LDS Church says its role in Mountain Meadows Massacre ‘terrible and inexcusable’

[Ahimsa]

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS - A Mormon apostle, speaking Tuesday at the 150th anniversary memorial service for victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, apologized for the church’s role, expressing “profound regret for the massacre.”

In a statement considered groundbreaking, Elder Henry B. Eyring, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said new research shows local Mormon leaders were responsible for recruiting Paiute Indians to participate in the crime during which 120 men, women and children of the Fancher-Baker wagon train, en route to California from Arkansas, were brutally killed by a group of Mormon militia members and some Paiute allies, although the Paiutes’ participation remains disputed.

“What was done here long ago by members of our church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct,” said Eyring, who choked up while reading a statement delivered on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.”

 

[isaac.madsen]

I don’t mean to dishonor anyone by pointing this out. I don’t know if it’s coincidence or providence or something else entirely, but I find it strange that Mormons share this anniversary of a tragedy with Islam. Of course, our personal association with the day is separated by a gulf of nearly 150 years, but if you look at the religions and the extremists, I think you’ll find a lot of links.

Not to leave Catholicism out of the equation, religious extremism always becomes the cause of terrible catastrophes. We each have a role in the destruction of others, whether or not we will admit it to ourselves. Mountain Meadows; September 11, 2001; the crusades - each of these can be linked to eachother by extremism. The point of it all is to learn from our mistakes and to resolve the hard feelings between eachother. We might say that our own errors hundreds and thousands of years ago became the cause of 9/11, and I think we would be right.

Not only must we learn from the mistake. They must also learn. By they, I mean whoever becomes “the enemy” by causing such a disaster. I hope that we will do all that is necessary, hopefully avoiding bloodshed, to avoid becoming the cause of another event like this in the future.

 

[Ahimsa]

I don’t mean to dishonor anyone by pointing this out. I don’t know if it’s coincidence or providence or something else entirely, but I find it strange that Mormons share this anniversary of a tragedy with Islam.

If you think that’s strange, note that Swami Vivekananda gave a speech on his vision of ending violence and fanaticism on 11 September, 1893, in Chicago:

In this famous speech, Swami Vivekananda spoke of his vision for an end to violence and fanaticism. His message of the 1800’s is as timely and fitting now, in the 2000’s, as it was then, over 100 years ago.

Coincidence of dates: Most of us involved in spiritual pursuits know of the many mysterious coincidences that seem to come from time to time. Occasionally, one of these so-called coincidences is so strong as to leave us momentarily speechless. Such a coincidence exists with the date of Swami Vivekananda’s message. In the East, the number 108 has been described as having great significance (See the article on the meanings of the number 108). This first message of Swami Vivekananda in America, often said to be a key point of the bridging of Eastern and Western spirituality, and the coming of yoga to the West, was given on September 11, 1893, exactly 108 years, to the day, before the date September 11, 2001, the date of the bombing of the World Trade Center. Whether by coincidence or precognition, it calls out for a closer reading of Swami Vivekananda’s message and it’s appropriateness for our current times.

     **

**

 

[isaac.madsen]

That is indeed fascinating. I wish I could see more discussion on these sorts of links between events in history. Links between religion seem to go beyond what we think we understand. I am one who celebrates the diversity of religion, despite the horrors that we sometimes allow it to cause. Those horrors, I think, are not caused by religion itself - but by the weakness and greed of individuals and groups who will not abide by the precepts taught in their own faith. How far you might go with that idea, however, is an entirely different discussion. I think questioning one’s faith is not a negative thing (but of course I’d say that as it’s something I do all the time), but to call murder good for the cause of religious values - that’s something that’s so off the wall, it doesn’t register in my “this makes sense” category of thought processes.

 

[why_me]

I don’t know if what happened at Mountain Meadows can be separated from previous mormon experience. Mountain Meadows was poor in judgement made by individuals who remembered their own families and friends being murdered and burned out while living in Nauvoo and other lds communities before moving westward.

