Deseret News | Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Never Wrong | 1:19 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

The only reason mormons want that piece of land is because they know that their ancestors murdered children and women.

They don't want any evidence because evidence shows that they cowardly murdered children and women.

I just wonder if those killers are in the mormon celestial kingdom by now?

Out of State | 1:28 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Bottom line is we donï¿½t know all the facts. We were not there and those that were, were either very young and did not have a good recollection of all the facts nor were they privy to what the adults were doing. On the other side those that were guilty are not going to admit 100% to the atrocities done. Yes some Mormons were guilty. Those that were involved will be judged in the next life by God. Justice will be served. Just like those in Missouri, Kirkland, Nauvoo & Carthage. I would love to see some groups other than the Mormon Church take over some spots of land and take care of them. But they donï¿½t.

If you are a Mormon do you have the same feelings as they must have had for the people in the MMM? Do you let your emotions get the best of you when someone does not have the same beliefs? If you are not a Mormon do you act like all Mormons are evil and you need to somehow disprove them? Canï¿½t we get along? God will judge those that were involved in MMM as well as those in Missouri and all the other atrocities this world has to offer. Why are we debating something that happened 150 years ago when there really is no clear answer? Not all Jews are bad because they Crucified Jesus. Not all Germans are bad because of Hitler. Not all Islamic people are bad because of 9/11. Not all Mormons are bad because of MMM. And not all Missourians are bad because of the horrible things they did. We have to leave this up to God. In the mean time let us remember those families that suffered on both sides in peace and with respect. Not debate.

SCB | 2:46 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

For those of you who can't understand why people don't want the Mormon church maintaining this site, consider the Ensign article several have linked to: while I have no beef that the infromation it presents is generally accurate, consider also the way it shields the LDS church leadership:

-No mention of Brigham Young teaching blood atonement and how such teachings may have inspired the conspirators

-No mention of the vows of revenge against the United States for the death of Joseph Smith that were at the time part LDS worship (i.e., read the old lyrics to "Praise to the Man"

-Completely exonerating BY from all responsibility (a position which several posters have mentioned is not free from controversy)

-Noting John D. Lee's excommunication but not mentioning his posthumous restoration of membership by David McKay.

-Making it sound like Brigham Young actively sought to punish the murderers, rather than shielding them from justice for nearly 20 years.

For those of you who think the that the LDS church should maintain this site simply "because they keep it pretty" are missing the issue. As long as the LDS church owns the site, they will use it to tell their side of the story. It should be the victims' descendants who have the rights to the site of this attrocity, to honor their ancestors and tell their stories as they see fit. Period.

MW | 4:09 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

To BK: You give me an example of one non-biased account of this event and i will surely read it. In fact I would like to see even one example of a completely neutral historical account at all. The other thing I have never been able to figure out is how BY communicated these "orders" to carry this act out so quickly and from such a far distance. Any of you that have "hunches" or "feelings" that this was the case have this answer? I was pleased to see some of the latest posts bringing up a much more realistic point that the church leaders were guilty of covering up and trying to save face. This seems to me to be the place where the church and its leaders most certainly were guilty.

Morgan | 6:01 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Thank you, Out of State. You brought up some points that I'd been thinking about, but said them much better than I ever could.

Innocence lost | 7:12 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

No one alive today can know and/or verify ALL the facts surrounding this tragedy or verify the timing of communications or miscommunications that did or did not take place at the time this event occurred.

Anyone directly involved in this event is obviously dead. There are no living witnesses to the events and at best. limited physical evidence.

Any judgement of what really took place at Mountain Meadows for the victims or the accused perpetrators is based on incomplete evidence, conjecture, and is ultimately speculation.

All the facts will NEVER be known,

One fact is indisputable - innocent people lost their lives in a brutal act of violence and subsequently, lost any ability to determine their own fates - agency lost. That is the tragedy here.

The ONLY thing we can do now - LDS and non-LDS alike - is to honor the memory of the innocence that was lost and accept the fact that we will NEVER know all the facts.

It is the only thing left to do.

Greg Schmidt | 8:16 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

What happened at MM is tragedy, plain and simple and deserves anyones respect and reverence.

Would anyone else do a better job of preserving that memory than the LDS church? Maybe, maybe not. The fact that the church recognizes its apparent historical roll in the tragedy is really the point at hand and if its actions follow as they always have, admission of guilt is something it will never do.

From polygamy to Kinderhoek, and Mountain Meadows to Mark Hoffman, the church has always tried to "turn a frown, upside down" when it comes to being implicated in controversy.

