R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ironically, the same can be said for the men that murdered Joseph Smith.
LDS under Brigham Young were out for blood, as “justice” for the murder of Smith.
- Status
LDS under Brigham Young were out for blood, as “justice” for the murder of Smith.
D
debbie_h
Guest
This was never taught about or even mentioned while growing up LDS, there was certainly nothing in our class manuals that even hinted to such an atrocious event. We were never taught & so I never knew of Any shady dealings/ characteristics of any of the LDS prophets. We were strongly discouraged to look outside any LDS approved sources. We were constantly encouraged to pray for confirmation that what we were taught by the church was true. 
L
lax16
Guest
Yes, I see your point. I was thinking that since Mormons believe(d) that they are the only true Christian religion that they would embody Christ’s teachings better than most.
I would not expect the same from the Gentiles that murdered JS since they were not Mormon and therefore following the wrong church.
Obviously, both were wrong.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Mormons teach this about themselves. We see it here in the form of bragging about the good fruits of Mormonism.
On a personal note, growing up LDS I believed this about my fellow Mormons. I believed everyone in my ward was kind, loving, and turned the other cheek. I was taught that was what we did, and I was taught that all Mormons were living as Jesus commanded. I believed this, completely, until I grew a little older and noticed that, well, not so much. I came to understand that many Mormons are passive-agressive, which is trait I think is taken on in order to appear to be kind, loving and turning the other cheeck.
S
SpeSalvi
Guest
The only mention I heard regarding MMM was a friend that was converting (at age 17) and her mother, who was against her joining the LDS church, brought it up with her. We were told that it was anti-mormon slander and to not worry about it.
It wasn’t until I was in my early 20’s that I saw a documentary on the history channel about it and I remember being incredibly upset that they painted the Mormons as having any hand in it.
To say that they had any involvement, even after blaming the immigrants, is a big step forward. Not enough, but at least its being addressed.
It wasn’t until I was in my early 20’s that I saw a documentary on the history channel about it and I remember being incredibly upset that they painted the Mormons as having any hand in it.
To say that they had any involvement, even after blaming the immigrants, is a big step forward. Not enough, but at least its being addressed.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
I did not hear of MMM at all when I was LDS. It was not until many years after I left the lds church
L
lax16
Guest
Turning the cheek is certainly a hard thing to do. I am trying to teach my kids the balance between turning the other cheek and not being a doormat!
I often think how peaceful the world would be if we all truly lived out this teaching. So many things get in the way…pride, anger…
T
TexanKnight
Guest
There is nothing as dangerous as people who believe that God is giving them a license to kill.
Remind you of any groups today?
A
Agkcrbs
Guest
Interesting discussion. I’m new here, and hate to offend, but there’s an enormous gorilla just sitting here in this blameful Catholic thread about institutional religious violence, and, for some reason, nobody is talking about it, other than an oblique reference and a Wikipedia link by a non-Catholic… 
I guess it’s a topic for the other forums, and has probably already been spun round and around to death.
Every church, nation, family, and person has their share of good and bad history. To belong to a historical organization is to endure the embarrassment of the researcher’s magnifying glass as well as the biased accusations of presentists. But the irony is suffocating, that some here resentfully left the LDS Church after discovering uncomfortable interpretations of the past, but have found a tolerable repose in this grand Catholic tradition, whose oceanic crests and troughs make even the bloodiest LDS historical difficulties look like ripples in a puddle. My only relief is to consider that God, wanting to enlighten both Catholics and LDS (not to mention all others), suffers those who can see only the dark side of one church to put aside their adolescent doctrinal hang-ups, start afresh, and come appreciate the bright side of another church.
For me, at any rate, apologies are worth as much as the paper they may be written on, and the penitent actions they may inspire in the heart of the wrong-doer. The events here were done by dead men, but if a church really retains its identity over generations, then the question for me, in putting aspersions on LDS or Catholics, is, are any of their leaders or members perpetrating any such massacres today? Thank heaven, I think they are not (except in a personal way that is clearly non-reflective of their teachings; are historical travesties not always departures from doctrine?). Apologies accepted. As for ‘hiding history’, the several permutations of history are in the open; nobody has destroyed them, and people are free to their conclusions. What more should a church do? To ‘take responsibility’ for aberrations is just an effort to spread the underlying gospel; to deny responsibility is the same. Only a recovering addict is really served by always dredging up reminders of his mistakes. Who thinks it helpful for a church to continually set its worst possible examples before each new crop of children and converts, as well as each new wave of detractors? Certainly not the God who promised sins like crimson to be white as wool. Isn’t it clear that apology-mongers are not so interested in seeking truth or memorializing victims as in weakening and, hopefully, dismantling their targets?