Intolerance can breed intolerance. The answer: be more tolerant of others religious beliefs and don’t stir the pot of hatred.

But we humans do not learn. Look at the antimormonism at the non-catholic religion threads…

 

[isaac.madsen]

Pish posh. Say no more. I agree 100%

 

[majick275]

I don’t know if what happened at Mountain Meadows can be separated from previous mormon experience. Mountain Meadows was poor in judgement made by individuals who remembered their own families and friends being murdered and burned out while living in Nauvoo and other lds communities before moving westward.

Intolerance can breed intolerance. The answer: be more tolerant of others religious beliefs and don’t stir the pot of hatred.

But we humans do not learn. Look at the antimormonism at the non-catholic religion threads…

please… if you are talking about mormon history, then you have to look at the folks back then that were outraged by things like the kirtland bank scandal, the proseletyzing of young girls for polygamous marriages and the political manueverings of Joseph Smith. The early LDS were not persecuted because of their faith but because of their actions. it is not wrong to be intolerant of bad behavior. people who don’t accept mormonism are not antimormon. throwing out labels doesn’t change the truth. excessive tolerance aka political correctness is ruining the world today. take a stand for what’s right and denounce what’s wrong.

 

[Kristine1957]

The Mormon leaders always have some sort of an excuse for everything… Including the Mormon Massacre If the church is so uptight about this event then why did they try to continue to ignore it and sweep it under the rug when it became public?? Check this out… youtube.com/results?search_query=mormon+massacre

 

[why_me]

The Mormon leaders always have some sort of an excuse for everything… Including the Mormon Massacre If the church is so uptight about this event then why did they try to continue to ignore it and sweep it under the rug when it became public?? Check this out… youtube.com/results?search_query=mormon+massacre

I do believe that Gordon B. Hinckley mentioned MMM in 1999 in a speech given at the memorial. I cannot say that it has be ignored but it certainly hasn’t been discussed as it should have discussed.

MMM was instigated by a group of Mormons. I don’t see where the Brigham Young is too blame or the church leadership at that time. In fact, By sent a letter to the Mormons to allow the group to pass peacefully. The letter arrived too late.

People are imperfect and terrible things happen as a result. This case is no different. It was a tragedy that should not have happened.

Should we discuss what other churches are guilty of sweeping things under the rug? Maybe not.

 

[Kristine1957]

I do believe that Gordon B. Hinckley mentioned MMM in 1999 in a speech given at the memorial. I cannot say that it has be ignored but it certainly hasn’t been discussed as it should have discussed.

MMM was instigated by a group of Mormons. I don’t see where the Brigham Young is too blame or the church leadership at that time. In fact, By sent a letter to the Mormons to allow the group to pass peacefully. The letter arrived too late.

People are imperfect and terrible things happen as a result. This case is no different. It was a tragedy that should not have happened.

Should we discuss what other churches are guilty of sweeping things under the rug? Maybe not.

Murder is Murder no matter how the Mormon church tries to define this. I was living in Utah when they found the evidence of the Massacre. I remember how the Mormon Presidentcy reacted and they chose to try to sweep in under the rug. It was all over the news and it was as if it was not a big deal until they got caught.

 

[isaac.madsen]

The same with the Salamander documents. LDS authorities bought up Mark Hofmann’s forgeries to try and hide any incriminating evidence against the church. When this fact was discovered, it certainly didn’t help the image of Mormonism any, especially since the church was then caught up in yet another murder scene.

Of course, here I am not really finding specific fault with the church other than the fact that they bought documents merely in the effort to try and hide arguments against the church. The person at fault in this case is really Hofmann though.

I don’t think it’s so much a matter of quesionting whether Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet because he didn’t know the documents were forged (at the time, he was only an apostle anyhow, so he wasn’t specifically given those keys yet anyway). Rather, my point is that Mark Hofmann did some really stupid things by forging documents in an attempt to fraudulently provide a case against the church. Most people don’t go to such extremes. I think we’d all rather have things proven by actual evidence.