It would be refreshing if for once, just once, instead of professing to be "God's only true church", the church stepped down here with the rest of us "sinners" and took responsibility - even if it means getting a little dirty. I think if that happened, there just might be a few more doors open when the elders go a knocking.

kmr | 9:32 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

amen

Ron Doty, CA | 9:32 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Members of the LDS Church, sanctioned by local leaders brutally murdered innocent children and their parents. Hideous, heinous, horrible are adjectives that barely describe the scene imagined by those of us WHO WERE NOT THERE.

Brigham Young's complicity is far from certain, and most likely was not a factor. An approaching U.S. Army, inability of the Fancher party to obtain supplies except at hugely inflated prices, rumors, innuendo, lies and stupidity all combined with human frailty and resulted in incomprehensible tragedy.

Justice? How? Cover up? Impossible. We are universally left with a horror show on either side. The best possible result is compassion. We occupy different time, but when we visit Mountain Meadows, we occupy the same space. Let that space be maintained sacred, a solemn reminder of the profound need humans have to love one another and of the disastrous results of not loving one another.

The LDS Church refuses to acknowledge Brigham Young ordered the slayings. Only one man was executed, John D. Lee. More than 150 died. No LDS Bishop, stake president or general authority has ever attempted to convince me that Mountain Meadows was an innocent blunder. No anti-Mormon voice has ever convinced me that my religion is flawed because it occurred.

So, dudes, I'm with Bill and Ted. Let us be excellent to one another. Let the LDS Church maintain the site free and accessible to all as the meaningful and respectful site it is, and much nicer now than when I visited 20 years ago after reading numerous articles in historical journals and three books on the Fancher Party and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Clark | 9:58 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

SCB - I would be more willing to accept your point about ownership of the MMM site, until I began reading reviews and reactions to the film "September Dawn."

I honestly can't help but wonder what the true motivation is of those who wish to take over the MMM property. Some argue that they're simply entitled to it, and that they should be willing to tell the story of what happened. But I feel there's more to it than that.

Reviews of the film "September Dawn" is clear enough proof to me that possession of the MMM site is an opportunity to smear the name of Brigham Young, as much as it possibly can be smeared. But even more than that, it will be used as another tool for those who continue to demand that current LDS Church apologize for what happened MMM. An apology which must include denouncing Brigham Young as a prophet, as well as lots and lots of $$$$$$.

In a nutshell, the film "September Dawn" has done nothing but hurt the case for those wishing to take over the MMM site.

near by resident | 10:08 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

What! Turn the site over to the federal government! It was the federal government who helped start this whole sad and unholy incident in US history by supporting and being a part of the Mormon persecutions, including sending their army west to fight in the "Utah War", for what, false and misleading rumors. Let the victims rest in peace. The matter is in the hands of our Loving Heavenly Father. Brigham Young just did what he was pre-ordained to do, lead the Latter Day Saints to a new land and stand firm in righteousness. He had no heart or mind for this sort of useless activity although he suffered eastern persecutions by government authorities, both local and federal, just like many other faithful Latter Day Saints.

Craig | 10:50 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

If there is any proof that Brigham Young gave instructions that caused the MMM then show us. If you have no proof to offer you are bearing false witness. I have yet to read or see one solid factual argument demonstrating Brigham Young had anything to do with the planning or actions at MM. All that is presented to us are half truths, innuendos, insinuations and distortions from people with that all too pervasive mental condition called selective memory syndrome.

Curious George | 11:29 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

I don't understand. If the wagon train was "unarmed" , how did they hunt for food?

kara | 11:51 a.m. Sept. 2, 2007

My pioneer ancestors suffered horrible atrocities at the hands of anti Mormons. Do I hate the descendants of the people who committed theses despicable acts? No. I appreciate my grandparents faithfullness despite the repeated criminal acts against them. Lilburn Boggs was behind many of these things, but I'll let God deal with him and any others who are responsible. I'll just honor my grandparents by living a life they would be proud of. It sure beats the stress that hatred brings, especially towards currently living people who were not responsible, even though their ancestors were. My grandparents lost homes and property. Maybe I would be really rich today if I had inherited those things. The reality is that I've been blessed with sufficient for my needs and even then some, so I'm not going to worry about it. The rabble rousers really ought to get a life. They'll be much happier and much more pleasant to be around, which is a win win situation for all.

Rick | 12:36 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Go figure - arguments over religion? Since when has religious arrogance, misinterpretation of metaphors and self righteousness ever caused wars, death and hatred? Nothing new here. Everyone feels that they are right, have the one true religion, have God on their side and are going to use every means possible including media to persuade and conquer. The Mormons were deep into a religious movement, commonly known as the "reformation" during which the church was involved in a self-purging process of eliminating any and all conspirators against the church. Blood atonement surfaced during this period of time. Saving one's soul was considered a higher priority than human life. And, on top of all this emotion, church members were still freshly wounded from being evicted from their homes and land. Rhetoric, rumor and suspicion were reaching drastic levels.