I guess it’s a topic for the other forums, and has probably already been spun round and around to death.Every church, nation, family, and person has their share of good and bad history. To belong to a historical organization is to endure the embarrassment of the researcher’s magnifying glass as well as the biased accusations of presentists. But the irony is suffocating, that some here resentfully left the LDS Church after discovering uncomfortable interpretations of the past, but have found a tolerable repose in this grand Catholic tradition, whose oceanic crests and troughs make even the bloodiest LDS historical difficulties look like ripples in a puddle. My only relief is to consider that God, wanting to enlighten both Catholics and LDS (not to mention all others), suffers those who can see only the dark side of one church to put aside their adolescent doctrinal hang-ups, start afresh, and come appreciate the bright side of another church.
For me, at any rate, apologies are worth as much as the paper they may be written on, and the penitent actions they may inspire in the heart of the wrong-doer. The events here were done by dead men, but if a church really retains its identity over generations, then the question for me, in putting aspersions on LDS or Catholics, is, are any of their leaders or members perpetrating any such massacres today? Thank heaven, I think they are not (except in a personal way that is clearly non-reflective of their teachings; are historical travesties not always departures from doctrine?). Apologies accepted. As for ‘hiding history’, the several permutations of history are in the open; nobody has destroyed them, and people are free to their conclusions. What more should a church do? To ‘take responsibility’ for aberrations is just an effort to spread the underlying gospel; to deny responsibility is the same. Only a recovering addict is really served by always dredging up reminders of his mistakes. Who thinks it helpful for a church to continually set its worst possible examples before each new crop of children and converts, as well as each new wave of detractors? Certainly not the God who promised sins like crimson to be white as wool. Isn’t it clear that apology-mongers are not so interested in seeking truth or memorializing victims as in weakening and, hopefully, dismantling their targets?
J
jadamo
Guest
Thank you for the article NT, your church is making a good effort at trying to make their history more clear to their members. However, I read this article, and still see way too many excuses for their more colorful history. The article starts off w/the idea that the church members was persecuted w/o any fault of their own, and by doing this, sets up the entire article w/the bias that’s “it’s not our fault, somebody else started it”.
“In the first two decades after the Church was organized, Latter-day Saints were often the victims of violence…Time and again, the Saints tried to build their Zion community where they could worship God and live in peace, and repeatedly they saw their hopes dashed through forcible and violent removal.”
There are many reasons why the citizens kept chasing them away, this article really only provides half the story, and it’s the “pity us” side of the story. They skim over a fault or two, but then focus the blame on the “non-mormons and dissenters”.
“After being driven from Missouri, the Saints were initially welcomed by the people of the neighboring state of Illinois and found peace for a time in Nauvoo. Ultimately, however, conflict arose again as non-Mormons and dissenters from the Church renewed their attacks.”
“But a mob forcibly expelled them from Nauvoo in September 1846 and then desecrated the temple…The scope of this violence against a religious group was unprecedented in the history of the United States”
And this article also tries to offer an excuse for the violence which the saints participated in, “In 19th-century American society, community violence was common and often condoned. Much of the violence perpetrated by and against Latter-day Saints fell within the then-existing American tradition of extralegal vigilantism”
“The isolated acts of violence committed by some Latter-day Saints can generally be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of frontier violence in 19th-century America.”
I have to say I am disappointed in the historical integrity of this article, it is heavily biased and really does not give any good references as to why the mormon community kept getting chased away, the author(s) just leaves the reader w/the impression that the fault of the violenence lies squarely with the dissenters and non-mormons, and the violence which was perpetrated by the mormons was basically the norm of that time era (since the government did not give them the justice they felt they deserved, it was therefore okay for them to take justice into their own hands, since that was normal). This article does not do true history justice, and is not honest w/the LDS church members or the public.
“In the first two decades after the Church was organized, Latter-day Saints were often the victims of violence…Time and again, the Saints tried to build their Zion community where they could worship God and live in peace, and repeatedly they saw their hopes dashed through forcible and violent removal.”
There are many reasons why the citizens kept chasing them away, this article really only provides half the story, and it’s the “pity us” side of the story. They skim over a fault or two, but then focus the blame on the “non-mormons and dissenters”.
“After being driven from Missouri, the Saints were initially welcomed by the people of the neighboring state of Illinois and found peace for a time in Nauvoo. Ultimately, however, conflict arose again as non-Mormons and dissenters from the Church renewed their attacks.”
