LDS and the massacre

  • Thread starter Thread starter kalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kalt

Guest
First. This is not a thread that should be used to bash the LDS church. If you want to do that, please start your own thread. I want no part of starting a thread that leads to religion bashing.

Besides, there isn’t a person here whose church hasn’t had members that committed horrible acts “for God”. So get over it.

OK, the topic -

I just saw a movie about the massacre in 1857. The historian who wrote a book about the the incident, believes that it was the Mormons who killed the travelers. One Mormon was tried, convicted of, and executed for the murders.

The historian said that the LDS church denies that it had any part in the massacre.

Does the LDS actually talk about the massacre? What is its answer to the accusation? Has it given an alternative scenario?

Do some LDS members acknowledge that the Mormons did commit the crime? If there are, how are they looked on by the rest of the church? Is this (belief that the Mormons committed the massacre) something that can be expressed openly?

Please don’t hijack this thread to bash the LDS church (or any other church).
 
zerinus sent me a link that was very fair to both sides on this, but I don’t have it any more. Hopefully, he can put it up here again.

From what I can tell, it is like everything else related to religion. Some deny it all, some accept but make excuses, some are up front and honest with what occured.

It is a touchy subject none the less.
 
Thought that the LDS set up a small memorial for the victims. I think that what and how it happened is debated, but not that it did happen.
 
AMDGtoo said:
Thought that the LDS set up a small memorial for the victims. I think that what and how it happened is debated, but not that it did happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, this. From my reading on this, the biggest controversy still remaining is what level of involvement Brigham Young had in it. Some believe he actually ordered the attack, but AFAIK there really isn’t enough evidence to really support that. It is pretty well established, though, that he involved himself in attempting to cover it up after it happened.
 
kalt said:
First. This is not a thread that should be used to bash the LDS church. If you want to do that, please start your own thread. I want no part of starting a thread that leads to religion bashing.

Besides, there isn’t a person here whose church hasn’t had members that committed horrible acts “for God”. So get over it.

OK, the topic -

I just saw a movie about the massacre in 1857. The historian who wrote a book about the the incident, believes that it was the Mormons who killed the travelers. One Mormon was tried, convicted of, and executed for the murders.

The historian said that the LDS church denies that it had any part in the massacre.

Does the LDS actually talk about the massacre? What is its answer to the accusation? Has it given an alternative scenario?

Do some LDS members acknowledge that the Mormons did commit the crime? If there are, how are they looked on by the rest of the church? Is this (belief that the Mormons committed the massacre) something that can be expressed openly?

Please don’t hijack this thread to bash the LDS church (or any other church).
Click to expand...
I’d really like to thank you for not bashing the LDS Church. Trying to get at the truth of history makes sense. We can’t change history but we can try to understand it.
 
kalt said:
First. This is not a thread that should be used to bash the LDS church. If you want to do that, please start your own thread. I want no part of starting a thread that leads to religion bashing.

Besides, there isn’t a person here whose church hasn’t had members that committed horrible acts “for God”. So get over it.

OK, the topic -

I just saw a movie about the massacre in 1857. The historian who wrote a book about the the incident, believes that it was the Mormons who killed the travelers. One Mormon was tried, convicted of, and executed for the murders.

The historian said that the LDS church denies that it had any part in the massacre.
Click to expand...
The Church denies that it had anything to do with the massacre at official level. There is no “smoking gun” pointing at Brigham Young or any of the top leadership of the Church. However, the enemies of the Church have seized on this as a possible opportunity attack the Church, with the usual mix of falsehoods and half truths.
Does the LDS actually talk about the massacre?
Click to expand...
Yes.
What is its answer to the accusation? Has it given an alternative scenario?
Click to expand...
You will find the following links informative. The first is from an article published in the official Church magazine the Ensign. The second is a transcript of an interview that Helen Whitney conducted with LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks for her PBS documentary, The Mormons. It is quite a long transcript, and talks about a lot of different things (all of which is very interesting by the way), but also touches on this subject. If you don’t want to read the entire transcript, you can search for “meadows,” in your browser, and it will take you to the part that talks about that subject. Here are the links:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1c234dc029133110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

There is also a scholarly book written of the history of the event published by Oxford University Press, if you want to carry out an in-depth study. Here are some links related to that:

oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/American/?view=usa&ci=9780195160345
amazon.com/Massacre-Mountain-Meadows-Ronald-Walker/dp/0195160347
rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon393.html
Do some LDS members acknowledge that the Mormons did commit the crime? If there are, how are they looked on by the rest of the church? Is this (belief that the Mormons committed the massacre) something that can be expressed openly?
Click to expand...
The Church itself acknowledges that it happened, and that it was wrong. It does not attempt to hide or justify it. But it does not accept that the top leadership were involved, as the enemies of the Church like to falsely portray.

zerinus
 
Quick run down of what happened as best as I can recall.

LDS people are robbed murdered raped etc for years.

They move out to Utah to get away.

The Government is sending an army to put down a rebellion.

The LDS people where committed to not being kill etc again.

A wagon train was coming through at the same time a serious illness broke out it was thought that those coming through had poisoned the water (later shown to be inaccurate)

The local militia group took action to “protect” themselves and well went way over board.

BY message to be nice to the group showed up a few days after the event.
 
teancum79 said:
Quick run down of what happened as best as I can recall.

LDS people are robbed murdered raped etc for years.

They move out to Utah to get away.

The Government is sending an army to put down a rebellion.

The LDS people where committed to not being kill etc again.

A wagon train was coming through at the same time a serious illness broke out it was thought that those coming through had poisoned the water (later shown to be inaccurate)

The local militia group took action to “protect” themselves and well went way over board.