After decades of misinformation and lies, the LDS church is now being forced to accept not only the truth, but the necessity of publishing their spin on reality. Using the same logic and common sense that suggests a surgeon should never operate on members of his or her own family - LDS faithful shouldn't write their own history. And, other with agendas against the LDS church shouldn't either. Sadly, the dispassonate observer rarely possesses the motivation.

Sadly, Mountain Meadows is turning into just another bullet to fire at one another. Unfortunately, we all believe that God is the quarterback on "our" team - and that all others are abominations. How much more offensive can this get?

"God": We have turned him into the Gerneral of our armies: the force and justification for our actions: the rational for killing and hatred.

This will never end until we understand that God doesn't have a chosen people or a favorite team.

RedDavis | 12:42 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

What is Brigham Young were tried for this crime today, what would happen?

I have read almost every significant book and article on the MMM, and this much is true:

If Brigham Young were tried today for any part he played in this tragedy - he would be found acquited. Why? There is not a single piece of primary evidence, nor a single primary witness, that shows/proves Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

In fact, the primary evidence is to the contrary: the *facts* show that he ordered that the local Mormons to stand down, and to let the wagon train pass through without harm.

I kid you not -- one author claimed that the "smoking gun" proof Brigham Young ordered the massacre was in the presence of a meeting where a LDS leader told the local indians they could keep stray cattle they found off of the southern trail through Utah Territory -- even though mention is also made of the northen trail.

The author builds a house of cards where this supposedly indicates that the cattle from the Fancher train was to be given to the Ute Indians after they were murdered. Thus, this is proof that Brigham Young ordered the massacre.

Now, the meeting with the local Indians said nothing about the Fancher group, any date in time, and hostile actions against migrants, nor anything else that could be related to the MMM. NOTHING.

Yet, this reckless "historian" would accuse Brigham Young of murder based on such lunacy, and his work is often quoted as proof of Brigham Young's involvement.

I kid you not -- the "evidence" is that weak.

Craig | 1:50 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Rick your "logic" is juvinile and tortured to say the least. You state, "The LDS church is now being forced to accept not only the truth, but the necessity of publishing their spin on reality." The problem with that statement is that we dont even know all the "truth" or "reality" of the MMM, thats the crux of this issue Rick. Then Rick proceeds to blather on about some little known mysterious mormon "reformation" movement that somehow insinuates that the MMM came from orders sent from SLC? I dont get the connection, and Rick does'nt seem to provide one. Does he? Rick also states, "LDS faithful shouldn't write their own history". Rick, does that mean patriotic Americans shouldn't write their own history either? Or should we just leave the task of interpreting USA history to some "dispassonate observer" as well? The LDS do not use our faith to "conquer", as you so inaccuratly stated. We use our faith to teach, instruct and edify. To play along with your analogy; God is not a quarterback, but a dedicated wise coach that encourgaes us to do our best, be loyal to our team mates and show intergrity and sportsmanship for those that oppose us. As for blood atonement; the concept is found in the Law of Moses, ie. sacrifices, and in the Gospel of the new covenant itself...come to think of it the whole plan of redemption is based on one huge cosmic blood atonement. Ever hear of Gethsemane or the crucifixtion?

A question? | 2:43 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

In a theocracy society rule by Young about 150 years ago where blind obedience was/is among Mormons, a member could not act independently for fear to disobey a man called himself ï¿½prophet of Godï¿½.
Most Christians Churches considers Mormons as a 'cult' which, they claim that Mormonism does not represent historical, Biblical Christianity, is not a Christian denomination, and is not in any way part of the Christian church.). Now is a some of the characteristics of a cult are:

a)The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law

b)The most loyal members (the ï¿½true believersï¿½) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

My question is: How a Mormon militia could act independently without consulting to Young about the intention to murdered innocent people?

Douglas | 3:15 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

SCB,

You make some good points, and from what I have heard, the forthcoming volumes include factors like those you mention. Furthermore, the Ensign article itself does mention the ï¿½fiery rhetoricï¿½ of Brigham Young.

Poster BK is smart to look for neutral sources, but when reading history, its not that simple; one must read differing perspectives. The forthcoming book will be published by Oxford University Press (and they donï¿½t just publish anything). True, the authors are church historians, but they have taken the time to write what appears to be an in-depth, un-sanitized, and (to this point) definitive version of MMM. No one else has taken it upon themselves to do so and in some ways the Church is responsible. As you can imagine, some of the descendants of perpetrators are not happy with the Ensign article. Still, others, like yourself, may view it as an attempt by the Church to ï¿½soundï¿½ neutral. I donï¿½t view it that way. I encourage everyone to read the Ensign article and use it as one source with which to draw conclusions.