“But a mob forcibly expelled them from Nauvoo in September 1846 and then desecrated the temple…The scope of this violence against a religious group was unprecedented in the history of the United States”
And this article also tries to offer an excuse for the violence which the saints participated in, “In 19th-century American society, community violence was common and often condoned. Much of the violence perpetrated by and against Latter-day Saints fell within the then-existing American tradition of extralegal vigilantism”
“The isolated acts of violence committed by some Latter-day Saints can generally be seen as a subset of the broader phenomenon of frontier violence in 19th-century America.”
I have to say I am disappointed in the historical integrity of this article, it is heavily biased and really does not give any good references as to why the mormon community kept getting chased away, the author(s) just leaves the reader w/the impression that the fault of the violenence lies squarely with the dissenters and non-mormons, and the violence which was perpetrated by the mormons was basically the norm of that time era (since the government did not give them the justice they felt they deserved, it was therefore okay for them to take justice into their own hands, since that was normal). This article does not do true history justice, and is not honest w/the LDS church members or the public.
S
Sabacthani
Guest
When did mormons claim that Lee and Haight were “martyrs”?
You are attributing one evil conspiracy that occurred in Cedar City Utah, to the entire body of the LDS church.
Would you think it was fair if we took some atrocity committed by some specific group of Catholics, perhaps even including a couple low level Catholic leaders, and used that as representative of all of Catholicism?
That’s not reasonable, Paul.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
you remind me of a poster from long ago named “Why Me”
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
When Mormons talk about martyrs, they usually mean Joseph and Hyram Smith. That was what TK was referring to about the blood oaths and swearing vengeance in the endowment.
The Mormon oath of vengeance was a promise to avenge the blood of the Smith brothers.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
S
Sabacthani
Guest
Church writings do refer to those two as martyrs, but no, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that mormons “usually” use the word to refer to JS and HS. Ask a group of mormons to identify a martyr, and “Jesus” was the first on the list. Peter, Paul, and Abinadi (a martyr from the book of Mormon) would be as prominent as Joseph Smith.
Say what? I thought that horrible movie made that garbage up about vengeance oathes in the Endowment.
S
Sabacthani
Guest
I heard about it when I was 14 years old, in seminary class.
S
Sabacthani
Guest
So that 9 year old Mormon kid that got thrown down a well by a good Christian preacher at Hans Mill must have had it coming, eh? I find your attitude uncharitable.
The fact that early day Christians suffered more than Christians in the Sudan today does not mean that what’s happening to Meriam Yahya Ibrahim isn’t an atrocity.
What was the Crusades if not for violence as a response to violence?
S
Sabacthani
Guest
some of you seem to have missed this part of the article:
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Nah, I read it
Don’t get me wrong, this essay is a step in the right direction. Transparency is something LDS seem to fear more than anything. Particularly when it comes to history. This essay is a step closer towards full transparency, but not there yet. It still clings to the persecution complex and still leaves things out, purposely, in an attempt to manipulate how people think.
The Great Manipulators.
Maybe some day. I doubt in my lifetime, since it took over a hundred years just to get to this essay.
S
Sabacthani
Guest
You don’t think that the context of the US army marching on Utah, or the quarrel with the pioneers and townspeople was relevant to the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
I do agree that the article left something key out. The fact that the quarrel with the townspeople happened because the pioneers refused to pay a rather suspicious sounding “tax” for passing through the land. But those facts are in the LDS church description on their PR page.
I think your first analysis, and your allegations of sinister manipulation are unreasonable and unfair.
I do agree that the article left something key out. The fact that the quarrel with the townspeople happened because the pioneers refused to pay a rather suspicious sounding “tax” for passing through the land. But those facts are in the LDS church description on their PR page.
I think your first analysis, and your allegations of sinister manipulation are unreasonable and unfair.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think it would be more relevant to an event of turning the other cheek. Otherwise, it’s just another frontier story of lawlessness, with the added plot of a cover up from the highest leader.
You do realize the essay left out Young’s attempt to keep a criminal investigation from occurring? It took two years, and only occurred when the Federal Government sent someone to do it.
It is experience. The LDS Church never stops trying to manipulate, as seen by the fact they have a “PR page”. You can believe, in my inquiry and conversion to Catholicism, I was on the lookout for manipulations, hidden history, agendas, doctrines and practices. If I had found any of them, I would have been gone. You’ll find many former LDS who feel strongly that they were manipulated, lied to and deceived by the LDS church. It is neither unreasonable or unfair, it is a fact of being LDS.
- Status