroy or damage anyone's testimony of the Church.

I just want to show that it wasn't just Bishop Lee acting alone, or at the least that the foundation for his actions were part and parcel of Church teachings at the time.

It's time the Church took responsibility. Even Pope John Paul II apologized for the atrocities of the Inquisition!

I believe the church has created a monument for the people killed in the mountain meadows massacre.

http://www.utahghost.org/Ghost_articles/Ar.../mtnmeadows.JPG

Theres actually a few more of them, but I dont have time to find them.

But yes responsibility is good.

<div class='quotemain'>The final statement is that the mormons that killed the settlers were not commanded by God and not commanded by Brigham Young. They were crazy freaks that got to hyped up. Mormons are not perfect nor are they always sane.

No. No. No. They were not.

Thankyou Emma. (You are agreeing wth me right? lol)

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Actually, the settlers were supposedly claiming to have raped and murdered members in Missouri, and helped kill Joseph Smith, etc... and threatening to do the same in Utah. If that were true, then there could have been some rationalization in the minds of those who committed the MMM.

Double Auggghh!

No, they didn't say the raped and murdered anyone. They didn't know about any of this. Again, these were excuses the Mormons made up after the fact--no journal entries, stories changing with each telling, no reliable resouce.

That's not to say there weren't confrontations, however,

The wagon train's biggest sin was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Army was coming, and Brigham Young really didn't know what it planned to do. Based on past experience, he of course thought the worst. His first priority was to show the Army that HE was in charge of the territory, and that only HE could control the citizens, including the Native Americans.

One way he did this was to insist all citizens refuse to sell any foodstuffs to emigrants. The Fancher train, oblivious to any of this, could not understand why everyone was being so hostile to them. They had been counting on buying foodstuffs to restock what they had used, and they resented the hostility, and were a bit frightened because there was going to be nowhere else to restock.

Additionally, the wagon train had approximately 400 head of cattle. In Provo, they were grazing the cattle on land the Mormons grazed the cattle on in the winter. The Mormons, again with hostility, insisted the Fancher train move their cattle elsewhere. The Mormons did give them an alternate area, but the emigrants, refused, cockily replying: "This is Uncle Sam's grass. We are his boys. We have a better claim on it than a bunch of Mormons which had to be kicked out of one state to another and finally out of the United

States. We are staying right here."

They were given an hour to make a decision, and they decided to leave.

Keep in mind, this encounter occurred after the company had been denied the ability to buy any foodstuffs to restock what they had used on the trip from Arkansas. There was no where to restock it on the rest of the trail, including through the unforgiving Mojave desert. The hostility against them was palpable, and they had no idea why.

By the time they reached Mountain Meadows, they just wanted to get out of there. It's one of the reasons it is ridiculous to assume they would say things to rile up what they now realized to be extremely hostile Mormons.

So, yes there was tension, but the reasons that have been used as excuses for at least the last 100 years are false, and should not be perpetuated.

And once again, this is only one part of a much bigger whole. I started a new thread, called The Reformation. I know it's really long and probably uninteresting. But to keep saying this was just a crazy, rogue band that got mad because this haughty group of people claimed to have killed Parley Pratt came along is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Emma

Thankyou Emma. (You are agreeing wth me right? lol)

Well, no....and yes!

Emma

[Guest Yediyd]

Emma, I'm very impressed with your knowledge of church history! You sure picked a good online name! I'm partial to the name anyway, that's my daughter's name.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Emma, I'm very impressed with your knowledge of church history! You sure picked a good online name! I'm partial to the name anyway, that's my daughter's name.

Thank you Yediyd! Coming from you I take that as high praise.

I think Emma is a lovely name. And yes, she is one of my favorites. Thank goodness your daughter gets to do more than just borrow it. :)

"Emma"

[Guest Yediyd]

<div class='quotemain'>

Emma, I'm very impressed with your knowledge of church history! You sure picked a good online name! I'm partial to the name anyway, that's my daughter's name.

Thank you Yediyd! Coming from you I take that as high praise.

I think Emma is a lovely name. And yes, she is one of my favorites. Thank goodness your daughter gets to do more than just borrow it. :)

"Emma"

Yeah, isn't that neet? I didn't join the church till I was 40, my daughter was 11. God helped me pick out the purfact name for her, now she is so proud of it! 'course, there are 4 Emma's in our ward!