Will Bagley is the only prominent historian I am aware of who thinks Brigham Young may have been involved. He has never produced a smoking gun; furthermore, the fact that BY sent a rider to instruct locals to leave the Fancher party alone is revealing. But since it is a matter of great controversy for lay people like us, and since Bagley continues to hold his line, the article probably should have used different language.

I encourage people to read the Ensign article--you too BK :). At least SCB did.

As for the ownership issueï¿½that is a something for private actors to hash out, seeing that the land is in private hands.

Loretta | 3:39 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

While there are no living persons who can testify as to what happened at Mountain Meadows, there is a mute witness...the land itself. Archeological evidence could and might be found at the site. Human beings have an incredible track record of leaving their debris behind themselves. Both sides who want to "get to the bottom" of what happened on 11 Sep 1857 are aware of this. One side owns the land and has the right to prevent or permit such a cultural resources survey. As to the contemporary evidence, people underestimate the capacity of things to disappear. Why do people fear the truth?

An answer | 4:07 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

CULT:
The number one definition of a cult, as given by a prominant Catholic priest, is that the group must have a charismatic leader who has no balancing authority to answer to. Such as, Jim Jones, Hitler, Hillary Clinton, Elvis, etc., you get the point.

Joseph Smith and every other LDS Church President has always had a First Presidency and a Quorum of 12 to answer to. Directions and edicts are not given in a vacuum.
Your'e wrong.

CLOSED SOCIETY:
Mormon Battalion, trading with travelers, building of the railroad, donating land and materials to the Catholic, Jewish and Greek communities etc.,
Dismisses this assertion.

THEOCRACY:
Pioneer Utah was not a theocracy. A basic understanding of Utah history would help.
In 1850 Utah became a territory with the end of the Mexican war. B.Young was appointed Governor of the territory by the President of the United States.
In 1857 he was re-placed by Gov. Cumming of Georgia who traveled with Johnstons army.
From that date on B. Youngs secular authority was ended. Mormons have come and gone as they have desired. Agency is a basic doctrine among Mormons.

Here is the bottom line. Famous anti-Mormons Sandra Tanner, pseudo historian Will Bagley, teamed up with a fellow anti-Mormon producer and screenwriter to rewrite history. They took tired old anti-Mormon rhetoric, twisted facts, took speeches out of context, placed them in different times and places and concocted out of whole cloth a new history.

One which would fit the anti Mormon agenda. It's an old game and nothing new to the LDS Church or it's people. These phonies have been exposed:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=509

Understand this. Mormons know their history and are great students of history. Make your assertions if you will, but understand, your rhetoric will be examined point by point.
cp

Rick | 4:52 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Craig ï¿½ ï¿½My logic juvenile and torturedï¿½? How about relating Gethsemane, Christï¿½s crucifixion and a whole blood atonement plan as the plan of redemption? For an encore, are we going to see you flying planes into buildings ï¿½ firmly believing that this is Godï¿½s will? Evidently, the connection between religious paranoia, zealotry and MMM must be spelled out for you.

Faith used to instruct and edify is wonderful. Faith used for religious arrogance, intolerance and the misguided belief that God somehow presented one small group with his ï¿½wholeï¿½ truth is ridiculous and dangerous. But, you will never see this.

And ï¿½ to answer your question, I believe that the more ingrained, brainwashed and ignorantly biased a person is on any subject ï¿½ this personï¿½s viewpoint is not reliable history: either from a patriot, religious person, or MMM historian. This holds true specifically with early Mormon history. Study up.

R.M. | 5:12 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

That was a horrible and sad event that happenend. How can we go back and make it right? We can't! We are at a wonderful place in history and can learn that accepting others differences and loving each other anyway works.

Answer to CP | 5:21 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Mormons know their history???? They know the history provided to them by Seminary, and church publications. 8500 Mormons were interviewed and asked the same questions recently by the Ecclesiastical Society of Utah. 83% didn't know the criminal charges that Joseph Smith was charged with when he was imprisoned as Carthage. 79% had no idea that Joseph Smith was baptized into another religion a few years after he supposedly was told that all other religions were abominations. 43% still believe that Joseph Smith was only sealed to women other than his wife for celestial reasons, and that he never really had sexual relations with them. Up until recently, the vast majority, 73%, believed that Mountain Meadows Massacre was an exaggerated story that was primarily the doings of local Indians.