In the case of Mormonism (or just about any religion for that matter), even physical evidence won’t necessarily prove anything to a strong believer. After all, it’s faith in the unseen, and not anything really physical, that holds their faith up. When posed with the idea of physical evidence against the faith, most members will raise their nose and move on with life without bothering to do anything that might cause their faith to waver.

 

[PaulDupre]

Mark Hoffman did not want to discredit the LDS Church, he just wanted to make money. He knew that LDS leaders were so anxious to hide “bad history” from their members that they would pay big money to get damaging documents off the street.

The really telling thing is that the leaders thought the Salamander Letter and Hoffman’s other forgeries were genuine. That proves that they know that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

Paul

 

[BCPoulsen]

Murder is Murder no matter how the Mormon church tries to define this. I was living in Utah when they found the evidence of the Massacre. I remember how the Mormon Presidentcy reacted and they chose to try to sweep in under the rug. It was all over the news and it was as if it was not a big deal until they got caught.

You were living in Utah in the 1800’s and remember how Brigham Young and his counselors reacted?

 

[isaac.madsen]

That proves that they know that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

I’ve often thought about that idea myself. After all, Gordon B. Hinckley sure does some strange things that seem to indicate he’s not comfortable with this whole “prophet” business. Nor have I seen him do much of anything prophetic. After all, he’s the one who said, “Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation” (Compass Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley, 1997).

 

[isaac.madsen]

You were living in Utah in the 1800’s and remember how Brigham Young and his counselors reacted?

I believe Kristine is talking about the 1999 uncovering of skeletal remains around the area of the monument (Mountain Meadows Massacre, Archaeology.org).

 

[Kristine1957]

You were living in Utah in the 1800’s and remember how Brigham Young and his counselors reacted?

Of course not. A construction company unearthed 29 or so bodies from that site ( aprox 1999).

 

[why_me]

Murder is Murder no matter how the Mormon church tries to define this. I was living in Utah when they found the evidence of the Massacre. I remember how the Mormon Presidentcy reacted and they chose to try to sweep in under the rug. It was all over the news and it was as if it was not a big deal until they got caught.

Now Kristine, I can ‘call’ you on this if I wanted to. I could also bring up other forms of rug sweeping by another church which will remain nameless. We poor humans are so imperfect that we can make wrong decisions at times. I suppose it is called: learning by doing. Such is the life for spirit beings on a human journey.

 

[Barbara_Rae]

Intolerance can breed intolerance. The answer: be more tolerant of others religious beliefs and don’t stir the pot of hatred.

But we humans do not learn. Look at the antimormonism at the non-catholic religion threads…

oooohhhh! That was a low blow. I’ve been reading the threads on that site. Most of the comments seem to me to relate to differences of doctrinal belief and interpretation of history. Valid points of debate and discussion. I don’t see how that can be compared with killing innocent men, women and children. It seems to me that all religions have these embarrasing episodes in their past. But honest discussion and debate doesn’t lead to murder. Fanatacism and enflaming rhetoric does. I haven’t seen anything that could be described as such in any of the threads I’ve read , even when some of the discussion gets a little heated. ( I do wince sometimes at some of Zerenius’ comments.) And I must say that I do not like it when I see the word, ‘cult’ thrown around. That’s just name-calling and not very rescpectful. As a practicing Catholic, I’ve had that accusation thrown at me a number of times and I certainly didn’t like it. (Do unto others as…) But, I never felt impelled to go out and commit murder.

 

[Barbara_Rae]

P.S. to Whyme, Disagreeing with someone and stating the reasons for one’s disagreemrnt is not intolerance.

 

[why_me]

P.S. to Whyme, Disagreeing with someone and stating the reasons for one’s disagreemrnt is not intolerance.

But use of language when debating is. Language can be respectful or abusive. I think that you would have found some abusive language complete with electrically charged language from the catholic section.

But from me…calm as a dove in spring…