BY message to be nice to the group showed up a few days after the event.
Click to expand...
this is a list of unfounded allegations that is completely untrue.
i have been hesitant to comment on this post because it very easily can become a bashfest. there is very little evidence on this case and it appears that there was some sort of coverup. We simply cannot know the details though and in any case this really looks like the case on individual actions even if BY was directly involved. this does not involve LDs doctrine nor is there any reason it was “commanded” by prophecy. it was a crime and there was a coverup but it hardly seems worse or even different than similar situations involving other churches including catholics.
 
There were several reasons why the Fancher party were slaughtered by the Mormon militia. One was that the Fancher party was from Arkansas where, a few months earlier, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered by the former husband of one of Pratt’s “plural wives”.

The Mormons, as they have always done, took this personal incident as an act of religious persecution and so were disposed to take vengeance on anyone from Arkansas who crossed their path.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
 
PaulDupre said:
went overboard?? slaughtering innocent women and children?? yeah, I guess they went overboard! :eek:
Click to expand...
Yeah, and then basically kidnapping the youngest children who were spared the killing, and distributing them among Mormon families.
 
The most troubling part about it to me is the set up itself. They were told that they would have safe passage if they gave up their guns for the portion.
 
majick275 said:
this is a list of unfounded allegations that is completely untrue.
i have been hesitant to comment on this post because it very easily can become a bashfest. there is very little evidence on this case and it appears that there was some sort of coverup. We simply cannot know the details though and in any case this really looks like the case on individual actions even if BY was directly involved. this does not involve LDs doctrine nor is there any reason it was “commanded” by prophecy. it was a crime and there was a coverup but it hardly seems worse or even different than similar situations involving other churches including catholics.
Click to expand...
Which part is “unture”

The Utah war where federal troops where sent to put down a fictions rebellion?

The many crimes the saints endured before moved west?
 
teancum79 said:
BY message to be nice to the group showed up a few days after the event.
Click to expand...
But before the massacre BY sent a message saying they were not to sell them anything, not a grain of wheat, funny they got that one.
 
ibkc said:
Yes, this. From my reading on this, the biggest controversy still remaining is what level of involvement Brigham Young had in it. Some believe he actually ordered the attack, but AFAIK there really isn’t enough evidence to really support that. It is pretty well established, though, that he involved himself in attempting to cover it up after it happened.
Click to expand...
I agree.
I have seen a good deal of discussion of this, and there is no doubt in my mind, that Young’s part in this tragedy is the crux of the controversy.
Really, IMHO, the best thing the LDS could do, is to say something like, “Whatever Brigham Young did, he shouldn’t have done it. The situation was bad enough. He should have stayed out of it altogether”.
I know that I, personally, would find that to be a very healing message: that the LDS recognizes that their leader at the time made some really bad mistakes. And that would get us past the feeling that the Mormon leaders now, do not approve of anyone (including Brigham Young) of doing anything that was in any way either inflammatory beforehand, or that gave scandal afterwards.
The scandal is the big stumbling block. I don’t really think that, as far as I can tell, tthat Mormons really “get” how it comes across to hear all about Young as “great spiritual leader”, & then there is this mess…

Everyone messes up. Everyone does stupid and/or wrong things. Maybe people felt justified at the time…🤷 . It’s the attempt to “make it go away” that I find most distasteful.

Just my opinion:twocents: …add 98 cents to it, & it gives you 🙂 a dollar.
 
teancum79 said:
Which part is “unture”

The Utah war where federal troops where sent to put down a fictions rebellion?

The many crimes the saints endured before moved west?
Click to expand...
yes those things. federal troops were required because the LDS were blatantly defying federal law and making all kinds of threat with their bloody oaths of vengeance.

the “crimes” were often committed by the LDS and a lot of the “persecution” came from former LDS who were angered at being deceived, especially when they discovered “prophets” and “apostles” trying to sleep with their wives and daughters under the guise of “revelation”.
 
PaulDupre said:
There were several reasons why the Fancher party were slaughtered by the Mormon militia. One was that the Fancher party was from Arkansas where, a few months earlier, popular Mormon leader Parley P. Pratt had been murdered by the former husband of one of Pratt’s “plural wives”.

The Mormons, as they have always done, took this personal incident as an act of religious persecution and so were disposed to take vengeance on anyone from Arkansas who crossed their path.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Click to expand...
The former husband was actually the current husband. Pratt’s new plural wife had married Pratt even though she was still married to the man who shot Pratt. Mormons of that day believed “gentile” marriages were invalid so they didn’t worry about the legality of someone actually getting a divorce first.
 
teancum79 said:
Which part is “unture”

The Utah war where federal troops where sent to put down a fictions rebellion?

The many crimes the saints endured before moved west?
Click to expand...
Fact is teancum, the federal government assigned territorial governors, whose authority was not only denied by the LDS communities, but downright rebelled against. BY being the most outspoken against being ruled by “outsiders” and non-Mormons.

“We have got a territorial government, and I am and will be the governor, and no power can hinder it until the Lord Almighty says, ‘Brigham, you need not be governor any longer,’ and then I am willing to yield to another.” Brigham Young
 
BartBurk said:
The former husband was actually the current husband. Pratt’s new plural wife had married Pratt even though she was still married to the man who shot Pratt. Mormons of that day believed “gentile” marriages were invalid so they didn’t worry about the legality of someone actually getting a divorce first.
Click to expand...
So, a married woman running off with a married man was considered to be valid?
 
RebeccaJ said:
So, a married woman running off with a married man was considered to be valid?
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Mormons of that era did not honor marriages done without their authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top