We will continue expose the truth, and will continue to expose your lies ï¿½ point by point.

Please look at your current priesthood manuals that list only one wife for Brigham Young, and know that you are continually trying to re-write history.

UM Law student | 5:44 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

To Rick - Bro, I have one question: How's the view from way up ther in the sky? In regards to this whole "blood atonement surfaced during this period of time". What are you referring to? The "Mormon" Church doesn't teach any sort of doctrine of persons atoning for themselves with their own blood. As for your idea that God has "no religion of his own", that is for you to have your own opinion, but if you consider yourself a Christian, you might want to try reading the Bible sometime because in 1st Samuel, chapters 15-17 the Lord makes it very clear that his chosen people are those, and only those who are a part of the Covenant House of Israel. (If you don't consider yourself Christian or Jewish then scripture has no meaning for you.) To all the rest of you who hate the LDS Church for a single event that happened 150 years ago by A FEW MEMBERS of the LDS Church, all I can say is that I feel horrible for the tragedy that took place at MM, but my apologizing for event that happened so long ago isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and I'm not sure how any apologizing is going to make your lives any more richly fulfilled, nor accomplished. We pray for the souls of those who were murdered and allow that God will mend out justice to the ones who REALLY DID have part in the massacre. And Rick - just saying that BY was responsible doesn't actually make it so. The controversy exists for sure, but it's actual evidence that is what convicts (think on it for a little while).

Rick | 7:12 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Hey law student! Please re-read my comments. Never once did I mention that BY was responsible. I guess that it needs to be said again: it doesn't matter what we consider ourselves. God does not have favorites. If you consider yourself one of his favorites, you are not only part of the problem - you are the problem.

Jim Colorado | 7:19 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Hhmmm...Rick sure does sound strident about all this. Rick, let me guess: you also believe that 9/11 was an inside job planned by President Bush so he could steal all of our civil liberties, right?
You know, I've read all of the posts on this site...the LDS folks try to be nice and calm and apologetic and forgiving, and try to cite facts and persuade others to consider actual historical sources...and the anti-Mormons continue spewing hatred and innuendo , and seem to credit Brigham Young with a prescience and omnipotence about pioneer Utah than even the most convinced LDS person would ever give him credit for... and continue to make accusations which they can never prove and have no evidence thereof. Please...citing Brigham Young's disaffected 19th wife as a source? Her book has been pretty soundly discredited.

Or, or you one of the folks that teach their children that Mormons do evil things in their temples...without ever having been in ones. One of the folks that teach their children that Mormons really do have horns they hide under the hats they're all "required" to wear (no kidding, we've met some folks who beleive that). Or that Mormons all torture and kill cats as part of their "cult worship."

To paraphrase ABC's John Stossel: Give me a break!!

Between the wildly accusatory anti-Mormons and the forgiving, gentle LDS folks, I know which group I'd rather be associated with. Let other make their own decisions.

Jay | 7:19 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

The truth is easy, it would take the Governors orders to bring it about. In 2002 LDS church contractors unearthed the graves and a BYU forensic team studied the bones for 2 days under Novak. Former Utah Governor Michael Leavitt ordered the bodies reburried. Its simple, dig them up and do a proper autopsy!

Craig | 7:23 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Rick 4:52, I'm going to avoid any prolonged argument with you. One thing I know we can agree on is that the MMM was a terrible and cruel event that has caused sincere pain and long moments of reflection by many LDS people. I feel confident in saying that ALL LDS people who have familirized themselves with the MMM regret what occured on that day and mourn for the loss of the innocent people that were killed in such a wicked manner. I know for myself that I see the MMM as an important history lesson that illustrates the importance of never becomming so full of distrust or heated arrogance towards people that are not of my faith or that I preceive have wronged me or the people that I love. Infact the stark contrast between the evil actions of those of my faith involved in the MMM and the religious tenants we claim to hold dear only helps to better frame the inexcusable mistakes in judgment that were made. I pray God blesses the LDS to have the courage and wisdom to never act in such a hurtful and disdainful manner again. If all the current partys involved in the MMM can search their hearts and struggle to incorporate the same common Christian principles of mercy and forgivness we share I have no doubt that we can avoid commiting the "greater sin" and this horrible chapter in history will yeild more peace and understanding than any of us realize at this time.

sad | 8:46 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

The past and current history of mankind never ceases to amaze me.

The inhumanity of mankind to mankind yesterday, today and 150 years ago.

Will mankind ever learn?

As history has proven and written and shown herein by the comments very very few ï¿½willï¿½

ï¿½.. the majority of us wonï¿½t.

Carla - Farmington, Utah | 9:08 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Jim, 7:19

MMM has seemingly provided a catalyst for all of us to take shots at one another. As I read the comments, trying to distinguish right from wrong, it appears that very few people actually read what is written. We are too interested in getting our points across. Although I donï¿½t agree with everything Rick says, his points about religious arrogance causing hatred, misunderstanding and intolerance are accurate. None of us are perfect, and I believe that none of us knows the whole truth. Why canï¿½t we admit this? Why must we believe that we have God on our side? What is wrong with admitting that we really donï¿½t know, but are striving to be better people? As I write this, I am fully confident that, as Rick states: God doesnï¿½t have chosen people - and never did.

Carla - Farmington, Utah | 9:11 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Jim, 7:19

MMM has seemingly provided a catalyst for all of us to take shots at one another. As I read the comments, trying to distinguish right from wrong, it appears that very few people actually read what is written. We are too interested in getting our points across. Although I donï¿½t agree with everything Rick says, his points about religious arrogance causing hatred, misunderstanding and intolerance are accurate. None of us are perfect, and I believe that none of us knows the whole truth. Why canï¿½t we admit this? Why must we believe that we have God on our side? What is wrong with admitting that we really donï¿½t know, but are striving to be better people? As I write this, I am fully confident that, as Rick states: God doesnï¿½t have chosen people - and never did.

Rick | 9:42 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Craig - Thank you for your comments. You and I could talk.

As for Jim, 7:19

I never mentioned BY or his 19th wife's comments. I don't believe that 9-11 was a conspiracy. I donï¿½t teach my children about the evils done inside Mormon temples, mainly because I know exactly what is done there. I was a Mormon bishop for 6 years. Served an LDS mission in Europe, and was married in the temple. My views on the LDS church arenï¿½t steeped in mysticism or mystery. They are based on a lifetime of study and facts. I teach my children that it is wrong to believe that God chooses favorites, has chosen people or appears to individuals speaking in terms that the LDS church professes. If this offends you, we are going to have to let the chips fall. I will never set foot in an LDS temple again ï¿½ by my own choice.

I never put the blame on BY for MMM. Blame rests with humanity, with a heavy, heavy portion of fault on religious misunderstanding and zealotry. I have personally witnessed thousands of infant sculls that were crushed during the Christian inquisition. They exist in cathedrals across Europe and have been preserved as a reminder of our misunderstanding of religious metaphors. The belief was that it was better for a soul to be baptized immediately after birth, and then killed before the infant had a chance to sin. To see further examples of killings in the name of God, study up on the Crusades by Muslims across Europe.

Dave Day | 10:14 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Brigham Young was very smart and was a great manager/administrator. He would not have jeapordized Utah by ordering the the massacre with 1/3 of the US Army on the march towards Salt Lake. But his problem was "speaking to the crowd," telling people what he thought they wanted to hear. That was what he did wrong, and his "adopted son," John D. Lee, took the words of Brigham and created the frenzy and led the attack. If John D. Lee had been excomunicated in 1846-47 (or after)or if he had been struck by lightening on the way west in 1848, Mountain Meadow whould never have happened.

H from AZ | 10:58 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

To Rick:

If you want to teach your kids how religion is destructive to society, great. Your old friends in Europe will understand and applaud you. Why do you have to be so demeaning to those that want to become better people through religion? Do I teach my children how ridiculous people are that are not LDS or religious? NO! I miss living outside of Utah. People are much nicer to Mormons. They socialize with us and we all got along and had a great time together. Those few that were rude were jerks in general anyway. Here there is so much weird resentment.

In my Opinion | 11:02 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

The last confession and statement of John D Lee:

ï¿½I feel resigned to my fate. I feel as calm as a summer morn, and I have done nothing intentionally wrong. My conscience is clear before God and man. I am ready to meet my Redeemer and those that have gone before me, behind the veil.ï¿½

ï¿½I studied to make this man's [Brigham Young] will my pleasure for thirty years. See, now, what I have come to this day!

I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner.

I cannot help it. It is my last word - it is so.ï¿½

There is nothing new that Mormon Church is classified as a cult and a cult member have a blind Obedience for its leaders, then,

How did the Mormon gang murder innocent children and women without the authorization of Young?

Why the Mormon Church didnï¿½t excommunicate those killers, not only John D Lee?

It is my understanding that Mormons accept such massacre for the sake of obedience and blind faith.

anon | 11:07 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Things and events happen for reason's unknown and known.

Response - SCB 2:46am | 11:12 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

Right on the mark. It would really be wise for LDS people to venture out and read something that is not "church" authorized. As an example, my son recently completed LDS Seminary at his High School and graduated as Seminary President. He was called on an LDS mission to Italy. After arriving in Italy, he started getting questions from Italians concerning Polygamy, Blood Atonement and other LDS skeletons that he had no idea of. He was also unaware that the LDS church still practices polygamy by "sealing" men to more than one woman for all eternity if the current wife dies. They still believe that it is an eternal principle. Why don't they simply teach what they believe instead of hiding it? And don't try to feed me the line that "we don't understand it yet, as we are mere mortals."

And, LDS membership is waning, not growing. Activity rates are down. Members are leaving. The only thing maintaining the numbers of members is the high birth-rates by Mormons. There are plenty of information sites available if you are LDS and don't believe the numbers.

Thomas | 11:24 p.m. Sept. 2, 2007

In all honesty, having read some of the fiery rhetoric from Brigham Young, etc. during the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s, I'm a little surprised the MMM and the handful of documented "blood atonement" cases, murders of dissidents, and occasional religious violence was all that happened. It speaks well of the character of the early converts to the Church that, even exposed to rhetoric that frankly sounds sometimes like Osama bin Laden on one of his bad-beard days, they mostly didn't take what they were being told literally.

I wonder what would have happened had a similar population of Scots-Irish from the American South had been exposed to Brigham's firebreathing. I strongly suspect, given my experience with people whose religious culture derives from that social fount, that the body count would have been in the thousands. They are an energetic bunch, those guys -- a far cry from those wussy Welsh, Brits and Scandinavians that made up the Mormons at the time.

Rolling my eyes | 12:03 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

For the past 150 years, it has been the fondest hope of certain segments of Utah's population that someone, somewhere, somehow would produce a "smoking gun" that showed Brigham Young ordered the massacre. None has yet been found, and will likely ever be found.

But judging by the comments here, and by the general reaction to the fraudulent "Lee's Confession" scroll found at Lee's Ferry a few years ago, there are still many True Believers who hold out faith that Brigham Young will be convicted. "September Dawn" was these people's "Farenheit 9/11".

It reminds me of the complaint that one of the federal officers investgating the massacre made to then-Territorial Governor Cummings: There were many persons who were more interested in connecting Young to the murders than finding out the truth.

So it continues today.

terrible toaster | 4:49 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

H from AZ: the resentment wouldn't seem so weird to you if you'd grown up non-Mormon in the tacit theocracy that is UT.

It is odd and oppressive to be constantly surrounded by people who believe that theirs is the only true religion. The gang mentality tends to emerge and, though it may (or may not) be subconscious, there is not a lot of regard for non-members.

You have the numbers here, in the legislature and in the neighborhoods. Those of us under your thumb are naturally going to bristle at that.

R. E. May | 6:57 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I can sympathize with all parties and understand their points of view. However, it wasn't clear to me in the article as to WHAT the descendants and survivors want to "add" to the area. I DID understand that the Mormon church put up the monument, the parking area, etc. What else is wanted or needed?????
Having witnessed what state and federal agencies have done to OTHER places over a period of time, I would suggest things be left as they are. I have not
seen that those agencies do anything more commendable than what is at this site. Having seen this site while traveling in the West many years ago, it appears the improvements are noteworthy.
What HASN'T the Mormon Church done that the two
groups WANT done, other than turning the property over to them??? I cannot "vote" for the groups getting control, if its just a matter of "wanting to own the land".
I think some of those killed MIGHT be
related to me and I would NOT be happy if the groups only wanted to get the property so that our
loved ones "would be out of the clutches" of the
Mormons!.
At this point in time, the area is being taken
care of, its accessible and everyone is allowed to
venture here.
What else could be added??? A souvenir stand? A tour guide? A T-shirt stand??? Its a "cemetery", folks. Why not let the hallowedness stand? I for one am content.

JW from florida | 7:02 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

So Brigham Young is guilty of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Does that mean that the Pope is guilty of the molesting done by the Catholic Priests? Since the Pope is in charge of the Catholic Church that must mean he is responsible for everything a Catholic does.
For those who say Brigham is guilty where is the same indignation when there was a law on the books in Missouri justifying murders of Mormons. )That law was taken of the Books by the very good people of Missouri about 20-30 years ago.) The massacre was a terrible thing and those involved will answer to God. Just as those who killed many more Mormons in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois will answer. It is interesting to me that the LDS church does not condemn these people who attacked early members. But any time someone who is LDS does anything wrong the church is blasted, even when the church had nothing to do with it just misguided members.

anon | 7:41 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Many have questioned how anything could have happened without the knowledge and blessing of BY during this time...Think about the time period, where MMM occured and where Brigham Young was. There was no telephone, no email....communication wasn't instantaneous. Might the men who did this have thought BY would applaud them and then later found out they were wrong. They were men who felt they were protecting their families and they acted with incomplete information.
Just as southern whites today aren't responsible for slavery the LDS church is not responsible for MMM. The LDS church is willing to maintain this site. The groups that want the federal government to control this site don't know what they are asking. They just want to try to humiliate the LDS church.

game,set, match | 8:32 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Folks it's time to stop casting our Pearls before Swine. It's all becoming redundant now. The Anti's will not listen to reason. Everything they are posting now has been answered in previous posts. They will not accept the truth, that "Brigham Young was not involved", because it's not in their playbook to do so. They have an agenda.

They thought that putting their pathetic movie on the big screen would give legitimacy to their old and tired rhetoric. They thought the LDS Church would have a "tizzy fit" and do their publicity for them,(wet paint sign). Their attempt to pull a fast one on America has failed.

When the Church said: "No Comment", that really irked them. And what did they get, an $11,000,000 movie which has generated a whopping $600,000. Nice investment.

Non-Mormon Critics and Historians with CREDENTIALS(not columnists parading as historians), are not buying this line of bull, even they know crud when they see it. They present established facts as myths and myths as facts. Hiring Sandra Tanner, Will Bagley and anti-Mormon producers and screen writers to speak to History was their first mistake.

They have created a scrutiny upon themselves which they will come to regret. You see, for now the whole world knows what they have been up to and their methods.

They think they're enlightening Mormons by stating that Brigham and Joseph had more than one wife.
They think they're enlightening Mormons by flogging the dead horse of the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
What next? The sun will rise in the East?

I have diaries, journals, and church publications, which go back more than a hundred years speaking of these events. The condescending and patronizing attitude of these people is really embarrassing for them.

The stone has been cut out of the mountain.
cp

Penelope | 9:24 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Game, set, match, Amen!

Useless organizations | 9:32 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

What good are the MMM orgs doing? What a huge waste of time and money. Why don't you focus on actually improving someone's life rather than spend all of your energy fighting for some real estate and museum artifacts? So petty.

Why? | 9:36 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

I guess what I am still missing is WHY the LDS church wants to keep this site so bad. Assuming that BY and the higher ups had NOTHING to do with it and it was committed by Mormon individuals with wrong notions... it was still done by Mormons because the other group were non-Mormon. In that light, it would seem to me that the perpetrating party would not only not have the right to the land, but they wouldn't want it. Why do they want it? It just gives the opposition one more tool to club you with. No one outside of Utah (who hardly know what a Mormon is) would see any legitimate reason for the LDS church keeping it.

Rich | 9:45 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

We can choose to accept things the way they are, or we can complain our entire lives if things are not the way we think they should be. In the case of Mr. Hackman's wish that all editorial content be limited to the editorial or op-ed pages of a newspaper, that's nothing more than wishful thinking. The Salt Lake Tribune is full of articles that contain anti-LDS opinion; the Deseret News is full of articles that contain pro-LDS opinion. The New York Times if full of articles that contain pro-liberal opinion; the Washington Times is full of articles that contain pro-conservative opinion. When you read a newspaper owned by the LDS Church, you should expect some slanting of the news toward the church's point of view. That's the way things are, perhaps not the way things ought to be. Many editors believe that if an article has a byline, the writer is free to express his or her opinion. Most of the public knows and accepts this. It's obviously the opinion of the "reporter" that there is no credible evidence that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. She feels strongly enough about the point that she states it as fact. What do I believe? Does it matter? Some will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the absence of facts or documents to support their theories. That's also the way things are.

analogy | 9:49 a.m. Sept. 3, 2007

Useless - This is why.

Let's say your young child is molested then murdered by a Catholic priest. This does not make all catholics bad, nor is the pope responsible. However, you will probably never thereafter have an affection for catholicism.

Add to that, what would be your feeling if the Catholic church then came in and insisted that they perform your child's funeral ceremony and then bury him in a Catholic cemetery. Be objective - How would that make you feel? Does it sound outrageous that anyone would ever do such a thing? The LDS church is doing it now.

The LDS church and people do a lot of things right and take a lot of flak for that which they shouldn't have to. However, on this issue, they are on the wrong side.

Follow us on facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Reader comments
Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Add your comment

Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore

McCoy to resign from Utah Senate

Witness: Mitchell wanted attention

Obama aunt anguished by separation

Letters: Ignorant insult

BYU says Hall incident resolved

Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore

No fractures on Emery's foot

Did Eagar imply Palin endorsement?

TCU dominates all-MWC honors

Reader comments Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records

Add your comment

Reader comments
Mountain Meadows: Church asked to turn over site, take names off records